Research shows it costs more to run an EV on long journeys

[Mr Vlad]

and here's another excellent video with the Fabulous Lois. She's superb. 

 

[Linas.P]

3 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

OMG this is ruddy brilliant so much so I've subscribed. 

I found it the argument he made kind of funny, because you can defeat the argument on the face value - doesn't even require any... ANY facts! It is on the face of it idiotic - "5% of selfish Londoners clogs up the streets for everyone". So how horribly inadequate the streets have to be if 5% could clog them up? Somebody should be shor, hung and quartered if our streets can't even handle 5% of journeys, where they should be able to handle 100%... and I think we can accept that during the peak times there will be little bit of delays and queues, so let's say 50% of peak capacity... but common - if they can't handle even 5% then what we are talking about.

The other lady is completely deluded as well, she is actually typical of a BEV owner - rich person, retired, have plenty of equity, mortgages paid, living in huge house in the countryside with minimal needs and expenses, who can charge BEV at home and who can lease it for £200 a month. Why she is able to lease it for £200?.. because she had paid 75% upfront! Second hand Porsche was probably £50k, so they traded for £80k Tesla and of course they only paying £200/month, because their actual lease is only £10k with £20k balloon. And then she again traded in old tesla for new in similar terms because she has a lot of equity in that car upfront. So she is lying trough the teeth or she is simply so bad with math that she can't even understand what she is talking about. I guess the other way to call here - she is economical with the truth. I was paying £119 for my RC as well, that is because when I bought it for £15,500 I have paid £2,500 deposit and there was like £7,800 balloon, so I was paying £119 for basically £5200 car, not £15,500 car. But it would be wrong to say that "you can go and lease Lexus RC for £119" without giving any context. 

Finally, I should thank the "environmentalist" guy - I disagree with him 100%, but at least he is honest and open "I am communist and I want all of you to walk and use public transport, you don't need cars!"... there is where we going, because as I said many times before, either something fundamentally changes in next 7 years (double the generation capacity, quadruple the transmission capacity and 40 times more charging points) or BEVs and cars overall will be privilege that only rich can enjoy. The problem with the rest of there cyclist vegetables is that they don't even admit to their true goal... they speaking as if they want greener cars... no they want no cars! They want everyone in the public transport, so that they could zigzag freely on 4 lanes motorway on their pedolcyle. He even states that we need to get rid of all this "showing off power", because surely it is wrong if normal person has some "power, freedom or comfort", such thing should be limited to elites, because now elites no longer feel like they are elites when they are stuck in traffic with all normal people - that is why I never move out of the way when I see the personal protection vehicles (for politicians and royals)... "no you will stay in the traffic and all the mortal ones". Even if police direct me to move at which point is mandatory I try to do it as slowly as possible and cause as mush delay as possible (just don't confuse it with emergency vehicles which I always let trough as quickly as possible).

[Mr Vlad]

Oh yes Linas that Edwina Curry is something else indeed. What a self centred numpty she is and always has been even when she was in government. Oh yes she don't half get some perks and back handers. Loathsome woman.

[Las Palmas]

21 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

OMG this is ruddy brilliant so much so I've subscribed. 

 

I listened to half of this and saw 2 extremists where one was decent in language and behaviour but had rather extreme ideas of how people are living and pretended to favour the poor. The other is a complete idiot not able to control herself and saying nothing at all. Stopped halfway as no reason to waste time looking at it.

[Mr Vlad]

oh Scotty Kilmer has struck the nail on the head absolutely bang on.

Which one was which John? Was it when it was 2 talking or when it became 6.

 

[Harrier Man]

16 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

oh Scotty Kilmer has struck the nail on the head absolutely bang on.

Which one was which John? Was it when it was 2 talking or when it became 6.

 

There are many points of interest in Scotty's video that are of concern. The infrastructure in the US is not as robust as we have in Europe and we charge at 230V, roughly half the charge time of the 110v used in USA. However, I remain concerned because roughly 5 years ago I was in the dentist's waiting room reading an article in the New Scientist on electricity consumption, where they had calculated that if all the cars on today's roads were electric and all fossil fuel heating systems were heat pumps, then we would need another 4-5 power stations in the UK! How many are in the pipeline? None? Maybe 1?

The New Scientist is a very well respected magazine and has a lot of credibility. I photographed the article but, unfortunately, cannot find it so my fallible memory has probably mis-quoted the article's facts. Nevertheless, the sentiment is close enough to be a cause of concern and Scotty's video reinforces those concerns.

