Electric car cost warning

[benlovesgoddess]

That renting the battery has to be the biggest costing failure of electric vehicles.
For the monthly rental charge, you could fill up a decent hybrid or diesel all month. So you're paying a lot more for the vehicle and not saving on fuel - plus stuck with limited range. I wonder if old EVs have non-rental batteries - mievs etc?
I guess for the eco credentials or city parking and congestion breaks it may still be worthwhile for inner city driving, but an electic car must be more an ethical than a financial benefit.

[Draigflag]

Well battery rental is optional for some cars, if you want the car with the battery, you pay a few thousand extra, but then you're responsible 10-15 years down the line when it needs replacing or refurbing. In a way, renting is similar to buying a new battery but you're just paying it every month, when the time comes for replacement, then it's done without any huge bills. I guess it all depends how long you intend to keep the car, and what miles you do, either way could suit you. I should imagine EV'S approaching 10-15 years old with owned batteries will be almost worthless (a 4 years old example already looses 90% remember) as people will be put off by the thought of shelling out on a new battery, a bit like me with the Honda I bought!

Until battery prices fall significantly, which they are all the time anyway, there's no real cost benefit V's a petrol/diesel car unless you just lease one and charge it at home.

[Thorium-Synfuel]

On the issue of emissions that Draigflag brought up on the previous page, EVs are frequently regarded as "clean or dirty as the grid that charges them."

Yet despite the fact that I take issue with this rule of thumb, as it neglects the massive elephant in the room, which is that most human lungs are dangerously close to car tailpipes in every city and rather than environmental issues being what you should really care about, it should be human health behind your car purchase and whether or not your driving is going to be contributing to killing people by having them inhale your exhausts NOx, soot, HC emissions etc.

According to this CO2 focused tunnel-vision report below, that even went so far as factoring in the CO2 emissions that go into manufacturing the various cars. It was concluded that EVs are presently not a more environmentally CO2 conscience vehicle when compared with a hybrid, unless you live in one of the following countries in the Northern Hemisphere, in which case EVs charged by these grids are leaps-and-bounds cleaner on the CO2 front than even the best hybrid:

France, Sweden, Iceland and Canada.

Every other country has electric grids that are no cleaner(on the CO2 front) than driving a good/modern hybrid.

Take an EV charged in Britain and Germany for example, in both, the EVs are pumping out the equivalent CO2 as a petrol car that gets 44-47 MPG(US) respectively, whereas getting charged by their neighbor, France, results in the same emissions as driving a petrol car that can achieve an unheard-of 123 MPG(US).

However, I would again like to stress that EVs are better for human health in Britain and Germany if you factor in NOx, soot and HC exposures and that is probably why their governments still provide subsidies for EVs, because ultimately they're saving money on pollution related hospital visits and untimely deaths.
Shades of Green: Electric Cars’ Carbon Emissions Around the Globe – shrinkthatfootprint.com

[Draigflag]

True at the minute, but you have to remember that we are all slowly switching to renewables and greener energy production. There are lots of ways to produce it, we really don't need fossil fuels any more, we are still using old tech and methods to generate it for "Political" and cost issues, but in the future, electricity production will be virtually carbon free. This topic was intended to warn others of the costs rather than the environmental impact, but that's important too.

[ChewChewTrain]

Originally Posted by benlovesgoddess

That renting the battery has to be the biggest costing failure of electric vehicles.

I agree. Forcing customers to rent the EV battery will be a failed business model. As long as 1 manufacturer, such as Tesla, doesn't require that other EV brands can't compete.

In 10 years, when they predict you'll want to replace the battery, that doesn't mean the battery will be be dead. One report claims the range will be 70% of original. Perhaps people will be happy with that shorter distance for local errands. Those that take better car of their batteries by only recharging to 80% capacity will retain even longer distances after 10 years.

[ChewChewTrain]

Originally Posted by Draigflag

Smaller rims will always be more efficient, in my case, my 17" wheels knock 5 MPG off my fuel figures V's 16" but I'm ok with that because I like the way they look

Paul, I still don't get why smaller rims provide better MPG. What's the technical reason?

