Car buyers should have 'long, hard think' about diesel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nod said:
Not seen that here. There are a couple of spaces that are often taken up all day by a Tesla and a Mitsubishi PHEV but they're both always plugged in. The spaces they take up are in paid car parks where the charge is free once you pay to park.
Click to expand...
Does it take all day every day to charge them, or are they plugged in so they look like they are being charged and can therefore park there all day?
 
My guess is that the owners are working all day so can't get to the cars to unplug when topped up. To be fair, they're not there every day and the spaces aren't always in use by them or others.
 
MatBin said:
Does it take all day every day to charge them, or are they plugged in so they look like they are being charged and can therefore park there all day?
Click to expand...
You've got to remember EV's have flexibility in ways it can charge. There's en-route quick charging and there's charge while parked.

En-route quick charging allows you to recover energy while you take a comfort break for everyone's safety. Depending on the car, now it could take as little as 20min to have the battery back up to 75%. There is similar expectation as petrol pumps where you should get a move on when you are done.

Charging while parked is exactly that, for parking. There's no expectation to move the car once it has finished charging. You use it like any normal parking space, except you are required to plug-in and start a charge when parked in those spaces, due to scarcity of the parking spaces with charger. I expect when majority of parking spaces have chargers, it would no longer matter whether you have plugged in or not.

The former is exclusive to full battery EV only, because vast majority PHEV does not have big enough battery to utilise the charging rate, nor the capability to directly DC rapid charge.
 
wuyanxu said:
You've got to remember EV's have flexibility in ways it can charge. There's en-route quick charging and there's charge while parked.

En-route quick charging allows you to recover energy while you take a comfort break for everyone's safety. Depending on the car, now it could take as little as 20min to have the battery back up to 75%. There is similar expectation as petrol pumps where you should get a move on when you are done.

Charging while parked is exactly that, for parking. There's no expectation to move the car once it has finished charging. You use it like any normal parking space, except you are required to plug-in and start a charge when parked in those spaces, due to scarcity of the parking spaces with charger. I expect when majority of parking spaces have chargers, it would no longer matter whether you have plugged in or not.

The former is exclusive to full battery EV only, because vast majority PHEV does not have big enough battery to utilise the charging rate, nor the capability to directly DC rapid charge.
Click to expand...

We have a couple of spaces at work, amongst the 3000 or so non-electric spaces, so not exactly numerous. I am surprised you are allowed to stay there if fully charged and not "obliged" to move on to free up the facility.
Then again UK motorists aren't exactly known for their non-selfish attitude.
 
MatBin said:
Then again UK motorists aren't exactly known for their non-selfish attitude.
Click to expand...


As evidenced by the non charging occupants of the EV charging spaces at our local Sainsbury's. 90%+ ICE cars but occasionally EVs of some sort not plugged in.
 
MatBin said:
We have a couple of spaces at work, amongst the 3000 or so non-electric spaces, so not exactly numerous. I am surprised you are allowed to stay there if fully charged and not "obliged" to move on to free up the facility.
Then again UK motorists aren't exactly known for their non-selfish attitude.
Click to expand...
We have 6 charging spaces out of the approximate 3k spaces at work. But people are expected to vacate the charging spaces as soon as possible, so other employees and visitors can make use of them. It works if you job means you can walk away from it to move your car but not everyone has that luxury.
 
nilagin said:
We have 6 charging spaces out of the approximate 3k spaces at work. But people are expected to vacate the charging spaces as soon as possible, so other employees and visitors can make use of them. It works if you job means you can walk away from it to move your car but not everyone has that luxury.
Click to expand...
Here's an innovative idea ;) , you move your car while you are on break, whenever it suits you, before it finishes charging. You don't have to move it the moment it hits 100%.

eg. you have a 50kWh car, you plug in at 20%, it would take 5.8 hours to charge to 100%. You arrive at 9am, you can move your car after lunch, 4 hours of charge time would recover 28kWh, giving your car over 150 miles total range.
 
wuyanxu said:
Here's an innovative idea ;) , you move your car while you are on break, whenever it suits you, before it finishes charging. You don't have to move it the moment it hits 100%.

eg. you have a 50kWh car, you plug in at 20%, it would take 5.8 hours to charge to 100%. You arrive at 9am, you can move your car after lunch, 4 hours of charge time would recover 28kWh, giving your car over 150 miles total range.
Click to expand...
All sounds fine and dandy, but then you have to consider having to find another parking space once charged. Or if the chargers are in use on arrival, hoping that one is available when the opportunity arises. That also assumes that you get a lunch break that particular day. I don't always get a break and take working breaks. So if I had an EV and needed to charge it at work, it could easily be occupying the space from 7:00am through to 3:00pm. Also if I do get a break and wish to move my car to the charger and then find none free. That is my break wasted and still no hope of charging the car before the journey home.
 