[Linas.P]

2 minutes ago, Harrier Man said:

The infrastructure in the US is not as robust as we have in Europe

I wouldn't be so sure... in UK infrastructure is shockingly bad and most of what he said would still apply, there are often a risk of rolling blackouts, sure - they never happen, but there is risk and that is before we need to charge 30 million BEVs. But indeed we need 4-5 NUCLEAR power stations with like 4x 1MW reactors each and indeed - none are in planned. The last time I checked Hinkley C was the only one (3.2MW), but it was planned to be completed only in 2027 and that was before even kicking chinese communists out of consortium and delaying it until who knows... 

So no plans to build generating capacity, but my biggest worry is not generating capacity... you see if it really becomes apparent that we will be sort on electricity and considering the electricity cost is already trough the roof so there is public pressure to do something... I can se government going and just building more NPPs, perhaps not new sites, but they can extend existing sites with 1-2 reactors and that can be done in like 5 years. But what about transmission networks... ok, they can double the main lines... what about millions of smaller lines going into individual houses? What about in house wiring... 220-230V are insufficient for fast charging modern BEVs, so ideally 600V wiring is needed... how many households have access to 600V? And when all this has to be done on private land government doesn't even have power to influence this. That is why I said we need to get robust new laws which would make landowners responsible for installing this or at very least they should be forced to allow it, so we need to come-up with new laws and we need it now... not in 2030.

In short - I think we will have same challeneges in Europe as they have in US. Yes we better of with 230V already, yes it is not so bad as in Tennessee, but not as good as in California, but we still going to face all same challenges when finding sufficient charging infrastructure as they have in US. Or as per this topic - we will pay ridiculous amount on public fast chargers!

[e-yes]

Interesting discussion going on here !

I like the idea of electric cars in principle because mechanically it is a very "clean" arrangement. All four (or however many of them) wheels can be powered and controlled/steered/vectored individually without parasitic losses of clutches, clutch packs, differentials or cv-joints. That's why I like the Rivian design (it still is a complex "Rats' Nest", but I still went ahead and bought Rivian stock... hasn't gone well so far tbh 😕 )

However, no one so far has done a long term study or a long term simulation of what will be the effect on the grid if an entire town's cars were replaced with electric cars. Whatever "studies" I have seen published in popular media so far are closer to back-of-the-paper-napkin type basic arithmetic which are not good enough to prove or disapprove the case for electric cars.

Not really sure how this all will play out. Trusting the government on this isn't really a safe "bet" because we saw how Diesel played out eventually. It is still not a bad option with AdBlue and what not... but a botheration when compared to using hybrids (not the plugin kind but Toyota/Hyundai/Honda non plugin types)

[royoftherovers]

1 hour ago, Harrier Man said:

There are many points of interest in Scotty's video that are of concern. The infrastructure in the US is not as robust as we have in Europe and we charge at 230V, roughly half the charge time of the 110v used in USA. However, I remain concerned because roughly 5 years ago I was in the dentist's waiting room reading an article in the New Scientist on electricity consumption, where they had calculated that if all the cars on today's roads were electric and all fossil fuel heating systems were heat pumps, then we would need another 4-5 power stations in the UK! How many are in the pipeline? None? Maybe 1?

The New Scientist is a very well respected magazine and has a lot of credibility. I photographed the article but, unfortunately, cannot find it so my fallible memory has probably mis-quoted the article's facts. Nevertheless, the sentiment is close enough to be a cause of concern and Scotty's video reinforces those concerns.

You are not alone in your thinking Malcolm.

[Linas.P]

49 minutes ago, e-yes said:

However, no one so far has done a long term study or a long term simulation of what will be the effect on the grid if an entire town's cars were replaced with electric cars.

Isn't it funny?! One would expect that such study would be done and impact well understood, before announcing and committing to banning the technology which was developed for over 120 years? 

So I think there are 2 options:

1. they are really that stupid and negligent that they are willing to commit to something without having a clue (that wouldn't be first time), or
2. they know what the impact will be, they have done the study, but they don't want to publish it, because the conclusion is - only elites will be able to drive and 80% of people will be forced to walk or use trashy public transport.

