RE: The best used electric cars to buy right now
Discussion
I’m tempted to jump into my employers salary sacrifice scheme and become a BiK b
h.
The ioniq thing looks cheap and just the job for my 150 miles a week commuting.
Plus my old petrol toy in the garage for Fundays.
The only issue is how fast the tech is moving.. even now what I can see in the company website is beyond Hyundai website. In a way it makes me just keep waiting… when we’re at a reliable 400 miles on a charge at a mainstream price, think I’ll be ready to jump in. Don’t think it’s long. I don’t need sub 4 seconds acceleration. It’s a commuting box. I need range.
h. The ioniq thing looks cheap and just the job for my 150 miles a week commuting.
Plus my old petrol toy in the garage for Fundays.
The only issue is how fast the tech is moving.. even now what I can see in the company website is beyond Hyundai website. In a way it makes me just keep waiting… when we’re at a reliable 400 miles on a charge at a mainstream price, think I’ll be ready to jump in. Don’t think it’s long. I don’t need sub 4 seconds acceleration. It’s a commuting box. I need range.
Elmariachi said:
Nice to see this kind of article appearing on here now, anyway - whether it’s the crazy price of fuel or the fires and heat that’s done it, hopefully people are waking up to the fact that they can’t just keep on selfishly driving polluting cars anymore without it having dire consequences.
Those who annoy me the most are the ones who can afford to buy what they like and still choose a brand new Range Rover over a BMW iX, or a 911 over a Taycan. Appreciate some people do long miles but nobody NEEDS the ICE alternative of cars like those. Buy a hybrid.
Mate, this site is called Pistonheads. Pistons are in ICE. I think people are entitled to buy ICE if they want to.Those who annoy me the most are the ones who can afford to buy what they like and still choose a brand new Range Rover over a BMW iX, or a 911 over a Taycan. Appreciate some people do long miles but nobody NEEDS the ICE alternative of cars like those. Buy a hybrid.
Edited by Elmariachi on Sunday 31st July 07:36
Slowlygettingit said:
Serious omission - where is the polestar?
Had mine 6 months and 8000 miles.
Great car.
Also don’t understand all the ‘wow’ about the ioniq’s looks. It just looks like a big hatchback….
Agree on that one. It's aged terribly. Seen several on the road and the wow factor was very short lived. It looks like an inflated Allegro.Had mine 6 months and 8000 miles.
Great car.
Also don’t understand all the ‘wow’ about the ioniq’s looks. It just looks like a big hatchback….
DriveSnowdonia said:
I followed a Taycan Cross Turismo the other day and it looked lovely. That said, the thing was HUGE and it seemed to be rather unwieldy on the narrow roads round here. Other EV's with promise and character seem to be the Honda (as mentioned in the article) and the new VW ID Buzz which I can see myself considering at some point if I ever need to replace the current T5.
I would argue though that the poster above, before casting judgement, perhaps needs to do a little more research on a number of different fronts including:
- The length of mileage that it takes a new EV takes to break even with a new or existing ICE car in the CO2 resulting from it's manufacture and taking into account other factors including the toxicity, pollution and environmental damage done by Lithium mining and battery production/disposal.
- The cost, disruption and CO2 impact of replacing our existing ICE infrastructure with a second and all new infrastructure for EV charging and power distribution and how this is achievable in densely populated urban areas.
- The replacement/recycling factors associated with battery lifespan and the current limitations of battery production based on the availability of rare earth metals.
- Where does the power from our electric cars comes from? How our electricity is currently generated and the proportion of this that is from fossil fuels.
- Solving the electricity storage problem and the costs associated with running both a sustainable electricity generation network, and also a duplicate fossil fuel based generation network for those days when the wind does not blow. A duplicated network is a good part of why our energy bills are becoming so high.
Ultimately, electric cars are nowhere near as green as the marketing would have you believe so I would say that the poster above is wrong to cast judgement on those choosing ICE cars. In fact building an electric car (or any car) creates significant problems for the environment. So the greenest option of all is to keep already manufactured cars going for as long as economically possible and only replacing them when they reach their end of life. Not much money in that approach for manufacturers or governments though.
