Tesla Model 3 event

[peterb]

Depends on the brand and model.
Generally, if it starts with a "Mercedes", it will cost you £60-120 easily. For my beautiful pile of junk, you're looking at about a tenner...

I dont know where you get your bits from, but an ECU for mine is around £450 (on Ebay) but then on a diesel there are the injectors, fuel pump and all the other mechanical ancillaries needed to make a modern engine work. An electric vehicle - a speed controller, motor and a battery.

[Ttaskmaster]

I dont know where you get your bits from, but an ECU for mine is around £450

2nd hand, trade prices and the occasional wangle. All part of being a mechanic... or in my case working for one. But again, depends on the car. Even brand new OEM, manufacturers are often tripping on shrooms when they set their prices. At one stage a particular left hand part for a Yamaha was £11 while the right hand part, a direct mirroring of the left, was £79 and the bracket set was almost half as much. No rhyme or reason behind it.

So how much is one of the only three components of an EV engine, then?
I imagine it's insanely expensive, being new tech and all...

An electric vehicle - a speed controller, motor and a battery.

And all the monitoring and sensors and stuff which will doubtless be part of the whole 'module' that needs replacing in its entirety?
I assume that is where people will be able to make money.

The technology may change, but people (especially dealers) will still find a way to take a 10p washer fix and turn it into a £1,500 repair job.
My wife's inbuilt SatNav costs £380 to fix a known fault if you take it to Honda... Or you can get a cotton bud and scrub the DVD lens for the grand sum of about 3p.

You show me an electric vehicle that is all nice and green and cheap and easy, I will see a TESLA™, bastion of all futuristic technology and most desirous thing on the planet... after the new iPhone™, of course... and yes our future will be wonderfully green and efficient and long range and fast charging, but someone has to pay for all this. Generally, it's you.

[peterb]

2nd hand, trade prices and the occasional wangle. All part of being a mechanic... or in my case working for one. But again, depends on the car. Even brand new OEM, manufacturers are often tripping on shrooms when they set their prices. At one stage a particular left hand part for a Yamaha was £11 while the right hand part, a direct mirroring of the left, was £79 and the bracket set was almost half as much. No rhyme or reason behind it.

So how much is one of the only three components of an EV engine, then?
I imagine it's insanely expensive, being new tech and all...


And all the monitoring and sensors and stuff which will doubtless be part of the whole 'module' that needs replacing in its entirety?

None of this is new tech. Variable speed controllers for AC and DC motors has been around for decades, both for high power applications such as traction (trains for example) and lower power systems such as servo motors and manufacturing plant. It is the new application of old tech and the development of a better power supply - the lion battery.

Current, voltage and speed sensors are common place. Regenerative braking systems have been around for decades too. Apart from the battery, there isn't anything novel in the concept of an electrical vehicle, its bringing it together in a miniature and robust form for a hostile motoring environment, but thats been done before in IC management systems.

Im sure that farriers said exactly the same about tractors on farms - "All that new noisy tractor stuff, with its complicated engines when a horse is so simple to look after".

And the same was said when electronic fuel injection systems were developed "Far more complicated than a carburettor, think how expensive those engine management thingies will be".

But if you want to carry on finding negatives and tilting at windmills, then crack on!

[Saracen]

I earn more than the national average. If you're able to buy a car that costs more than my gross annual salary, you (or your parents) are probably rich or rich enough that you have semi-formiddable savings.

Hmmm. Getting into territory I won't go into but .... you're mistaking net (or gross) salary for disposable income.

Let me give you a hint. My salary has bern zero for more than 30 years. Why? To be receiving a salary, you need to be employed. Salary, however, is not the only form of income, and employment not the only way to work.

Rich parents? Hah. Aside from both being deceased for more than 20 years, Dad was a public sector employee his entire life, and no, not one on a huge salary. Mum was also publuc sector, but part time. Then they both retired. Comfortable? Yup, through very careful money management. Rich? Hell, no.

"Semi-formiddable" savings? Well again, how long is a piece of string? Like "rich", it's subjective.

Your "salary" may well be higher than my net income, but what about outgoings? For a start, as I'm retired, more or less, I own my home and the mortgage was paid off years ago. That frees up a huge chunk of your "salary" and turns it into disposable income, as .... no mortgage, no rent.

