Why do people get such strong feelings over electric cars and solar panels etc.

[rogerzilla]

Say what you like but I don't see steam replacing electric cars.

A reciprocating steam engine of typical non-condensing type is between 5 and 10% thermally efficient. The maximum theoretical efficiency with a 280psi boiler is only about 17%, most of the loss being in the cylinders; the incoming steam isn't all that hot in thermodynamic terms, and the exhaust steam isn't all that much cooler. Internal combustion was a huge leap in efficiency!

 

[Gillstay]

For many people I doubt it's a principal thing, more getting by each month / enjoying a holiday or two is higher on thier priorities?

Not everyone has £25k spare and to see it repay for itself over 25 years is a long investment.

Our solar hot water cost 4k. My mates panels were meant to pay back in 10 years, but electric went up and so it paid off in 7 yrs.

 

[tinywheels]

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-climate-scaremongers-the-great-electric-car-crash/
I'm probably going to have to lease one on salary sacrifice, need to reduce my tax bill.
Anyone else who actually buys one would appear to be swimming against the tide.
The car park here is full of them. Once benefit in kind is pulled, the games up.
A Q8 for under 500 a month and my tax bill reduced, sounds good to me.

 

[icowden]

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-climate-scaremongers-the-great-electric-car-crash/
Anyone else who actually buys one would appear to be swimming against the tide.

Only if you read that article. It's incredibly biased and badly written.

Lots of snide comments like:

As often pointed out in this column, very few drivers want to buy cars which are totally unfit for purpose for most people.

I assume that Conservative Woman thinks "most people" are Range Rover drivers that need to tow Trixibel's pony so that they can go eventing. "Most people" don't drive very far at all for 95% of the year, so EVs are just fine.

Firstly EVs are continuing to be popular and sell well. 96k vs 107k is a bit lower but it's hardly devastating, and probably more reflective of the cost and the fact that we all have less money to spend on things.

Secondly points like "EVs are effectively worthless once they get near to the expiry of battery warranties, typically 100,000 miles or eight years. " are just daft most cars aren't worth much after 100,000 miles unless they are high end. You can sell a Tesla X with 100k miles for £30k. The cheapest EV on autotrader with more than 100k miles is a Kia Soul at 6k.

The only nugget of truth in there is that there is an issue with the affordability of EVs. Once the current round of cars reaches the end of fleet life in 2025/6/7, the second hand market will start to get lots of really good second hand EVs. Battery tech will also become cheaper and prices will come down.

if the sole reason for buying a car is to sell it without too much depreciation, then you might have cause to be concerned. Most people really don't care about that. They get a car, pay for it on PCP and then get another one after 4 or 5 years.

 

[Dadam]

Only if you read that article. It's incredibly biased and badly written.

Agreed, it's a terrible article. The data in the table is unsourced, and highly cherry-picked, only showing this year and last year. It's true there's been some hype and bandwagon jumping which has fallen off a bit. Sales are probably falling into the "trough of disillusionment" of the Gartner Hype Cycle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle#/media/File:Gartner_Hype_Cycle.svg
But overall sales are still increasing and have increased massively in the last 5 years

Have a look at the next and previous article links, "Paul Weston on the TV doctors who were paid by the covid vaccine makers" and "islam and the left, an ungodly alliance".

And the comments are full of the swivel-eyed loons that turned me pre b***it from a moderate tory-voting cente-right, eurosceptic, mildly climate sceptic to fully pro europe, climate acknowledging, and moving further left by the week!

 

[icowden]

And the comments are full of the swivel-eyed loons that turned me pre b***it from a moderate tory-voting cente-right, eurosceptic, mildly climate sceptic to fully pro europe, climate acknowledging, and moving further left by the week!

You and me both...

 

[tinywheels]

https://m.economictimes.com/industr...tric-vehicle-report/articleshow/110151038.cms
haters gonna hate

 

[Tenkaykev]

Saw a guy wearing a similar Tshirt in the local a couple of weeks ago 😎

 

[icowden]

https://m.economictimes.com/industr...tric-vehicle-report/articleshow/110151038.cms
haters gonna hate

Again, slightly disingenuous. Ford came to the EV party late and have a massive amount of their worth invested in ICE vehicles. If demand drops for them they are completely screwed. They only have the Ford Mach-E. There's no EV version of their big sellers like the Focus, Kuga or Puma. If you want a small car you don't bother with Ford. There's an EV Fiat 500, Mini etc.