Tesla engineers sent to China to investigate a car fire. Fortunately no one was hurt.
No details on the age of the car, but it is suspected it was a Model S. There have been reports of similar incidents over the years, where cars have just started smoking before going up in flames. What is worrying is the violence of the fire when it erupts.
View: https://youtu.be/WXZwCJjw8LE
 
BMW's as well, although they are fairly well documented and a lot of them on the road.
 
Well, fwiw, I have just given up my Discovery - for various reasons but including the running costs and declining s/h values for such vehicles, and the growing non-acceptance in metropolitan areas in France in particular. Fortunately I can afford to wait a year or so before deciding on a long term replacement, but it will be a more modest, economical and efficient vehicle.
 
wuyanxu said:
And how many cases of Zafira fire before it was widely reported? Whereas a Tesla goes up in flames, for whatever reason, every publication reports it.
Click to expand...
1. ICE cars are unlikely to burst into flames so violently.
2. Vauxhall issued a warning and a recall to cure the problem.
3. Tesla obviously has a problem and if they aren't going to warn customers and the public whilst they try to locate and fix the problem, It's good that people are made aware.
4.Tesla's have burst into flames after accidents. The vehicles have to be quarantined after because the fires have reignited hours after the fire was put out.
 
wuyanxu said:
Must be a reason these EV's are high in demand.......
Click to expand...
I would hazzard a guess it is because there are so few of them about, the early versions suffered high depreciation, making them cheap to buy especially compared to the cost of a new one and the demonizing of diesel even though Euro 6.2 diesels are clean, so clean that many already meet future Euro 7 standards.
 
nilagin said:
We have 6 charging spaces out of the approximate 3k spaces at work. But people are expected to vacate the charging spaces as soon as possible, so other employees and visitors can make use of them. It works if you job means you can walk away from it to move your car but not everyone has that luxury.
Click to expand...
Just a change in mindset really where it becomes unacceptable to have your car in a dedicated space if you are no longer using it for the purpose its dedicated. Things change. Have you seen the youtube videos of teens presented with a rotary dial phone and they have absolutely no clue whilst anyone over the age of 35 watches thinking they are idiots.
 
Surprisingly the Range Rover Evoque is the vehicle that suffers the least depreciation at the moment in the UK, retaining 70% of its value after 3yrs and 30k miles. Ev's average at 47%, but probably dragged down by the Renault Zoe which comes in at around 26%. Petrol averages at 45% and diesels at 40%.
 
nilagin said:
1. ICE cars are unlikely to burst into flames so violently.
2. Vauxhall issued a warning and a recall to cure the problem.
3. Tesla obviously has a problem and if they aren't going to warn customers and the public whilst they try to locate and fix the problem, It's good that people are made aware.
4.Tesla's have burst into flames after accidents. The vehicles have to be quarantined after because the fires have reignited hours after the fire was put out.
Click to expand...
How many Tesla's are on the road? What percentage has combusted? Do you have any sources to go with your statement "Tesla obviously has a problem"?

"A battery powered vehicle having a fire incident is newsworthy. A gasoline powered vehicle having a fire is newsworthy only if it stops traffic"
h7qse91ostt21.png

(source)

nilagin said:
I would hazzard a guess it is because there are so few of them about, the early versions suffered high depreciation
Click to expand...
You sound like a broken record. Have you got any concrete evidence to say their first owners had to pay disproportionally large amount of money as result of your said high depreciation?

My evidence for my counter point is this: before 2018, deals like this were common: https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/ni...9-deposit-199-per-month-for-24-months-2630344
A quick search on hotukdeals for Nissan Leaf shows lots of similar 2016/2017 deals. Doesn't look like the first owners are suffering as result of your "high depreciation"......