Also, no other debts. No outstanding credit cards, no overdraft, no car loan, nothing, zilch, nada. My only commitments are the basics; gas, electricity, water rates, council tax and food. And I'm pretty good at keeping the latter to a minimum by careful use of quality produce, and even have the time to grow some of it.

Also, no kids at home to feed, clothe, educate, etc.

So, given a modest gross (or net) income, minimal outhoings mean a relatively high disposable income, to a degree that, no doubt, people on a higher theoretical income can only dream of if they have rent/mortgage to pay and kids to pay for.

Those "savings" .... semi-formidable? Like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. But as a semi-retired person, I do, and long have, had options on what to do with disposable income. Lots of people, for instance, blow a large chunk of their remaining income after necessary costs (kids, rent/mortgage, "indulgences", etc). I've never smoked (other than a few non-tobacco products about 40 years ago) into holidays, eating out, fancy techology, etc. I don't remember the last time I had alcohol. And for various reasons, largely health, I haven't had a foreign holiday in 20 years. It doesn't hurt that work took me over large parts of the world, usually first or at least business class, so I've seen just about everything I wanted to.

So, add the relatively high disposable income to not paying thousands on holidays every year, and you have the funding for a "nice" car.

And finally, consider that my next car will probably be my last, and I hope it'll do me for 20 years or more. Think about that. A £48k car over 20 years is £2.4k per year, or £200/month.

Do you have to be "rich" to afford £2.4k a year on a family holiday? If so, I'd bet a very large proportion of members here are "rich".

Oh, and finally, by training I'm a chartered accountant, though that's not what my career proved to be. But it does at least give me the basic financial nous to understand where to put money to minimise tax. And no, not offshore tax havens. But, for example, put money in shares that pay high dividends and you don't needxa huge income before you'd be paying higher rate tax on them. Put them in shares that don't pay dividends but instead grow in value and you're now generating capital growth, so .... use your maximum dapital gains tax allowance and you have an revenue stream with zero tax on it, either income or CGT. You just need to get amounts, and timing, right.

All you need to do this is not a huge salary, but relatively large disposable income, because (for example) :-

- you're old enough to have paid off the mortgage, so no rent/mortgage
- you have perhaps downsized and had a capital sum to use, or invest
- you aren't supporting kids

Finally, sooner or later you get to an age where you realise, and I mean really understand, that you aren't immortal, and start planning accordingly. After having made any necessary provision for dependents, if any, you realise you can't take it with you so you probably develop a plan to ensure that you have enough to live on (and costs drop with age), and decide to enjoy the rest, over whatever time you have left.

.... There is - It allows them to ban our old cars and force us into higher-taxed modes of transport, simply by saying that the incentives and tax breaks were available to anyone... It's not the government's problem if you don't earn/can't save enough to buy a car.

I don't agree, and I've not seen a government and certainly not a UK government, say something so evidently daft (as in PR disaster) since Marie Antoinette's oft-misquoted "Let them eat cake".

The point of such schemes, and of many changes to tax rules and even some tax rates, is an atrempt at behaviour modification. Put simply, if they want to encourage something, they drop rates or offer incentives, and if they want to discourage (short of outright ban), they increase rates and add charges. Of course, both heed to take the principle of price-elasticity of demand into account.

But there is no behaviour modification possible in offering something to people that can't do what you want. Similarly, the size and terms of the inducement need to be calibrated to the target too .... there's little point offering a billionaire £2k to change cars because the £2k barely represents a dent in petty cash. For that matter, £50k doesn't either.

Any such inducement has to be targetted because too luttle won't have any effect on some, whereas too much won't have any effect on others.

[Ttaskmaster]

None of this is new tech.

But it will be marketed as such and people will buy it as such...

Im sure that farriers said exactly the same about tractors on farms - "All that new noisy tractor stuff, with its complicated engines when a horse is so simple to look after".

And how long was it before they all realised how wrong they were and started buying tractors?
How long was it before they were efficient machines instead of lumbering monstrosities?

And the same was said when electronic fuel injection systems were developed "Far more complicated than a carburettor, think how expensive those engine management thingies will be".

And when they go wrong they *are* expensive.

But if you want to carry on finding negatives and tilting at windmills, then crack on!

I'm all for better tech. Currently it's not better and will be a good while before it is.

[Ttaskmaster]

Hmmm. Getting into territory I won't go into but .... you're mistaking net (or gross) salary for disposable income.