Knowing our government it could be 1, but I am suspecting it will be closer to 2... at least I have long came to that conclusions because it is basically impossible to replace all ICEVs with BEVs, outside of worries about the gird, with simply don't have enough lithium on this planet... so inevitably it will become scarce resource and scarce means expensive, and expensive means - not widely available. Considering everything else that is happening, openly hostile policy towards car owners and drives, criminalisation of driving, destruction of road infrastructure and limitation on what is remaining, lacking investment and development etc. I believe this is calculated move. That is why they are not banning use, they just banning sale - meaning by 2030 we won't feel much of the pinch, by 2035 we start feeling shortage, the prices will be going-up slightly, but not horribly badly and by the time it becomes really really bad where our existing ICEVs will start failing and no BEV replacement will be available or affordable it will be already 2040 and ICEV production will be stopped for 10 years by that point and impossible to restart....  So by the time masses of sheep will realise what is going on they will all be in the slaughterhouse already! And it won't be like "diesel gate", where they say "whoopsie" and everyone falls back on hybrids or petrols... no this time around there will be no fallback, especially if we not going to at least try to keep hydrogen as alternative.

[08ISF]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

So I think there are 2 options:

1. they are really that stupid and negligent that they are willing to commit to something without having a clue (that wouldn't be first time), or
2. they know what the impact will be, they have done the study, but they don't want to publish it, because the conclusion is - only elites will be able to drive and 80% of people will be forced to walk or use trashy public transport.

The simple fact is they are politicians, and they lie for a living. They will see the idea of banning sale of ICEV's as confirming their green credentials today (and keeping the eco mentalists off their backs for a while) secure in the knowledge that  between now and 2040 or thereabouts there is room for at least 5 changes of government and umpteen PM's so they will never have to take any personal responsibility.

On the issue of electrical infrastructure, I live on a 1930's estate, about 200 or so houses fed by, I guess, a 500Kw transformer, say 2.5kW per house, allowing for the diversity that electricity companies work on. That's probably been fine up to now because although we  each have electrical appliances  totalling more than that they are never all on at 100% at the same time, some houses are unoccupied etc. Fast forward to 2040 when  probably 90% of the houses will be wanting to charge an electric car overnight, all at the same time. So 180 x 3kW (minimum) = 540Kw  and that assumes no other electrical demand such as freezers.  The 7kW home chargers, where installed, will push this up considerably. This is the reason they want us all to have smart meters , so they can turn us off if the demand goes over the top. So there are two scenarios here:

1. You might come out in the morning to find you haven't enough juice to get to work because they turned you off in the middle of the night!

or

2. They upgrade your transformer and the cabling in the road to meet the new load. Guess where the money for that is coming from!

The more I think about the electric car idea the more convinced I am that it is going to be a disaster of Biblical proportions on every front, from  obtaining the raw materials through to charging nightmares and eye watering costs.

By the way I do know something about the subject having spent 40+ years as a building services engineer sometimes negotiating power supplies for housing estates and other developments.

 

[royoftherovers]

7 minutes ago, 08ISF said:

The simple fact is they are politicians, and they lie for a living. They will see the idea of banning sale of ICEV's as confirming their green credentials today (and keeping the eco mentalists off their backs for a while) secure in the knowledge that  between now and 2040 or thereabouts there is room for at least 5 changes of government and umpteen PM's so they will never have to take any personal responsibility.

On the issue of electrical infrastructure, I live on a 1930's estate, about 200 or so houses fed by, I guess, a 500Kw transformer, say 2.5kW per house, allowing for the diversity that electricity companies work on. That's probably been fine up to now because although we  each have electrical appliances  totalling more than that they are never all on at 100% at the same time, some houses are unoccupied etc. Fast forward to 2040 when  probably 90% of the houses will be wanting to charge an electric car overnight, all at the same time. So 180 x 3kW (minimum) = 540Kw  and that assumes no other electrical demand such as freezers.  The 7kW home chargers, where installed, will push this up considerably. This is the reason they want us all to have smart meters , so they can turn us off if the demand goes over the top. So there are two scenarios here:

1. You might come out in the morning to find you haven't enough juice to get to work because they turned you off in the middle of the night!

or

2. They upgrade your transformer and the cabling in the road to meet the new load. Guess where the money for that is coming from!

The more I think about the electric car idea the more convinced I am that it is going to be a disaster of Biblical proportions on every front, from  obtaining the raw materials through to charging nightmares and eye watering costs.

By the way I do know something about the subject having spent 40+ years as a building services engineer sometimes negotiating power supplies for housing estates and other developments.

 

A nice well argued Post Graham based upon personal experience.

There are many of us who agree with you.

[Linas.P]

6 minutes ago, 08ISF said:

The simple fact is they are politicians, and they lie for a living. They will see the idea of banning sale of ICEV's as confirming their green credentials today (and keeping the eco mentalists off their backs for a while) secure in the knowledge that  between now and 2040 or thereabouts there is room for at least 5 changes of government and umpteen PM's so they will never have to take any personal responsibility.