Perhaps the best balance all round would seem to by the hybrid option, and if air pollution is an issue in urban environments, perhaps a requirement for hybrids to operate in electric only mode (controllable by GPS) in these city center locations.
If however we are determined to go all electric, and we are still committed to cutting CO2, and in the absence of effective electrical storage options, then we will need to invest heavily going forward in nuclear power to wean ourselves off our current fossil fuel based power plants. Tidal lagoon type power also shows promise, however the costs are currently prohibitive.
Either way, if we are committed to going full EV then it is going to mean that we will all pay a lot more for our energy going forward. Make no mistake about it, the cost to the taxpayer is going to be HUGE. Is that sustainable or palatable given the already huge cost of living issues? Only time will tell!
If I was a betting man though, then I would be fairly sure that the government will have to backtrack on it's pledge to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2030.
And added to all that, it's not cheap anymore to charge an EV up, even at home.I would argue though that the poster above, before casting judgement, perhaps needs to do a little more research on a number of different fronts including:
- The length of mileage that it takes a new EV takes to break even with a new or existing ICE car in the CO2 resulting from it's manufacture and taking into account other factors including the toxicity, pollution and environmental damage done by Lithium mining and battery production/disposal.
- The cost, disruption and CO2 impact of replacing our existing ICE infrastructure with a second and all new infrastructure for EV charging and power distribution and how this is achievable in densely populated urban areas.
- The replacement/recycling factors associated with battery lifespan and the current limitations of battery production based on the availability of rare earth metals.
- Where does the power from our electric cars comes from? How our electricity is currently generated and the proportion of this that is from fossil fuels.
- Solving the electricity storage problem and the costs associated with running both a sustainable electricity generation network, and also a duplicate fossil fuel based generation network for those days when the wind does not blow. A duplicated network is a good part of why our energy bills are becoming so high.
Ultimately, electric cars are nowhere near as green as the marketing would have you believe so I would say that the poster above is wrong to cast judgement on those choosing ICE cars. In fact building an electric car (or any car) creates significant problems for the environment. So the greenest option of all is to keep already manufactured cars going for as long as economically possible and only replacing them when they reach their end of life. Not much money in that approach for manufacturers or governments though.
Perhaps the best balance all round would seem to by the hybrid option, and if air pollution is an issue in urban environments, perhaps a requirement for hybrids to operate in electric only mode (controllable by GPS) in these city center locations.
If however we are determined to go all electric, and we are still committed to cutting CO2, and in the absence of effective electrical storage options, then we will need to invest heavily going forward in nuclear power to wean ourselves off our current fossil fuel based power plants. Tidal lagoon type power also shows promise, however the costs are currently prohibitive.
Either way, if we are committed to going full EV then it is going to mean that we will all pay a lot more for our energy going forward. Make no mistake about it, the cost to the taxpayer is going to be HUGE. Is that sustainable or palatable given the already huge cost of living issues? Only time will tell!
If I was a betting man though, then I would be fairly sure that the government will have to backtrack on it's pledge to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2030.
Volvo's own Carbon Footprint report on the Volvo C40 Recharge vs the Volvo XC40 ICE E5 petrol is interesting reading. Assuming the current "global electricity mix" (how electricity is produced), the breakeven point for CO2 emissions is...110,000km. How many people think they are saving the planet have actually put this many miles on their EV?
(Of course there are other environment benefits (and downsides) of EVs)
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/market-...
(Of course there are other environment benefits (and downsides) of EVs)
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/market-...
SidewaysSi said:
Exactly. It's all about the money - green stuff is very very secondary. No one really cares if it wasn't for being cheaper.
Cost savings might be the predominant factor when making the initial purchase decision, however nearly everyone I know who has bought an EV claims they would never go back to ICE for their daily driver. Cobnapint said:
And added to all that, it's not cheap anymore to charge an EV up, even at home.
Haha, I think plenty might disagree with that! I’m not on a particularly cheap tariff, but it only costs me £11 to fully charge my Polestar, and that will see me get 200+ miles. At the moment, £55 in my up! GTI gets me 250 miles. ajap1979 said:
Cost savings might be the predominant factor when making the initial purchase decision, however nearly everyone I know who has bought an EV claims they would never go back to ICE for their daily driver.