They aren't competing, they are desperately clinging onto the EV life-raft whilst trying to offload and sticking to their American principles of gas guzzler = good.

Most of the big EV companies are several years behind Tesla. The bit that puzzles me is why Tesla are worried about the Chinese flooding the market. They are getting to the end of the people who go "I really want one and can just about afford one". The Chinese cars will appeal to people who *can't* afford one. That margin is much lower in the US where subsidy means you can get a Tesla for about £35k as compared to closer to £50k here. The Chinese models aren't as good as Teslas but they are hugely affordable in comparison.

 

[Time Waster]

What I don't like about the ICE vs EV discussion is the absolute lack of trust you can have in what the advocates and opposition to each type of car say. Anti EV quote rubbish over battery life, range issues, etc. Pro EV quote highly favourable data, quote non real world data or simply compare best costs for EV but worst possible costs for ICE.

For example I've just watched a pro EV car show that compared 4 years cost of corsa ICE vs corsa EV. First off I noticed the EV was a higher spec than the ICE version. So it was EV vs lowest engine size and kit spec corsa ICE. No problem there.

Second maintenance costs, £900 or so for 4 years servicing and ved (zero ved until 2024 guaranteed it said I the show so probably old). ICE car was apparently £4000+ for 4 years. Now VED is £190 so basically they're putting maintenance only costs of ICE car as £810 per year! Jeez! They really should look at another garage. ICE car maintenance typically 18% more than EV, or £1062 for 4 years pcp ICE vs 900 for EV over 4 years.

Overall on the price difference between cars on that TV car show EV cars they said were 25% more over 4 years than ICE. That meant 4k premium for EV. If you correct their overinflated maintenance costs for ICE you're not talking £50 per month overall premium for ICE but over 4 years ICE is more competitive. Over lost time period the cheaper running costs of EV mean it will be cheaper.

My point being, pro EV show used ridiculous maintenance figures on ICE. Pro ICE use similar tricks. It would be nice if people discussing EV vs ICE didn't resort to tricky methods to make their point.

My view is pragmatic. EV is for me but not yet. I think we're at least 3 years before used market reaches the point I can afford a decent EV. By decent I mean cheap enough, higher capacities such that even worst case scenario the battery range is good enough. Assuming that at 8 years it's at least 70% of original battery capacity as per typical 8 year guarantees then I think current newer models are going to be good used at my price range in about 3 years I guess.

Right now EVs are good if you can afford new or nearly new. That's not me.

One other issue is home charging for me. My solar panels are under the FiT deal. A very good deal. However reading small print I have to tell them if I install a battery or charge an EV at home. Not sure what that means but I've got a feeling I would need to factor in losing FiT payments. An extra, potential cost for EVs I didn't think of until I read my contract for FiT this week.

The more I look into it the more I don't know.

 

[icowden]

My view is pragmatic. EV is for me but not yet. I think we're at least 3 years before used market reaches the point I can afford a decent EV. By decent I mean cheap enough, higher capacities such that even worst case scenario the battery range is good enough. Assuming that at 8 years it's at least 70% of original battery capacity as per typical 8 year guarantees then I think current newer models are going to be good used at my price range in about 3 years I guess.

Yep, and I think that's true for a lot of people.

Right now EVs are good if you can afford new or nearly new. That's not me.

Nor me without the company car trick.

One other issue is home charging for me. My solar panels are under the FiT deal. A very good deal. However reading small print I have to tell them if I install a battery or charge an EV at home. Not sure what that means but I've got a feeling I would need to factor in losing FiT payments. An extra, potential cost for EVs I didn't think of until I read my contract for FiT this week.

I don't think you'd lose the FiT but it depends on who your provider is.

 

[Time Waster]

Maybe I haven't found out, but there are two changes mentioned, battery added to the system and car charger added. With either of them you've got to tell them as it could affect your FiT payment. I've read somewhere that they could reduce your payments. Actually there's anther change too that's reportable. If you add or change the panels such that they increase your generation capacity above the maximum allowed under the FiT scheme.

 

[Gillstay]

If you fitted a home charger it would just be a matter of setting it up to buy the electricity when it was cheapest.