Regardless of how you term it, as someone who has more than the average "income" and less than the average outgoings (no drinking, no smoking, no drugs, no holidays, etc etc), I still can't afford one. There are other cars I could afford though, even brand new, so my understanding of "affordable" is based on that.

I'm sure you are amazing with your money and, as always, are the exception to just about every point in an argument, but you are not the average person.
I am considered above average, yet still cannot afford these things. If I cannot, how would they qualify for the term "affordable" to the market in general, who have even less?

So, add the relatively high dispisable income to not paying thousands on holidays every year, and you have the funding for a "nice" car.

I thought these ones were supposed to be entry level, not 'nice' cars?

Think about that. A £48k car over 20 years is £2.4k per year, or £200/month.

Yeah, we don't have £200/month disposable between us...

Do you have to be "rich" to afford £2.4k a year on a family holiday? If so, I'd bet a very large proportion of members here are "rich".

I'd have said so, yeah. Don't think I've ever spent that much on a holiday.

I don't agree, and I've not seen a government and certainly not a UK government, say something so evidently daft (as in PR disaster) since Marie Antoinette's oft-misquoted "Let them eat cake".

They're probably(?) smart enough not to outright *say* it ... but I'm sure things will work their way toward that in some capacity.

But there is no behaviour modification possible in offering something to people that can't do what you want.

My argument is that a certain volume of EVs are required in order to make them 'successful', which means enough people buying them, which they won't get if they are not affordable and sufficiently usable that they replace ICEs, which they will not be until the infrastructure supports them and they meet the functions required by the average person... which they probably cannot until the average person owns one.

Any such inducement has to be targetted because too luttle won't have any effect on some, whereas too much won't have any effect on others.

Ah, so these are cars for old people and high disposable income but not necessarily classically rich people, then...?

[Gerrard]

Well, you can find the Tesla servicing costs here: -

https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/support/maintenance-plans

Minimum of £450, with the 4-year one at £825. That seems pretty expensive for what it is. But that is probably because they can get away with it with no competition and if someone is spending that much on a car anyway, they'll pay for those costs.

The good thing is that the drive units and batteries are under warranty for 8 years, but researching it a bit highlights that they change the whole drive unit as one piece; motors, inverters and gearbox. Whether they will change that method once the car leaves the warranty remains to be seen as it does seem rather inefficient. The cost for the whole unit is unconfirmed, but looks to be between $6000-$15000. Incidentally, the battery seems to be at least $22500, again not confirmed. £1000 per motor or inverter wouldn't seem impossible as it is highly unlikely a garage could repair those parts.

I would guess that when Tesla ownership reaches a critical mass, then there might be third party alternatives. Whether owners would use them is another matter!

[DanceswithUnix]

Until it's nigh-on as fast as filling a fuel tank, it's not fast enough.
And what will that fast charger service cost the customer, in the end?

There is certainly work to do there, right now it is a question of whether things are good enough for you as an individual. I think it is iffy for me, sounds like it is out of the question for you.

Tesla have a design for a drive on charger that not only charges the battery but provides cooling for the charge process as that seems to be one of the limiting factors. That could well end up faster than refilling with liquid fuel. The problem then becomes one of range. My petrol car is claiming 38mpg for my commute, that is rather stop-start so a diesel probably wouldn't have been much better, but that should get me about 400 to 450 miles out of a tank. I'm not talking range anxiety, just the aggro of having to "fill up" with electricity twice as often, so it has to be really easy. Right now I don't think it is, but it isn't far off.

AIUI petrol/diesel pumps are really expensive, partly because they have to handle fluids that tend to dissolve stuff and partly because what they pump is taxed so has to be measured precisely with that measurement regularly calibrated. It seems reasonable that a reservoir battery pack and power electronics can be bought down to that sort of cost level.

Money is always the obstacle.

That is just time, and given how mass production and technology work not much time either.

... which they probably cannot until the average person owns one.

I don't want to describe anyone as average, but the two people I personally know with plug in cars are family blokes living in housing estates.

[Saracen]

Regardless of how you term it, as someone who has more than the average "income" and less than the average outgoings (no drinking, no smoking, no drugs, no holidays, etc etc), I still can't afford one. There are other cars I could afford though, even brand new, so my understanding of "affordable" is based on that.

