The American Goverment are tightening the charges on the VW boys

[Ttaskmaster]

Perhaps. it certainly wouldn't be the first time government sought to create behavioural change via taxes/charges. For instance, duty on tobacco products.

If they really wanted to end something, all they have to do is ban it... but they don't, because people would be livid. Instead they combine selective banning/restriction with subtly trying to price things out of the market... partly because they make so much on the tax/duty still.

Nonetheless, cars have to come in new before they filter down to the used market, and it will take time, especially in such a big market.

Yup and that's fine, but it will take many years before I even see a 1st gen EV in my price range and many more before any viable EVs are affordable.

With the best will in the world, it'd be presumptuous of me to assume what "the likes of you" can or cannot afford. But from that, I take it £13k on a new car is .... ummmm .... optimistic.

£1,500 at the absolute limit...
I wouldn't even look at PCP, hire or whatever payment plan/swapping contract things people do these days, as they don't work for me and I don't consider them to be actually 'buying' the car, as they often don't actually own anything at the end of it anyway.

You said: "most of us ... do far more miles than these things can manage on even two charges". You can boast about doing a million miles a week all you like, but that has nothing to do with whether or not most people will be troubled by the range on an EV

It is, in part, actually... although more a combination of the range plus the charging time, plus the route planning between charging points.

Give it a couple of years for EVs to work through to the second hand market and most people will easily afford one.

It will take longer than that.
They will not be viable, practical replacements for the diesel demons.
It will be many years before an EV as good as my diesel is affordable.
I reckon we'll have self-driving cars before we have peasants buying EVs...

But the main benefit, for us, of having a car at all is the freedom to do what we want, when we want, and mucking about with car hire and planning routes round charge points does not fit in with the principle of "just go". It's too much like work.

^ This, this, this and THIS, so many times over.
James May reviewed a Hydrogen car once and asserted, "It's the car of tomorrow because it's the car of today". He referred to how there was virtually no difference to the fundamentals of living with that car.
An EV, by comparison, requires a considerable lifestyle change - From online shopping to planning every step of my journey, to working half-days because the rest of the time is charging the car... and possibly 24hr working shifts so we can (or because we must) charge our vehicles at set periods when most suitable for the energy networks.

[directhex]

An EV isn't a great fit if you're regularly doing hundreds of miles a day, without the ability to easily plug in at either end for a period of hours. And that's not news - hence why Nissan will just lend you a petrol/diesel at no cost as required if you buy a new Leaf.

But

Just because *you* drive hundreds of miles a day, doesn't mean it's not viable for other people. Those 30ish ranges on various PHEVs didn't come out of thin air - plenty of research said that was enough range for the majority of commuters (at least in the US).

Charge time is something under active, rapid development. Currently Tesla are at the forefront with their 120kW Superchargers, but various CCS consortium members are trialling 350kW - e.g. http://insideevs.com/400-ultra-fast-...ers-in-europe/. Posche are claiming 15 minutes for 95kWh in their forthcoming EV (about enough range for 300-500 miles per charge).

But, yes, as you keep pointing out, it'll take a while for something like that to filter down to the 1-grand level of the used car market.

[Ttaskmaster]

hence why Nissan will just lend you a petrol/diesel at no cost as required if you buy a new Leaf.

Not as required - For two weeks out of each year... and I doubt they'd be happy if I took each of those 14 days seperately.
It also prohibits spontaneity, as you have to book one of their fleet in advance.

Just because *you* drive hundreds of miles a day, doesn't mean it's not viable for other people. Those 30ish ranges on various PHEVs didn't come out of thin air - plenty of research said that was enough range for the majority of commuters (at least in the US).

Cellphones/mobiles last, what, 2-3 days on standby? Heck, On an average-heavy day I still only use 40-50% of my battery... but if that's all it came with and I needed to charge it every 24hrs, or even 12 hours, I'd be very disappointed. Already, we see people get into the office and the first thing they do is run to a USB to charge their phone. People even carry great big PowerBank bricks around with them in case their phone runs out... and that's still those with 2-3 days of battery life.

That's what I'm seeing with EVs.
It's not about what it can do, it's what happens when you inevitably get caught out. Right now, if my fuel lamp comes on, I have about 40-50 miles to travel. I then spend a few minutes refilling and then am on my way.
An EV has a shorter range and it takes at least half an hour to part-charge if/once you find a charging point... and worst case, that's after you've waited X hours for the RAC/AA to come tow you to the nearest point.

I say this, because the EV-Geek and Leaf driver sat opposite me right now has been caught short more than once, despite being on a known route frequently travelled for meetings, with all the charge points in his little map phone app and everything... and he still had to call out the recovery truck.