The headline high depreciation is a number skewed by the government grant. £30k car, £5k gov grant, 16% depreciation from day 1, shock-horror, headline worthy!

nilagin said:
Surprisingly the Range Rover Evoque is the vehicle that suffers the least depreciation at the moment in the UK, retaining 70% of its value after 3yrs and 30k miles. Ev's average at 47%, but probably dragged down by the Renault Zoe which comes in at around 26%. Petrol averages at 45% and diesels at 40%.
Click to expand...
Source?

Are you saying it looks like EV's are averaging better than petrol or diesels in depreciation? :snaphappy:
 
wuyanxu said:
How many Tesla's are on the road? What percentage has combusted? Do you have any sources to go with your statement "Tesla obviously has a problem"?

"A battery powered vehicle having a fire incident is newsworthy. A gasoline powered vehicle having a fire is newsworthy only if it stops traffic"
h7qse91ostt21.png

(source)


You sound like a broken record. Have you got any concrete evidence to say their first owners had to pay disproportionally large amount of money as result of your said high depreciation?

My evidence for my counter point is this: before 2018, deals like this were common: https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/ni...9-deposit-199-per-month-for-24-months-2630344
A quick search on hotukdeals for Nissan Leaf shows lots of similar 2016/2017 deals. Doesn't look like the first owners are suffering as result of your "high depreciation"......

The headline high depreciation is a number skewed by the government grant. £30k car, £5k gov grant, 16% depreciation from day 1, shock-horror, headline worthy!


Source?

Are you saying it looks like EV's are averaging better than petrol or diesels in depreciation? :snaphappy:
Click to expand...

Does it really matter how many Tesla's are on the road? Obviously there aren't many especially compared to ice vehicles, but that only means because of the greater number of ice cars, you will get a higher number of fires from those vehicles.
Back in the 70's Ford were fined 100's of millions of dollars because the fuel tanks weren't safe from rear collisions, even though the formula that Ford had used to work out expenditure on the safety against the number of possible deaths was immoral, it was in fact perfectly legal standard used by all manufacturers at the time. As far as I am aware there was only 4 or 5 deaths before Ford were fined and had to recall the vehicles to make them safe. That 4 or 5 deaths falling far short of the allowable figure. Are you saying Tesla are or should be exempt?
If Tesla cars are spontaneously combusting as in the video it is fairly obvious there is a problem.
As for depreciation figures
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...BBAB&usg=AOvVaw2l4WuMsTM_4iV3QKiYwECD&ampcf=1
 
nilagin said:
If Tesla cars are spontaneously combusting as in the video it is fairly obvious there is a problem.
Click to expand...
People have been known to spontaneously combust, will God be doing a recall any time soon? :D

Weirdly I've seen two vehicle fires within a week, one Transit, with flames coming out of the bonnet, and the aftermath of what I thought was a SEAT, May have been a Golf..
The Reliant Scimitar had a bit of a reputation for bursting into flames too!
 
nilagin said:
As far as I am aware there was only 4 or 5 deaths
Click to expand...


And Ford made a conscious decision to keep paying out if when more people died rather than spending money to sort the problem before more people died.
 
Nod said:
And Ford made a conscious decision to keep paying out if when more people died rather than spending money to sort the problem before more people died.
Click to expand...
No, as I said the cars were recalled and fixed.
 
nilagin said:
Does it really matter how many Tesla's are on the road? Obviously there aren't many especially compared to ice vehicles, but that only means because of the greater number of ice cars, you will get a higher number of fires from those vehicles.
Click to expand...
Do you understand how percentage works?

nilagin said:
German study into EV CO2 emissions.
http://www.brusselstimes.com/busine...more-co2-than-diesel-ones,-german-study-shows
Click to expand...
I wonder how they went, from "73 to 98 grams of CO2 per kilometre" in vehicle production (calculated using very low total lifetime mileage of less than 100k miles on EV) to "156 to 180 grams of CO2 per kilometre" final figure. Is it the 83gCO2/km from age old "long tailpipe" argument? Is it calculated on Germany's almost 40% coal powered grid?
See pie chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany

How long is the ICE car tailpipe? The publicly cited 100-odd grams CO2 per km is only at point of use. What about drilling operation, refinement, transportation of the fuel?

There is also no figure for lifetime per kilometre for a German luxury ICE car from same segment, leaving the reader to relate the figure to test cycle figures. The test cycle figures are only the tailpipe emission at point of use, doesn't account for production.