I’ve got an Ioniq 5. I’m just back from 2 weeks in the US driving a Toyota Camry around - I’d forgotten how noisy ICE cars are and how annoying even auto gearboxes can be.BillyB said:
Volvo's own Carbon Footprint report on the Volvo C40 Recharge vs the Volvo XC40 ICE E5 petrol is interesting reading. Assuming the current "global electricity mix" (how electricity is produced), the breakeven point for CO2 emissions is...110,000km. How many people think they are saving the planet have actually put this many miles on their EV?
(Of course there are other environment benefits (and downsides) of EVs)
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/market-...
Realistically to make any meaningful difference they’d have to drive it twice that difference (Of course there are other environment benefits (and downsides) of EVs)
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/market-...
Changing it for another new one in 24 months and repeating is just driving the demand to produce more
Arguably the next user and so on will benefit.. but the only way the planet benefits is if far far less are produced in the first place
Which means keeping cars much longer and extending their lives not scrapping perfectly good and serviceable ones
(Ok I get that it’s a Multi multi billion dollar industry that employs millions and its entire purpose is to drive demand and make us buy more )
ajap1979 said:
Cobnapint said:
And added to all that, it's not cheap anymore to charge an EV up, even at home.
Haha, I think plenty might disagree with that! I’m not on a particularly cheap tariff, but it only costs me £11 to fully charge my Polestar, and that will see me get 200+ miles. At the moment, £55 in my up! GTI gets me 250 miles. ajap1979 said:
SidewaysSi said:
Exactly. It's all about the money - green stuff is very very secondary. No one really cares if it wasn't for being cheaper.
Cost savings might be the predominant factor when making the initial purchase decision, however nearly everyone I know who has bought an EV claims they would never go back to ICE for their daily driver. DriveSnowdonia said:
I followed a Taycan Cross Turismo the other day and it looked lovely. That said, the thing was HUGE and it seemed to be rather unwieldy on the narrow roads round here. Other EV's with promise and character seem to be the Honda (as mentioned in the article) and the new VW ID Buzz which I can see myself considering at some point if I ever need to replace the current T5.
I would argue though that the poster above, before casting judgement, perhaps needs to do a little more research on a number of different fronts including:
- The length of mileage that it takes a new EV takes to break even with a new or existing ICE car in the CO2 resulting from it's manufacture and taking into account other factors including the toxicity, pollution and environmental damage done by Lithium mining and battery production/disposal.
- The cost, disruption and CO2 impact of replacing our existing ICE infrastructure with a second and all new infrastructure for EV charging and power distribution and how this is achievable in densely populated urban areas.
- The replacement/recycling factors associated with battery lifespan and the current limitations of battery production based on the availability of rare earth metals.
- Where does the power from our electric cars comes from? How our electricity is currently generated and the proportion of this that is from fossil fuels.
- Solving the electricity storage problem and the costs associated with running both a sustainable electricity generation network, and also a duplicate fossil fuel based generation network for those days when the wind does not blow. A duplicated network is a good part of why our energy bills are becoming so high.
Ultimately, electric cars are nowhere near as green as the marketing would have you believe so I would say that the poster above is wrong to cast judgement on those choosing ICE cars. In fact building an electric car (or any car) creates significant problems for the environment. So the greenest option of all is to keep already manufactured cars going for as long as economically possible and only replacing them when they reach their end of life. Not much money in that approach for manufacturers or governments though.
Perhaps the best balance all round would seem to by the hybrid option, and if air pollution is an issue in urban environments, perhaps a requirement for hybrids to operate in electric only mode (controllable by GPS) in these city center locations.
If however we are determined to go all electric, and we are still committed to cutting CO2, and in the absence of effective electrical storage options, then we will need to invest heavily going forward in nuclear power to wean ourselves off our current fossil fuel based power plants. Tidal lagoon type power also shows promise, however the costs are currently prohibitive.
Either way, if we are committed to going full EV then it is going to mean that we will all pay a lot more for our energy going forward. Make no mistake about it, the cost to the taxpayer is going to be HUGE. Is that sustainable or palatable given the already huge cost of living issues? Only time will tell!
If I was a betting man though, then I would be fairly sure that the government will have to backtrack on it's pledge to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2030.