Of course, I can always carry spare fuel, as well, which is another point against any EV.

Charge time is something under active, rapid development.

Not especially sure what all those numbers mean in terms of charge time per X miles, but if it takes much longer than a car it starts to become inconvenient. We already have queues out the fuel stations at certain times and they'll increase severalfold if we now take longer with EV charging.

But, yes, as you keep pointing out, it'll take a while for something like that to filter down to the 1-grand level of the used car market.

I think a good 10 years, throughout which I resent being effectively punished for not being rich enough to afford something "better" than a cheap old diesel.

[Gerrard]

I think a slight irony of electric cars is that the "cheaper running costs" is done mainly per mile, and to get the biggest savings you need to do a lot of miles which EV's can struggle with!

On the other hand, an EV would suit me fine as I only have 10 miles each way to work and I have a garage. But it would either have to be a second car or I need a range extender for those occasional longer journeys. And because my annual mileage is pretty low (around 7000 miles), the overhead for an EV versus even a petrol would take years to break even.

[peterb]

Of course, I can always carry spare fuel, as well, which is another point against any EV.

Requires 4 AA cells (Not supplied)

[TeePee]

Is that still true in the UK though? I thought US fuel prices were significantly lower than ours...?

You are quite right, in that it doesn't translate. The Chevy volt in the US is about $35k, while the entry level Camaro is a mere $25k.

But let's use some UK figures and actually make a realistic comparison.

Comparing the 17KGBP leaf with the 11KGBP Nissan Note. Nissan claims 2p/mile for operating a Leaf in the UK (Owners are reporting twice that!), while the cost of fuel for the 60mpg Note would be about 9.1p/mile (Based on 1.20GBP/Litre). This means 240GBP/year for the Leaf and 1092/year for the Note based on 12k miles. So to recover the extra cost of the Leaf through fuel alone would take about seven years.

There are many other factors in the discussion, but considering purchase and fuel cost alone, leave the Leaf in the wind.

[scaryjim]

... to recover the extra cost of the Leaf through fuel alone would take about seven years.

... considering purchase and fuel cost alone, leave the Leaf in the wind.

I dunno, I don't think 7 years is an unreasonable investment period when you're talking about cars, and you're avoiding significant local air pollution in the mean time. I think the balance of purchase and fuel costs is probably pretty even...

[directhex]

I think a good 10 years, throughout which I resent being effectively punished for not being rich enough to afford something "better" than a cheap old diesel.

There's a societal cost to cars, and we already have had plenty of cases of "effectively punishing" people for having the "wrong" car technology - remember leaded petrol?

MIT's numbers say with 2.6 million VAG diesel vehicles sold between 2008 and 2015 emitting emissions at the levels they do instead of the claimed emissions levels, 1200 people will die early.

How many deaths is okay? *all* cars contribute to deaths of people with respiratory issues (even EVs, in countries like the UK with emissions-heavy power generation as a major component of the national grid). How many extra people per year is okay to have die, EU-wide, per year, to continue easy access to highly pollutant diesels?

The story is, effectively, that for the US authorities, 60 is too many. And people are getting prosecuted. In the EU it's 1200, and nobody cares (and some entirely nameless diesel fans resent the discussion even happening). Where do we draw our lines, and why?

[directhex]

And while we're at it, my pressing question is: who in their right mind *wants* this rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishing farmyard equipment with a body kit? I have never driven a worse car than a 2015 Passat TDI. I took one 3 miles before coming home & putting down a grand on a Tesla. Absolutely *unbearable* as a driving experience.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I dunno, I don't think 7 years is an unreasonable investment period when you're talking about cars, and you're avoiding significant local air pollution in the mean time. I think the balance of purchase and fuel costs is probably pretty even...

Its all a con - the batteries are going to start wearing out as time progresses meaning they will need replacement,and there is an environmental impact to them too,especially if they start using more and more exotic materials in the future which are hard to extract. Its all padding so people can stick to their current usage habits,whilst pretending to save the world.

If people want to save the world,they need to change their usage habits FIRST.

People should either try and walk,cycle or take public transport for shorter journeys,trains where they can and use cars for longer journeys or awkward ones where the previous forms of transport don't work.

Edit!!

That's another thing - I know hardly anyone who has bought a new car,since they are blasted money pits,and you lose value the moment you drive the thing off a forecourt and its a new way to get into more debt,and the only people I know who might spend £20000+ on a car probably are more into sporty stuff anyway.