I'm sure you are amazing with your money and, as always, are the exception to just about every point in an argument, but you are not the average person.
I am considered above average, yet still cannot afford these things. If I cannot, how would they qualify for the term "affordable" to the market in general, who have even less?


I thought these ones were supposed to be entry level, not 'nice' cars?

Again, whether they're supposed to be nice or entry-level depends on your perspective. Compared to previous Teslas, they're "affordable" .... if you can afford a relativey expensive car.

My point was, if you go back to the original post of mine that you quoted and said they were "rich people's" toys, was that "rich" is subjective. I can afford one, but I'm certainly not rich in my view, and not by any classical definition. But nor am I poor.

There are plenty of people that can't afford cars at any price, new or old clunkers, because even if they were given one, they couldn't afford to tax, insure, service and run it. To them, you no doubt appear relatively rich, because you can. I have bought new cars many times, up to and including "nice" ones, like M-series BMWs, and that I would class as certainly above averagely expensive, but far from top end.

But while £30-£50k on a car is a not inconsiderable sum, and is I would assume above average, it is FAR from necessary to be what most people mean by "rich man" to afford it .... not least because a lot of the time, they're either leased or financed in some way and the issue then is an up-front lump and a relatively modest monthly payment. As for me, I've never leased a car, and the only car loan was a few hu dded quid from BofM&D for my first car.

Are potential government incentive schemes only for "rich men"? No. But they are only for those able to afford qualifying new EV's, and yes, that excludes those that can't to buy new cars of about £20k-ish, upwards. Clearly, lots of people can't, but equally clearly, lots of others can. I could walk to my nearest BMW and Mercedes dealers in about 15 minutes, and that same time by car adds my nearest Jaguar, Porsche and Aston Martin dealer .... as well as Toyota, Honda, Mazda, Ford, VW, Audi, Peugot, Volvo and, I'm sure, others. Those "fancy" dealers don't set up huge dealerships if they only sell a handful of cars a month. And good rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish finding anything new at Porsche or Aston Martin, or much at Jaguar, for £50k, yet while BMW and Mercedes certainly do modrls costing much more than that, they certainly shift a lot at sub-£50k too, and many of them substantially under that.

Personally, I'd suggest buying Porsche, Aston etc is pretty much the preserve of the wealthy, buying a £30k car is the preserve of a very large number of comfortably off, but non-rich people. But as I said, it's all about perspective. If £30k is more than you can afford, all it means is that people that can afford it are better off than you, not that they're "rich".

If you want "rich", I nominate a certain .... ummm, let's say, foreign princess that I watched arrive at a goldsmiths in a Rolls with two Range Rovers full of security muscle, and part with £500k in cash for some custom jewelry she'd ordered. That, my friend, is "rich" .... half a mill on jewelry, on a whim. And it wasn't the only time.


Finally, "amazing with my money", "exception to every rule" and "not the average person"?

No, exception to every gross over-simplification, and true but it's not necessarily a good thing, respectively.

For instance, you said you get an above national average salary. I don't, and for a very long time haven't, had a salary at all. Instead, I've had varying income streams, on different cycles, but my major income comes in in irregular but often large sums. Suppose you got the same annual income that you currently do, but got 30% of it on Feb 1st, and 70% of it in November. Now further suppose that on Feb 2nd, you didn't know for sure what the size of the next payment was going to be, or when you'd get it, or what the total for the year was going to be. Suppose it might turn out to be 20%, or 500%. And suppose that next year, it migbt be the other way round.

That is to say, you never know quite what or when your next pay cheque is going to be. I think you'll find that you would run your finances very differently from the way you do on a salary, out of sheer necessity. Clearly, nothing about that is "average", but it does lead to a certain degree of financial adaptability, prudence and provision for the worst. So. you live accordingly and assume the worst will happen. You build reserves, you learn how to structure them for both immediate access and long-term growth, and until you've built the reserves, you lead a very frugal life. We did without quite a lot in early years, but when we planned for the worst and it turned out to be a good year, it certainly led to an indulgence or two.

There's nothing amazing about it, and at times it was very uncomfortable. But it also had tremendous benefits.

You're right about there being nothing average, or perhaps I should say, typical or normal, about it.

[Ttaskmaster]

That seems pretty expensive for what it is.

It's also planned servicing.
Things go wrong, things break and if it's not covered by the above and/or you're out of warranty, it gets even more expensive.