Payback tells you when two lines cross, it doesn't really tell you what the comparative lifetime footprint is.I would argue though that the poster above, before casting judgement, perhaps needs to do a little more research on a number of different fronts including:
- The length of mileage that it takes a new EV takes to break even with a new or existing ICE car in the CO2 resulting from it's manufacture and taking into account other factors including the toxicity, pollution and environmental damage done by Lithium mining and battery production/disposal.
- The cost, disruption and CO2 impact of replacing our existing ICE infrastructure with a second and all new infrastructure for EV charging and power distribution and how this is achievable in densely populated urban areas.
- The replacement/recycling factors associated with battery lifespan and the current limitations of battery production based on the availability of rare earth metals.
- Where does the power from our electric cars comes from? How our electricity is currently generated and the proportion of this that is from fossil fuels.
- Solving the electricity storage problem and the costs associated with running both a sustainable electricity generation network, and also a duplicate fossil fuel based generation network for those days when the wind does not blow. A duplicated network is a good part of why our energy bills are becoming so high.
Ultimately, electric cars are nowhere near as green as the marketing would have you believe so I would say that the poster above is wrong to cast judgement on those choosing ICE cars. In fact building an electric car (or any car) creates significant problems for the environment. So the greenest option of all is to keep already manufactured cars going for as long as economically possible and only replacing them when they reach their end of life. Not much money in that approach for manufacturers or governments though.
Perhaps the best balance all round would seem to by the hybrid option, and if air pollution is an issue in urban environments, perhaps a requirement for hybrids to operate in electric only mode (controllable by GPS) in these city center locations.
If however we are determined to go all electric, and we are still committed to cutting CO2, and in the absence of effective electrical storage options, then we will need to invest heavily going forward in nuclear power to wean ourselves off our current fossil fuel based power plants. Tidal lagoon type power also shows promise, however the costs are currently prohibitive.
Either way, if we are committed to going full EV then it is going to mean that we will all pay a lot more for our energy going forward. Make no mistake about it, the cost to the taxpayer is going to be HUGE. Is that sustainable or palatable given the already huge cost of living issues? Only time will tell!
If I was a betting man though, then I would be fairly sure that the government will have to backtrack on it's pledge to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2030.
Here is the Government's own research, carried out by a highly reputable third party:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Conclusions:
"By 2030, BEVs are estimated to deliver a ~76% GHG reduction compared to an equivalent conventional petrol car, due to a combination of improved battery technology and a further decarbonised UK electricity grid. By 2050, these savings could increase to 81%.
By 2050 BEV production emissions could reach close to parity with those of conventional vehicles."
Lifetime footprint is what's important, not payback.
Several other points.
ICEs produce around 85% of the carbon footprint during use, and whilst it doesn't necessarily make sense to 'retire' these early, what doesn't make any sense is to keep producing new ICEs, certainly not for the UK's current and predicted energy mix.
Producing new EVs at a rate of say 1-2 million a year when you already have 30 million ICEs on the road producing s
tloads of carbon every day, means that the total footprint of both production and use won't change very much in the short term regardless of what we do.The only thing we can do is to head in the right direction, so that after several decades, with both an increase in renewable generation and a closer parity between EV and ICE production footprint (as described in the Ricardo analysis) that the TOTAL ongoing footprint is substantially lower.
And by lower I don't mean just a bit, I mean up to 5 times lower, again, as described in the report. It's all about trajectory, not these meaningless payback soundbites that keep getting wheeled out.
As for batteries, several points to consider:
The majority of production carbon footprint for a battery is the electricity consumed. If you can make the usage phase more and more renewable, you can also do that for the production phase.
A battery is mostly aluminium and graphite. Only 2% by mass is lithium.
90-95% of an EV battery is now recyclable using low temperature methods, disposal is not going to be a legal option anyway, so bear in mind that once the necessary materials and minerals are in circulation, they can effectively be recycled forever.
I'm not saying there are enough minerals to go around for everyone on the planet, but let's not worry too much about battery 'disposal', the end-of-life battery is way too valuable. There is also the option to re-purpose the lower capacity 'used' battery for static applications as well.