On the issue of electrical infrastructure, I live on a 1930's estate, about 200 or so houses fed by, I guess, a 500Kw transformer, say 2.5kW per house, allowing for the diversity that electricity companies work on. That's probably been fine up to now because although we  each have electrical appliances  totalling more than that they are never all on at 100% at the same time, some houses are unoccupied etc. Fast forward to 2040 when  probably 90% of the houses will be wanting to charge an electric car overnight, all at the same time. So 180 x 3kW (minimum) = 540Kw  and that assumes no other electrical demand such as freezers.  The 7kW home chargers, where installed, will push this up considerably. This is the reason they want us all to have smart meters , so they can turn us off if the demand goes over the top. So there are two scenarios here:

1. You might come out in the morning to find you haven't enough juice to get to work because they turned you off in the middle of the night!

or

2. They upgrade your transformer and the cabling in the road to meet the new load. Guess where the money for that is coming from!

The more I think about the electric car idea the more convinced I am that it is going to be a disaster of Biblical proportions on every front, from  obtaining the raw materials through to charging nightmares and eye watering costs.

By the way I do know something about the subject having spent 40+ years as a building services engineer sometimes negotiating power supplies for housing estates and other developments.

So basically, this means we won't be driving much in future... for whatever reason it may be - either we can't afford the cars in the first place, or they will be taxed heavily to cover shortfall in number and all extra infrastructure required... or when we get the cars we simply not going to be able to charge them because of government will decide who and when get's what juice. The point regarding smart meters is true and was discussed in some other threads before - in small print it literally says they can turn-off or limit your electricity at any point and some ecomentalists literally proposing to use BEVs as sort of storage for energy... so not only it won't get charged... it may be used to supply electricity to somebody else and in the morning it may have less charge than when you plugged it in in the evening. Likewise since 2021 (can't remember what months... may perhaps) it is as well requirement to install only "smart" chargers. What "smart" means is exactly that - it could use Battery of the car to put electricity back on the network and it allows electricity to be priced differently - so we may have one rate for home and separate rate with extra duty for cars.

As I said - it looks increasingly like plan to take the cars away or limit the usage to extreme extent. 

I am not disagreeing that politicians are just liars and they may think it will be the problem for future government to deal with... but ecomentalists lobbying for these changes clearly have agenda which will be hard to undo. I simple can't believe it is possible to screw-up so badly by accident!

[Mr Vlad]

Some ruddy excellent posts lately and I thank you all for that. 

I've been watching all kinds of YouTube videos (nothing else to do whilst on sick waiting for my rib to heal fully) and a word starting to crop up is Dystopian. Nazi and Communist cropping up too.

I'm seeing a correlation between the pushing forward the use of EV'S and what's going on in Oxford with limitations on where and when you can go in Your car. That's been mentioned somewhere here I'm quite sure. 

There's quite a good number of really clever and experienced folk on here of which I'm a million miles away from those in cleverness but I'm seeing sensible folk falling for the jibberish they're being told on TV and in the newspapers and Internet. 

I saw today on a factual program that GM have fallen behind in EV conversion because they can't get the staff to work in their Battery making facility. One wonders if other motor manufacturers are suffering with one thing or another and keeping shtum. 

 

[Linas.P]

The conversion rate will inevitably slowdown (instead of exploding - like some people expect), there was a study done couple of years ago and it was already the case that something like 55% (don't quote me on that, but it was just about half) of BEV buyers are people who already own BEV and are replacing it, upgrading it or adding second vehicle to the household. That is... the people who have where to charge them, have money to buy them and like the idea or for whom BEVs already works. So there isn't much "conversion", people who could buy them and for whom they work already bought them and what remains are the people for whom it doesn't work. Currently, UK BEVs are 16% of sales and 6% of registered vehicles, I would guestimate it has some room to grow, maybe 10%, maybe 15% of overall vehicles, but not much more... it may increase slightly higher, but it may even rebound below when the queues near chargers becomes common and people will realise that BEV doesn't work for them. So in my opinion we don't have long to go, maybe 2-3 more years before BEV market is completely saturated and will become stagnant and that still leaves us with over 80% of ICEVs, which I expect goverment will try to force of the roads with increasingly communist methods.

Whatever it will be the future of the personal transportation does not look great.  

[Harrier Man]

I worry too that most politicians live in cities and have very little understanding of rural living. Edinburgh has an excellent bus service but up here in the North, the service is abysmal. Private transport is essential.

Covid rules stated that people couldn't travel more than 5 miles from home; fine if if you are a politician living in Edinburgh and have a choice of half a dozen supermarkets in a 5 mile radius but it was unworkable in rural areas where, in some areas, you cannot even reach a corner shop in 5 miles.