Incidentally, the battery seems to be at least $22500, again not confirmed.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's almost the cost of a whole new car!!!
In fact, that'd almost buy me a Nissan Leaf, I think...

I would guess that when Tesla ownership reaches a critical mass, then there might be third party alternatives. Whether owners would use them is another matter!

If it's cheaper than the dealer, enough people will do so that mechanicing them remains a viable living. Same as those mobile phone repair shops in alleyway markets.

There is certainly work to do there, right now it is a question of whether things are good enough for you as an individual. I think it is iffy for me, sounds like it is out of the question for you.

Until it replaces every function and convenience of existing technology, at a comparable price, it will not be good enough for most people.
While Hydrogen cell cars haven't really taken off so much, one thing that James May said during a Top Gear piece on them was, "It's the car of tomorrow, because it's already the car of today". Of course, he was speaking in terms of function, features, convenience, range, time taken to fuel, etc... IIRC, it's the cost of producing the fuel that makes it prohibitive?

Right now I don't think it is, but it isn't far off.

Again, I think the limiting factor is how much it will cost to get these über-chargers placed everywhere, the fees they will charge for refuelling and the cost of the cars in general. That is a lot of money and thus I reckon it will take much longer to become even widespread, let alone the majority or the standard.

AIUI petrol/diesel pumps are really expensive, partly because they have to handle fluids that tend to dissolve stuff and partly because what they pump is taxed so has to be measured precisely with that measurement regularly calibrated. It seems reasonable that a reservoir battery pack and power electronics can be bought down to that sort of cost level.

But costs will remain as high as stations will charge whatever they can get away with... premium prices for Texaco FastCharge™ or Shell E-Power™ of course, as well as it having to be armoured and über-grounded and all that, given the amount of wear and tear these things will get - If you spill fuel from a split hose, it can be cleaned up. If you spill electricity you kill people. Plus there's the added threat of certain individuals wanting to nick the E-pump components, like copper wiring.

I don't want to describe anyone as average, but the two people I personally know with plug in cars are family blokes living in housing estates.

Most of those I know are 'family types' too, and all but one have additional sources of income. Most have Leafs (Leaves?). All were bought on credit.

There are plenty of people that can't afford cars at any price, new or old clunkers, because even if they were given one, they couldn't afford to tax, insure, service and run it. To them, you no doubt appear relatively rich, because you can.

I *was* given mine... the previous owner used it to hoon round the building site where he worked and it's covered in dents, dings, scrapes, lost paintwork and rust spots. Not in a month of Sundays would you think me rich if you saw it!!!
Most people apparently bin theirs well before it reaches my mileage and the only reason I can afford the insurance is from arguing that my age, years of NCD as a named driver and with company vehicles, plus "decades of riding stupidly fast motorcycles" (the girl arranging my policy liked it when I told her that), all qualify me as having FAR more road experience than the New Driver policy they wanted to throw me on. As a result, it costs more to get me a set of tyres than it does to insure the car and it's still monthly paid.
Servicing is free too, as I work for my parts and do the servicing/repairs myself.

But while £30-£50k on a car is a not inconsiderable sum, and is I would assume above average, it is FAR from necessary to be what most people mean by "rich man" to afford it ....

I would argue that having a large amount of disposable income is what qualifies someone as rich nowadays, in the same way that rich used to be having the money to buy loads of land/property and, with your money tied up in it (effectively disposed income), still be as/more comfortable than those who don't have that sort of cash.
In this case it's examining average salary, or income if you prefer, as a measure compared to price of the car and cost of running it. I base a lot on peoples' salaries, as it seems a good measure they can understand - Such as a PM of ours wasting six years worth of his own salary in our customers' money, doing a survey that he knew we'd just done already.

Similarly, I'd say if you have to get credit to 'buy' something, you have not actually bought it and are not rich enough to afford it. If you go into debt and lose the purchase as a result, you definitely weren't rich enough!!

As for me, I've never leased a car, and the only car loan was a few hu dded quid from BofM&D for my first car.

Neither have, or would, I and this is why I look at the cost of outright purchase. I personally don't regard leasing/PCP/whatever scheme as actually buying the car, especially if you have to give it back at the end of the contract (or give it back and get a new one, to continue the contract). I also don't believe so many people can actually afford it, given how many repossessions are for sale round here - Several of our customers make their living from buying these and having us spruce them up.