Seriously £21000+ on a 4 door car with a 80BHP engine with an 84 mile range and if you need to pay that off with a loan probably even more up front. Then if you actually want to keep it 10 years,then probably a new battery might be needed IF the company still makes them for that model and that will be more cost.....it makes me wonder how easy it will be to have built-on obsolescence with these cars. If not tough luck,to the scrap heap it goes. What a con.

No wonder people don't save enough for old age,with the ridiculous prices of these small cars.

Its great for rich people or those who like to be mired in debt.

I would rather get a £5000 "old" car,and use it sparingly and spend £15000 on paying off a mortgage quicker or investing it for when you retire.

[Saracen]

I dunno, I don't think 7 years is an unreasonable investment period when you're talking about cars, and you're avoiding significant local air pollution in the mean time. I think the balance of purchase and fuel costs is probably pretty even...

How many buyers of brand new cars expect to still have them 7 years later? Most, depending on their planning model, seem to work on something between 2 and 5 years, while the capital value is still high enough to dent the new price. Which, of course, means they eat the "expensive" part of the depreciation cycle, evety time. With a 7-year payback cycle, it implies it's buyer 2 that gets the return, of longer term low running costs, and buyer 1 isn't getting an investment at all, but is getting the overly high up-front capital cost and depreciation.

[TeePee]

I dunno, I don't think 7 years is an unreasonable investment period when you're talking about cars, and you're avoiding significant local air pollution in the mean time. I think the balance of purchase and fuel costs is probably pretty even...

The average length of time people keep new cars in the UK is six years. Again, this is purely a financial opinion. People who choose to spend more money and inconvenience themselves, in order to make the world a better place for everyone are just fine by me.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

How many buyers of brand new cars expect to still have them 7 years later? Most, depending on their planning model, seem to work on something between 2 and 5 years, while the capital value is still high enough to dent the new price. Which, of course, means they eat the "expensive" part of the depreciation cycle, evety time. With a 7-year payback cycle, it implies it's buyer 2 that gets the return, of longer term low running costs, and buyer 1 isn't getting an investment at all, but is getting the overly high up-front capital cost and depreciation.

Another problem is the obsolescence of the models too - with normal cars,a lot of updates are fairly minor until the main revisions and engines tend to be carried for decades. However,since battery technology is playing catch up,it makes me wonder how much the value of these very expensive EVs will hold too. Plus for how long will replacement batteries be made for them,and how much will the up-front cost be for them outside the battery warranty period?? Batteries will start to wear out.

It will be so easy for a company to make same lame excuse about costs,and quietly stop making replacement batteries for models around the 7 to 10 year mark,especially if their new models use a different type of battery or layout.

The problem is we are way too car dependent as a society which is not helped by the fact public transport which should be a service to transport the public efficiently and cheaply has become another get rich scheme for some,which actually makes secondhand petrol/diesel cars a viable alternative.

[TeePee]

Also, I screwed up.

The 17kGBP price for a Leaf is with a leased battery, which costs an additional 93GBP/month at the cheapest option. This makes the yearly cost of Leaf fueling 1356GBP and a break even happening never.

Alternatively, you can buy a Leaf with a battery for 21680GBP, giving a break even of 12.5 years.

That's closer to what I expected before I started.

[scaryjim]

I think anyone who would consider buying an EV for the local environmental benefits is probably not your usual car buyer, which is why a 7 year return sounds OK - if you're already looking at a (potentially) reduced range vehicle for environmental reasons, I don't think having to keep that vehicle a year or two longer than average is going to put you off.

On the other hand ...

... Alternatively, you can buy a Leaf with a battery for 21680GBP, giving a break even of 12.5 years.

That's closer to what I expected before I started.

... that's a bit different. At which point it'd come down to a much wider consideration of the costs of servicing/tax/etc., and - as directhex alluded to - whether you prefer the drive experience of all-electric.

But yes, with the revised figures the purchase+fuel equation is in favour of IC...

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

If you are worried about the environment you would restricting your car usage - a person using an old car for 500 miles a year,which does 30MPG,is still probably using less fuel and pumping less CO2 into the air than someone using an 80MPG super efficient eco car for 6000 to 12000 miles a year.

If you honestly care that much about the environment,you need to change your usage habits and orientate your lifestyle overall.

Its like saying CCFL bulbs consume much less power than incandescent ones and are better for the environment and then not bothering to switch them off. Its like the same arguments we have with computers here - brand A makes more efficient CPUs or GPUs than brand B so it costs less to run and is better for the environment,but people say they never bother switching off the PC even though it serves no purpose for it to be on 24/7.

This is the problem I have especially with the more developed countries we live in - for all the energy efficiency of newer products,power consumption has risen in the last 40 years not dropped,since people think since it is lower power,etc they can have more freedom in using certain items with reckless abandon.