I don't know whether our politicians are thick or just choose to bury their hands in the sand. Either way, they do a poor job and entrusting them on the future of transport is likely to cause chaos for us all in the future. I really cannot get my head around why so many supposedly intelligent people can be leading us up this potentially disastrous path. Or is it me that has got is so wrong?

[Las Palmas]

On 1/15/2023 at 4:59 PM, Mr Vlad said:

oh Scotty Kilmer has struck the nail on the head absolutely bang on.

Which one was which John? Was it when it was 2 talking or when it became 6.

 

The one where the woman was charging an EV. She looked stupid enough to be a politician.

 

Scotty is funny, but this only told us what we knew before. His voice is not that pleasant, but what he says is usually correct.

[Las Palmas]

2 minutes ago, Harrier Man said:

I worry too that most politicians live in cities and have very little understanding of rural living. Edinburgh has an excellent bus service but up here in the North, the service is abysmal. Private transport is essential.

Covid rules stated that people couldn't travel more than 5 miles from home; fine if if you are a politician living in Edinburgh and have a choice of half a dozen supermarkets in a 5 mile radius but it was unworkable in rural areas where, in some areas, you cannot even reach a corner shop in 5 miles.

I don't know whether our politicians are thick or just choose to bury their hands in the sand. Either way, they do a poor job and entrusting them on the future of transport is likely to cause chaos for us all in the future. I really cannot get my head around why so many supposedly intelligent people can be leading us up this potentially disastrous path. Or is it me that has got is so wrong?

Why is a politician supposedly intelligent? Do they have to pass a Mensa test to show they are above 140 - 120 - 100 - 80 IQ? Most politicians come from wealthy families and have been in "good" schools, because their family can afford that. Does that show that they are smart or that they have money?

[DavidCM]

4 hours ago, 08ISF said:

The simple fact is they are politicians, and they lie for a living. They will see the 

 

 

Well put.

Q. How can you tell if a politician is lying?

A. His/her lips are moving.

[Mr Vlad]

Nicely put Malcome. Edinburgh does Indeed have a lot and I mean a lot of buses to the extent they get in the way of us delivery drivers who waste a lot of time waiting for them to move. I hate delivering in Edinburgh because of those pesky buses and when it's summer and those tour buses come out OMG what a headache. And yes there are a disproportionate amount of supermarket in a small area.

[Mr Vlad]

4 hours ago, Las Palmas said:

The one where the woman was charging an EV. She looked stupid enough to be a politician.

 

Scotty is funny, but this only told us what we knew before. His voice is not that pleasant, but what he says is usually correct.

OMG John you ain't arf knocked the nail square on the head. That woman is Edwina Curry and yes stupid enough to be a politician even the minister for health I think.

[Linas.P]

41 minutes ago, Mr Vlad said:

OMG John you ain't arf knocked the nail square on the head. That woman is Edwina Curry and yes stupid enough to be a politician even the minister for health I think.

Well one can tell she is not hurt by intelligence and her language is exactly as slimy as expected from politician, she lies even where she don't have... I honestly didn't know who she was, but it was clear right away that there is no point to discuss anything with such person. You know there are people who are right and who are wrong, but you can show them facts and they would rethink their positions... she is no one of them - it is clear that her brain is like black-hole... throw anything at it and doesn't change a bit. The other lady said she got quotes for Tesla and they are ~500-800/month... matters not... she is still telling whole nation on telly that she got hers for £200... no adjustment needed, just loads of ignorance. Other people may try going defensive, may try justifying what they said, elaborating the story to explain how they arrived to that conclusion - she doesn't do any of that, just continues to tell the lie...  "a real politician material"!

[Mr Vlad]

You must be relatively young Linas. She was junior public health minister responsible for the salmonella in eggs scandal in the late 80's. She was forced to resign a few weeks or so later. I remember she was on TV with her daughter at home almost forcing her to eat toasted bread which had mould on it saying it was safe to eat. Now does that tell you something about her! 

[Ala Larj]

And she had an affair with John Major. Enough said!

[Linas.P]

5 hours ago, Ala Larj said:

And she had an affair with John Major. Enough said!

I noted that after reading about her - if somebody can't be faithful in marriage, then how can they be trusted on anything?! Basically, they cheated on person who is closest to them, why would they care about the rest of the country?  

5 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

 junior public health minister  - forcing to eat bread which had mould on

Health minister you said... And I thought our politicians became dumber with time... my mistake - they were always dumb 😄 And she is giving advise on BEVs! What can I say...