Clearly, lots of people can't, but equally clearly, lots of others can.

But are the lots who can enough to make EVs sufficiently viable for the majority, to the point where it becomes the only option by 2040 or whenever?
I would suspect not, especially when factoring in running costs, maintenance/repairs and whatever additional charges people/companies think up to factor in.

I'd also argue that many of those "lots of others" still cannot afford it, as they're buying it on credit.
I had a quick look for average UK Individual debt - The Money Charity reckons that, in July 2017, the "average individual debt was £29,698 in May – around 113.5% of average earnings. This is slightly up from a revised £29,601 a month earlier".
That's more than I earn in a year!!!
Heck, I get in a flap if I touch the overdraft...

Those "fancy" dealers don't set up huge dealerships if they only sell a handful of cars a month.

See, back when I first considered getting a car (Rover 214, heh heh!), they were advertising things like £6,995 OTR for a brand new Somethingorother. Even now, I'd be looking at the Top Ten New Cars Under £10k sort of thing, as things are so expensive these days.
But the ideas of purchase and affordability have changed (been changed, perhaps?)- People are made to think they *can* afford something because some unscrupulous whatnot at a bank will let them have it on credit... and then 'take it away when they can't pay', prompting a series of TV shows that make a spectacle of such debtors.
Obviously the dealer can report Cars Sold and from that derive how rich people appear... but it's not as good an indicator of how affordable something actually is to the market.

Given our usual customers with a BMW, Merc, Chrysler Bentley or similar, a good number either sell illicit substances (which we do NOT take as payment, thankyewverymuch all the same, dear boy) or have some other form of high-yield undeclared income.
We get a few Porsches, but unfortunately no-one brings their Aston to us at this time. Imported '68 Mustang GT/CS, sure, but none of the really fun cars.

buying a £30k car is the preserve of a very large number of comfortably off, but non-rich people.

How many are actually buying it and remaining comfortable, as opposed to leasing and/or falling massively into debt in order to have one for a short time before it gets taken away?
Generally I find people are not 'comfortably' off, especially after signing up to these things.

That, my friend, is "rich" .... half a mill on jewelry, on a whim. And it wasn't the only time.

That is wasteful, certainly and reminds me of one of my wife's clients when she worked for a financial advisors - Client rang up to query a letter from their bank. Apparrently they'd been offered something called an Overdraft and were wanting to know what it was and if they wanted one.... Wife (who lived in hers, at the time) was stunned for a moment, before replying that if they had to ask what it was, they certainly didn't need it!!!

But still, your princess meets the criteria of being comfortable after disposing of one's substantial disposable income... in the same way that people who buy a massive pleasure yacht but then have to sell it, because they can't maintain it and still live comfortably, aren't as rich as they thought.

No, exception to every gross over-simplification, and true but it's not necessarily a good thing, respectively.

You're the most contrary person I've ever met... which I mean affectionately, but it seems every time anything crops up here, you're against it out of some principle or other. You remind me of a friend, who refused to buy a new car because wind-down windows were no longer an option!!

Instead, I've had varying income streams, on different cycles, but my major income comes in in irregular but often large sums.

Same as the mechanic I work with, him being self-employed.
But still, he can average out his income and provide an annual value for comparrison to a regular salary.

[Gerrard]

... premium prices for Texaco FastCharge™ or Shell E-Power™ of course...

I look forward to the adverts on how their electricity is better for your motor and drivetrain! I guess there might be an angle for how much renewable energy was used to create it though.

There are already a lot of rules and regulations for charging stations, but would be interesting to know if there have been wide ranging problems of people trying to nick them.

[DanceswithUnix]

Until it replaces every function and convenience of existing technology, at a comparable price, it will not be good enough for most people.
While Hydrogen cell cars haven't really taken off so much, one thing that James May said during a Top Gear piece on them was, "It's the car of tomorrow, because it's already the car of today". Of course, he was speaking in terms of function, features, convenience, range, time taken to fuel, etc... IIRC, it's the cost of producing the fuel that makes it prohibitive?

Hydrogen is just a rubbish fuel unless you are launching rockets. Half the energy density of wood with the added excitement of sitting on a 5000psi to 10000psi compressed gas container: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
5 minutes to fill the tank of a hydrogen car isn't any better than the upcoming charging rates for batteries.