Unfortunately the average mass media newspaper reader will not click through to the paper source and critically check their methodology like I did with the above paper. The above paper (at least the English abstract) did not make a fair comparison between EV and ICE cars.

Merchants of Doubt, an excellent book on how tobacco industry and big oils obscured the scientific consensus. The same tactics are currently being used against EV's and renewables, by plating doubt and having obviously biased papers published. After all, any argument can be made in a research paper if you use flawed methodology, but it won't pass peer review. Notice how the source is a "press release" rather than from journal source?
 
wuyanxu said:
Do you understand how percentage works?
Click to expand...
You obviously don't. Consider how many Tesla cars have been sold worldwide (approximately 600k to date, not all of which will be Model S) out of the 1Bn+ cars on the road worldwide.
 
wuyanxu said:
The test cycle figures are only the tailpipe emission at point of use, doesn't account for production.
Click to expand...
Doesn't count the production of either vehicle. It is comparing the CO2 emissions of the EV battery production with tailpipe emissions of cars. Just like Ev's are more expensive to buy in the first place. The production of the EV has already created higher CO2 because of the battery.
 
nilagin said:
You obviously don't. Consider how many Tesla cars have been sold worldwide (approximately 600k to date, not all of which will be Model S) out of the 1Bn+ cars on the road worldwide.
Click to expand...
Stop changing the subject like a crooked scientist under peer review.

The question was: : What percentage of ICE cars get burnt? Compared to percentage of EV's that burnt?
Your answer was: because of the greater number of ice cars, you will get a higher number of fires from those vehicles.
So my question was repeated, emphasis the word percentage.
You changed the subject to: Tesla sold a small percentage of total cars on the road worldwide.

Completely ignoring the well referenced image I posted earlier, showing there are far higher percentage of ICE cars that get burnt than Tesla's.

nilagin said:
Doesn't count the production of either vehicle. It is comparing the CO2 emissions of the EV battery production with tailpipe emissions of cars. Just like Ev's are more expensive to buy in the first place. The production of the EV has already created higher CO2 because of the battery.
Click to expand...
Ah yes. The internal combustion engine (plus associated parts, plus all the disposable consumables ICE uses throughout the years) is produced by magical unicorns using fairy dust. ;)
 
wuyanxu said:
Stop changing the subject like a crooked scientist under peer review.

The question was: : What percentage of ICE cars get burnt? Compared to percentage of EV's that burnt?
Your answer was: because of the greater number of ice cars, you will get a higher number of fires from those vehicles.
So my question was repeated, emphasis the word percentage.
You changed the subject to: Tesla sold a small percentage of total cars on the road worldwide.

Completely ignoring the well referenced image I posted earlier, showing there are far higher percentage of ICE cars that get burnt than Tesla's.


Ah yes. The internal combustion engine (plus associated parts, plus all the disposable consumables ICE uses throughout the years) is produced by magical unicorns using fairy dust. ;)
Click to expand...
Your well referenced image is 3yrs out of date, there is approximately twice as many Tesla's on the road around the world now.

You still don't get it do you. Electric cars have a far higher CO2 impact just to be built and get the car into a showroom than an ICE car.
 
nilagin said:
You still don't get it do you. Electric cars have a far higher CO2 impact just to be built and get the car into a showroom than an ICE car.
Click to expand...
You still don't get it do you? Whenever there will be a change, there will be a lot of false information out there to generate confusion and doubt.

Your statement is all based on your single article referencing a flawed research paper with questionable methodology, not published on any peer reviewed journal.

Whereas here are the articles (with multiple references in each link) that say EV lifetime carbon emissions is much lower than ICE cars:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_aspects_of_the_electric_car
https://www.nextgreencar.com/electric-cars/environmental-benefits/
the figures suggest a reduction of around 40% compared to an small petrol car
Click to expand...
https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2017/infographics/range-of-life-cycle-co2/view
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions
For all Americans, charging the average new EV produces far fewer global warming pollutants than driving the average new gasoline car.
Click to expand...

The last one is significant. It's not any odd hippies website. It is set-up by a large number of scientists who are concerned about the public confusion stirred up by big oils regarding climate change.
 
I hope Ford and the other fossil fuel car manufacturers are paying you well Neil.

You seem very 'invested' in arguing against EV cars...
 
Whilst comparing EV and ICE cars the numbers need to have some sort of normalisation.