Yes, there are environmental issues with extracting these minerasl, but are we just going to pretend that extracting, refining and burning fossil fuels doesn't have it's own plethora of issues.
Regarding electricity supply:
Rule of thumb for the UK is that 1 million EVs will increase the annual load on the grid by about 1%.
This is based on 3 miles/kWh average for 8000 miles p.a.
The rate of adoption (obviously) cannot exceed new car purchase rate, which is under 2 million cars a year.
Which makes the rate at which we need to increase generating capacity no more than 1-2% p.a.
The main challenge is downstream, and the millions of charging points required.
I'd also point out that the crunch with generating capacity will come when (if) we start trying to produce substantial amounts of green hydrogen from electrolysis. The relatively low energy efficiency of the green hydrogen pathway will consume far more electricity than EVs will, which is why hydrogen needs to be targeted at those transportation sectors where direct battery charging is not a viable option.
As for the comment about fossil-fuelled generation, no-one is pretending that as of today we aren't using fossil fuels to produce or charge BEVs.
The point is moot though, because even is we make no further inroads into increasing the amount of renewable electricity, a BEV will still have a significantly lower LIFETIME footprint. Simply because the electric car is incredibly frugal with the use of energy, thanks to very high electrical component efficiencies and regenerative braking.
Combine that with the much higher thermal efficiency of centralised generation from natural gas, compared to a typical lCE engine, and the numbers are heavily stacked in favour of the EV.
I'd also point out that centralised generation plant is professionally maintained to preserve both thermal efficiency and harmful emission output perpetually. Conversely, most ICEs degrade in both these respects during their life, and are often poorly maintained towards end of life, resulting is much higher harmful emissions at that stage. NOx and particulates are a serious health concern for urban environments, and ICE passenger cars are a major contributor to this.
I get that decarbonisation of the UK's passenger car network is somewhat of a drop in the ocean globally. However, if it is something we set out to do, then the most realist option we have of getting from the 60-70 million tons of carbon produced every year by our ICE fleet to something around 10-15 million tons by 2050 is to slowly but surely replace them with EVs and keep installing thousands of offshore wind turbine scattered around our coastline to provide the incremental increase in electricity demand that is required.
Decarbonisation is a 'many decades' project to change the situation forever, so I'd really encourage people to stop this fixation with short term paybacks.
Cobnapint said:
ajap1979 said:
Cobnapint said:
And added to all that, it's not cheap anymore to charge an EV up, even at home.
Haha, I think plenty might disagree with that! I’m not on a particularly cheap tariff, but it only costs me £11 to fully charge my Polestar, and that will see me get 200+ miles. At the moment, £55 in my up! GTI gets me 250 miles. GT9 said:
Payback tells you when two lines cross, it doesn't really tell you what the comparative lifetime footprint is.
Here is the Government's own research, carried out by a highly reputable third party:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Conclusions:
"By 2030, BEVs are estimated to deliver a ~76% GHG reduction compared to an equivalent conventional petrol car, due to a combination of improved battery technology and a further decarbonised UK electricity grid. By 2050, these savings could increase to 81%.
By 2050 BEV production emissions could reach close to parity with those of conventional vehicles."
Lifetime footprint is what's important, not payback.
Several other points.
ICEs produce around 85% of the carbon footprint during use, and whilst it doesn't necessarily make sense to 'retire' these early, what doesn't make any sense is to keep producing new ICEs, certainly not for the UK's current and predicted energy mix.
Producing new EVs at a rate of say 1-2 million a year when you already have 30 million ICEs on the road producing stloads of carbon every day, means that the total footprint of both production and use won't change very much in the short term regardless of what we do.
The only thing we can do is to head in the right direction, so that after several decades, with both an increase in renewable generation and a closer parity between EV and ICE production footprint (as described in the Ricardo analysis) that the TOTAL ongoing footprint is substantially lower.
And by lower I don't mean just a bit, I mean up to 5 times lower, again, as described in the report. It's all about trajectory, not these meaningless payback soundbites that keep getting wheeled out.
As for batteries, several points to consider:
The majority of production carbon footprint for a battery is the electricity consumed. If you can make the usage phase more and more renewable, you can also do that for the production phase.
A battery is mostly aluminium and graphite. Only 2% by mass is lithium.