Note from that table that hydrogen is still slightly better than batteries so you currently get better range, but you have the hassle of distribution and storage of the hydrogen compared to petrol and diesel where you just stick it in tanks in the ground and keep water away from it. I think one of the charms of electric cars is that we already have an electricity grid and are probably headed towards a smart grid with local generation & storage that electric cars would fit nicely into.

Edit: The idea of an ethanol fuel cell is rather interesting if they can make that work. Dilute ethanol is liquid, probably about as safe as petrol to handle so you could use existing petrol tankers etc to distribute it. There were ethanol powered laptops talked about some time back, but it never seemed to take off.

[Ttaskmaster]

I look forward to the adverts on how their electricity is better for your motor and drivetrain!

My point exactly!!
However cheap, however green, however awesomely efficient and no-brainer something might be, there will always be someone who has an angle on how to make it pricier!!

Even if it's, "This is not just electricity, this is M&S electricity"!

There are already a lot of rules and regulations for charging stations, but would be interesting to know if there have been wide ranging problems of people trying to nick them.

At this point, I suspect not. But if and when we do finally all go electric, all those remote independent stations, the non-24hr ones, or the likely private charge points in company parking lots and so on, I'd be surprised if they didn't become targets. Right now, a few people think nothing of clipping 33kv power lines, in the hope of getting some copper wire... and if they're not hit by trains doing 125mph, their blackened and charred corpses are tidied up by the work crews... and they are fully aware of the risks. I don't see this being any different.

with the added excitement of sitting on a 5000psi to 10000psi compressed gas container

Your diesel common-rail can be pressurised up to 29,000psi already... People are happy to drive with that in front of their faces.

5 minutes to fill the tank of a hydrogen car isn't any better than the upcoming charging rates for batteries.

I wasn't so into hydrogen, personally, but the principle was true.

The idea of an ethanol fuel cell is rather interesting if they can make that work. Dilute ethanol is liquid, probably about as safe as petrol to handle so you could use existing petrol tankers etc to distribute it.

And that is the same kind of thinking behind the aforementioned principle which I feel would be successful where EVs will fail. Too much change, too much forced change, too great a change and too soon, all with massive expenses for only incremental improvements in technology.

[Jonatron]

Why can't there be a standard for car battery packs? If they could also be swapped quickly then there could be a machine in the ground that swaps your dead battery back for a charged one.

[peterb]

My point exactly!!
However cheap, however green, however awesomely efficient and no-brainer something might be, there will always be someone who has an angle on how to make it pricier!!

Even if it's, "This is not just electricity, this is M&S electricity"!

There will be price differentials (there are now, ecotricity's USP is green energy) - just as there are for petrol stations for the same product. 24 hr petrol stations tend to be slightly more expensive because their operating costs are higher and you are paying for the convenience. On the other hand competition may keep prices down, although there isn't much competition yet.

At this point, I suspect not. But if and when we do finally all go electric, all those remote independent stations, the non-24hr ones, or the likely private charge points in company parking lots and so on, I'd be surprised if they didn't become targets. Right now, a few people think nothing of clipping 33kv power lines, in the hope of getting some copper wire... and if they're not hit by trains doing 125mph, their blackened and charred corpses are tidied up by the work crews... and they are fully aware of the risks. I don't see this being any different.

It is easier to protect a few feet of cable at one location than several miles of cable. CCTV is one deterrent. Armoured cable may be another. Either way, this wont be a deal breaker.

Your diesel common-rail can be pressurised up to 29,000psi already... People are happy to drive with that in front of their faces.

Completely different scenario. Diesel is not compressible so there is very little stored mechanical energy in a fuel system. Gas on the other hand is, so there is far more explosive energy just in the process compressing the gas. One solution would be to store the gas as a liquid, but that needs a cryogenic tank, which is heavy, and again if the tank is ruptured, the gas flashes off to form an explosive gas cloud. One other idea is to stored the gas as a metal halide which overcomes some of the problems. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...rbGU8Jc8mP_1Pw

I'm surprised you are so negative about the potential for the technology. Early adopters pay a premium (in any new application of technology) but none of the 'problems' you cite are unsurmountable.

You remind me of this

[peterb]

Why can't there be a standard for car battery packs? If they could also be swapped quickly then there could be a machine in the ground that swaps your dead battery back for a charged one.

The battery pack is made to fit the contours of the chassis, so (at the moment) each one is unique to the vehicle.