EVs are still in their infancy so you have to compare how ICE cars performed at the same stage in their development. Having said that you then have to renormalise for the advancement of manufacturing process.

I suspect EV cars will be far more advanced in about 20 years time. But you need the uptake from consumers before investment is made in advancing the base technology ie battery development. Fortunately manufacturers and governments are helping these signals by not continuing development of ICE technology and banning ICE card by 2040.

When industries know that ICE is fading out they can invest with confidence in new technology.

I think Sweden are starting Scaletrix type roads
 
wuyanxu said:
You still don't get it do you? Whenever there will be a change, there will be a lot of false information out there to generate confusion and doubt.

Your statement is all based on your single article referencing a flawed research paper with questionable methodology, not published on any peer reviewed journal.

Whereas here are the articles (with multiple references in each link) that say EV lifetime carbon emissions is much lower than ICE cars:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_aspects_of_the_electric_car
https://www.nextgreencar.com/electric-cars/environmental-benefits/

https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2017/infographics/range-of-life-cycle-co2/view
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions


The last one is significant. It's not any odd hippies website. It is set-up by a large number of scientists who are concerned about the public confusion stirred up by big oils regarding climate change.
Click to expand...
Even your first link agrees with what I am saying. CO2 emissions are higher for the production of an EV car as opposed to an ICE car because of the battery. It really is that simple.
 
Rapscallion said:
I hope Ford and the other fossil fuel car manufacturers are paying you well Neil.

You seem very 'invested' in arguing against EV cars...
Click to expand...
No , I am just pointing out EV cars aren't really that green like people are led to believe. Hydrogen cell cars are far cleaner. CO2 levels from manufacturing a hydrogen cell car will be similar to an ICE car if not lower (much lower than producing an EV and it's only emissions once in use will be water.
 
jamesev said:
EVs are still in their infancy so you have to compare how ICE cars performed at the same stage in their development.
Click to expand...
The first electric car (1832) predates the first ICE car by 54yrs (1886).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
nilagin said:
Even your first link agrees with what I am saying. CO2 emissions are higher for the production of an EV car as opposed to an ICE car because of the battery. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting once a vehicle gets produced, it is the end of its useful life and it will rarely move under its own powertrain?
Because your insistence on this single figure seems to suggest we should completely ignore operating carbon emissions.

Similarly, you are constantly concentrated on the cost of purchase, rather than total cost of driving the cars.

Ah, I get it, you see cars as museum pieces! I agree, this is where ICE cars belong :naughty:

nilagin said:
No , I am just pointing out EV cars aren't really that green like people are led to believe. Hydrogen cell cars are far cleaner. CO2 levels from manufacturing a hydrogen cell car will be similar to an ICE car if not lower (much lower than producing an EV and it's only emissions once in use will be water.
Click to expand...
Ignoring the vast amount of electricity required to generate the hydrogen in the first place. Just like all arguments for ICE cars seems to be ignoring the power required to dig and refine crud oil.

fcv-vs-battery-efficiency-hydrogen.png
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/08/1...battery-electric-vehicles-technology-rundown/




Let me be clear, I'm not saying EV is the best solution that solves everything and is the greenest mode of transport. I am saying EV is the best solution we have right now, far better than ICE cars but still loads of room to improve (may be range extending hydrogen fuel cells or different battery tech, who knows). But the best way, as always, is to vote with your wallet if you are in the fortunate position to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
jamesev said:
Fortunately manufacturers and governments are helping these signals by not continuing development of ICE technology and banning ICE card by 2040.
Click to expand...
Car manufacturers are still developing internal combustion engines and still finding ways of reducing emissions. ICE won't be banned by 2040 they will just have to meet a very low emissions limit and will be hybrids.
 
wuyanxu said:
Are you suggesting once a vehicle gets produced, it is the end of its useful life and it will rarely move under its own powertrain?
Because your insistence on this single figure seems to suggest we should completely ignore operating carbon emissions.

Similarly, you are constantly concentrated on the cost of purchase, rather than total cost of driving the cars.
Click to expand...
As I said before EV cars have a higher CO2 footprint in production than an ICE. Like for like an EV car costs more to buy in the first place than It's ICE equivalent. It takes a while before the EV can offset that initial CO2 deficit as well as the cost deficit. The only advantage is for 2nd hand buyers not first owners unless the first owner choses to keep the EV for a number of years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top