90-95% of an EV battery is now recyclable using low temperature methods, disposal is not going to be a legal option anyway, so bear in mind that once the necessary materials and minerals are in circulation, they can effectively be recycled forever.
I'm not saying there are enough minerals to go around for everyone on the planet, but let's not worry too much about battery 'disposal', the end-of-life battery is way too valuable. There is also the option to re-purpose the lower capacity 'used' battery for static applications as well.
Yes, there are environmental issues with extracting these minerasl, but are we just going to pretend that extracting, refining and burning fossil fuels doesn't have it's own plethora of issues.
Regarding electricity supply:
Rule of thumb for the UK is that 1 million EVs will increase the annual load on the grid by about 1%.
This is based on 3 miles/kWh average for 8000 miles p.a.
The rate of adoption (obviously) cannot exceed new car purchase rate, which is under 2 million cars a year.
Which makes the rate at which we need to increase generating capacity no more than 1-2% p.a.
The main challenge is downstream, and the millions of charging points required.
I'd also point out that the crunch with generating capacity will come when (if) we start trying to produce substantial amounts of green hydrogen from electrolysis. The relatively low energy efficiency of the green hydrogen pathway will consume far more electricity than EVs will, which is why hydrogen needs to be targeted at those transportation sectors where direct battery charging is not a viable option.
As for the comment about fossil-fuelled generation, no-one is pretending that as of today we aren't using fossil fuels to produce or charge BEVs.
The point is moot though, because even is we make no further inroads into increasing the amount of renewable electricity, a BEV will still have a significantly lower LIFETIME footprint. Simply because the electric car is incredibly frugal with the use of energy, thanks to very high electrical component efficiencies and regenerative braking.
Combine that with the much higher thermal efficiency of centralised generation from natural gas, compared to a typical lCE engine, and the numbers are heavily stacked in favour of the EV.
I'd also point out that centralised generation plant is professionally maintained to preserve both thermal efficiency and harmful emission output perpetually. Conversely, most ICEs degrade in both these respects during their life, and are often poorly maintained towards end of life, resulting is much higher harmful emissions at that stage. NOx and particulates are a serious health concern for urban environments, and ICE passenger cars are a major contributor to this.
I get that decarbonisation of the UK's passenger car network is somewhat of a drop in the ocean globally. However, if it is something we set out to do, then the most realist option we have of getting from the 60-70 million tons of carbon produced every year by our ICE fleet to something around 10-15 million tons by 2050 is to slowly but surely replace them with EVs and keep installing thousands of offshore wind turbine scattered around our coastline to provide the incremental increase in electricity demand that is required.
Decarbonisation is a 'many decades' project to change the situation forever, so I'd really encourage people to stop this fixation with short term paybacks.
Even before I started reading this thread, I knew our local EV enthusiast would be posting.Here is the Government's own research, carried out by a highly reputable third party:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Conclusions:
"By 2030, BEVs are estimated to deliver a ~76% GHG reduction compared to an equivalent conventional petrol car, due to a combination of improved battery technology and a further decarbonised UK electricity grid. By 2050, these savings could increase to 81%.
By 2050 BEV production emissions could reach close to parity with those of conventional vehicles."
Lifetime footprint is what's important, not payback.
Several other points.
ICEs produce around 85% of the carbon footprint during use, and whilst it doesn't necessarily make sense to 'retire' these early, what doesn't make any sense is to keep producing new ICEs, certainly not for the UK's current and predicted energy mix.
Producing new EVs at a rate of say 1-2 million a year when you already have 30 million ICEs on the road producing s
tloads of carbon every day, means that the total footprint of both production and use won't change very much in the short term regardless of what we do.The only thing we can do is to head in the right direction, so that after several decades, with both an increase in renewable generation and a closer parity between EV and ICE production footprint (as described in the Ricardo analysis) that the TOTAL ongoing footprint is substantially lower.
And by lower I don't mean just a bit, I mean up to 5 times lower, again, as described in the report. It's all about trajectory, not these meaningless payback soundbites that keep getting wheeled out.
As for batteries, several points to consider:
The majority of production carbon footprint for a battery is the electricity consumed. If you can make the usage phase more and more renewable, you can also do that for the production phase.