[Draigflag]

Well a narrower tyre will have less rubber on the road which means less rolling resistance, and less of an aerodynamic drag too, smaller rims/tyres will be lighter too. There's a whole bunch of this info on the Web.

Effects of Upsized Wheels and Tires Tested - Tech Dept. - Car and Driver

[ChewChewTrain]

Oh. Thanks, Paul. I get it.

Larger rims do NOT give you taller gearing. That's because, to maintain the original tire/rim diameter within the wheel well and to not confuse the speedometer, larger rims are mounted with low profile tires. In short, you do NOT get taller gearing with bigger rims. The wheel/tire diameter is relatively the same.

Taller rims naturally come wider, too. That added rim and tire width increases unsprung weight, which impacts standing stop acceleration. This could be solved with a large, narrow automobile rim. But, there's no such thing. Discounting the weight savings, a large, narrow rim would look silly.

[Thorium-Synfuel]

Originally Posted by Draigflag

we are all slowly switching to renewables and greener energy production, we are still using old tech and methods to generate it for "Political" and cost issues, This topic was intended to warn others of the costs rather than the environmental impact, but that's important too.

I appreciate the reply and the acknowledgment of the other important factors, including health costs.

However, apart from hydropower, all the "new" renewable electricity-generating methods are far too expensive and the political pursuit of these technologies is therefore resulting in less incentive to buy an EV. Not to mention resulting in the growth of energy poverty.
Wind, Solar and wave, need to go back to the R&D phase as they're really not a solution with how back breakingly expensive they are right now to get a little juice from them is.

How in the world will people adopt EVs when the price of electricity to recharge their cars is at an astronomical price? Governments who force customers to fork out for these poor electricity generating contraptions, are not thinking rationally if they then want customers to go out and buy EVs.

Moreover, contrary to what politicans may say, the cheap greening of electrical grids doesn't need to be slow, France did it in under 15 years with the Messmer Plan after the oil price shocks of 1973 and they did it all without breaking the bank or making much of a song and dance about it.

Of the 4 very clean/green grids found in the first world countries above, 3 have electrical grids dominated with comparatively cheap environmentally-friendly nuclear fission power stations and hydropower: Sweden, France and Canada. The only outlier is Iceland as it has plenty of volcanoes to tap into.

Now compare the price of electricity in these 3 countries with, say the price in the greenwashing capitals of the world: Denmark, Germany and Ireland. It will be a real eye opener for you.

These latter three fake-green countries, only have "new renewables" contributing on average, a dismal 20 to 30%% of their entire electricity needs, they're therefore not very green electricity grids and what they get in return is the 3 highest electricity prices in Europe. Is that a good bargain to you?
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statist...hold_consumers

For EVs to be successful, electrical grids need to be cheap and dependable, "New Renewable" technology is right now, neither of those things.

[ChewChewTrain]

Paul, mentioned political costs...

I suspect the government, with prodding from the oil lobby, had secret talks with GM to scuttle the EV1.

Why? For geo-politcal/economic reasons. The economies of many countries depend on selling oil. EVs would cut those countries off at the knees and there would be political instability on a worldwide level.

Unfortunately for the oil industry, the US government doesn't have a tight a dialog with Tesla as it does with GM. Plus, nobody within the oil industry or government took the Tesla threat seriously. What the "powers that be" did not count on was that lithium battery tech has been getting better and cheaper year-on-year. Now that Tesla is beginning to hit full stride the oil industry's choke-hold is slipping.

Not ONLY that, but solar panels are ALREADY at full stride, as annual sales are better than each previous year. Stanford University lecturer, Tony Seba, predicts, based on the curve of the graph, that by 2030 the planet will be substantially solar powered. Already, the huge back up electrical grid generators are sitting in disuse.

G20 government think tanks must be in a frenzy playing out all the possible economic/political scenarios as the world begins to move from petrol (nod to Paul and Ben) to electric cars.

Thoughts?