A battery is mostly aluminium and graphite. Only 2% by mass is lithium.
90-95% of an EV battery is now recyclable using low temperature methods, disposal is not going to be a legal option anyway, so bear in mind that once the necessary materials and minerals are in circulation, they can effectively be recycled forever.
I'm not saying there are enough minerals to go around for everyone on the planet, but let's not worry too much about battery 'disposal', the end-of-life battery is way too valuable. There is also the option to re-purpose the lower capacity 'used' battery for static applications as well.
Yes, there are environmental issues with extracting these minerasl, but are we just going to pretend that extracting, refining and burning fossil fuels doesn't have it's own plethora of issues.
Regarding electricity supply:
Rule of thumb for the UK is that 1 million EVs will increase the annual load on the grid by about 1%.
This is based on 3 miles/kWh average for 8000 miles p.a.
The rate of adoption (obviously) cannot exceed new car purchase rate, which is under 2 million cars a year.
Which makes the rate at which we need to increase generating capacity no more than 1-2% p.a.
The main challenge is downstream, and the millions of charging points required.
I'd also point out that the crunch with generating capacity will come when (if) we start trying to produce substantial amounts of green hydrogen from electrolysis. The relatively low energy efficiency of the green hydrogen pathway will consume far more electricity than EVs will, which is why hydrogen needs to be targeted at those transportation sectors where direct battery charging is not a viable option.
As for the comment about fossil-fuelled generation, no-one is pretending that as of today we aren't using fossil fuels to produce or charge BEVs.
The point is moot though, because even is we make no further inroads into increasing the amount of renewable electricity, a BEV will still have a significantly lower LIFETIME footprint. Simply because the electric car is incredibly frugal with the use of energy, thanks to very high electrical component efficiencies and regenerative braking.
Combine that with the much higher thermal efficiency of centralised generation from natural gas, compared to a typical lCE engine, and the numbers are heavily stacked in favour of the EV.
I'd also point out that centralised generation plant is professionally maintained to preserve both thermal efficiency and harmful emission output perpetually. Conversely, most ICEs degrade in both these respects during their life, and are often poorly maintained towards end of life, resulting is much higher harmful emissions at that stage. NOx and particulates are a serious health concern for urban environments, and ICE passenger cars are a major contributor to this.
I get that decarbonisation of the UK's passenger car network is somewhat of a drop in the ocean globally. However, if it is something we set out to do, then the most realist option we have of getting from the 60-70 million tons of carbon produced every year by our ICE fleet to something around 10-15 million tons by 2050 is to slowly but surely replace them with EVs and keep installing thousands of offshore wind turbine scattered around our coastline to provide the incremental increase in electricity demand that is required.
Decarbonisation is a 'many decades' project to change the situation forever, so I'd really encourage people to stop this fixation with short term paybacks.
Answer for everything.
Demhcs said:
Can any of these do 400 miles on one charge like my petrol car does on one tank? No? Didn’t think so, switching to an EV is a backward step.
Like all drivetrains it's about suiting an individuals needs one isn't better than the other one will suit (Hydrogen/Hybrid/Plug In/EV/Petrol/Diesel) a person better than the other.None are superior, as someone posted above Volvo are already showing.
This seems like a poorly considered list.
The biggest issue is believing 'official' claimed ranges. They're about as realistic as official mpg numbers, but more critical given the time required for a refuelling stop. In reality the cars cheaper than the Model 3 on this list are only going to be convenient for relatively local trips.
That leads to mistakes like omitting the E-Niro, one of the few affordable EVs with a decent range.
Elmariachi said:
Surprised the E-Niro doesn’t even get a mention - I’ve had one for a year and it’s been utterly brilliant. I’ve had 300 miles of range on one charge out of it, it’s practical, well equipped even as one of the lower spec models, relatively quick (0-60 in 7-something but feels quicker in use as most EVs do) and so easy to drive.
Ultimately this kind of shallow, spec-sheet driven EV content has little real value, as it doesn't really highlight good buys. It's a case of either do a job properly, or not at all. Harry Metcalfe is a good example of the former, he'll get an EV in and do a proper trip in it, telling viewers what it's like to drive and what range you can actually extract in real world driving.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff