The EV fact thread

[Bobby Dazzler]

The net zero energy transition is not free. There is a green premium. The additional cost of choosing a 'clean' technology over one that emits more greenhouse gases. Inflationary pressures for ordinary folk so they drive less, use the heating less, leave the lights off at home and have less disposable income. Good for the economy? No. Then we have the cost of the energy transition for industry. Alternatives to traditional high CO2 concrete used in construction are estimated to be 140% more expensive. Plant based low GHG (greenhouse gas) meat is 30% more expensive than real meat and by 2050 100% zero carbon electricity is predicted to be 15% more expansive than it is currently via mixed sources.

Sacrifices made in the name of the net zero energy transition which is predicated on there being something called the climate emergency. Another crisis to join the never ending list - war, pandemics & climate.

In other news...

Russia finds vast oil and gas reserves in British Antarctic territory

Reserves 10 times the North Sea’s output raise fears over drilling in protected region

www.telegraph.co.uk

And which of those sacrifices have you already had to make?

Irrelevant question. In asking it though you appear to now accept the net zero transition requires sacrifices.

Interesting, by stating that my question is irrelevant, you are undermining your own comments about sacrifices.

I do find your posts interesting and would enjoy a chat over a vegan soya milk latte (with two shots of decaf espresso and no foam).

 

[BTB 500]

Interesting video on used EV values from Carwow. Using data from Cap HPI they compared the average trade-in value today for a 1 year old car with 10,000 miles against the trade-in value of the same model 12 months ago (as a 1 year old car with 10,000 miles). Where there were equivalent petrol and/or diesel versions they did the same for those. A year ago the supply chain issues with new cars had inflated the price of good used ones - that has changed now and the whole used market has dropped accordingly, however EVs have been affected more severely. To pick a few examples:

Mercedes EQS dropped by 23.3% in the last year, versus a drop of 7% for the petrol S Class and 3% for the diesel S Class. Hybrid S Class values have actually gone up in value by 2.5%!
Kia EV6 dropped by 26.7% in the last year. No petrol or diesel equivalent to compare with.
Mercedes EQB dropped by 30.7% in the last year, versus 12.1% for a diesel GLB and 11.8% for the petrol GLB.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[markjay]

however EVs have been affected more severely...

I obviously don't disagree with their findings, however just to reiterate what I've said before - the above is bad news for car finance companies who will likely make a loss on their existing business leases, but it's great news for consumers as second hand EV prices will likely come down to ICE level.

 

[markjay]

BTW, I am aware that some people walk into the dealership and buy a new car for cash, but personally I've never ever bought a brand new car... the newest car I've ever bought was a 5 months old Vauxhall Vectra CDX back in 2001. I really don't see the point of shouldering 30% or so in depreciation over the first year of ownership. No idea why anyone with any commercial sense (and not unlimited funds) would ever make such an investment.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

EVs have been affected more severely. To pick a few examples:

Mercedes EQS dropped by 23.3% in the last year, versus a drop of 7% for the petrol S Class and 3% for the diesel S Class. Hybrid S Class values have actually gone up in value by 2.5%!
Kia EV6 dropped by 26.7% in the last year. No petrol or diesel equivalent to compare with.
Mercedes EQB dropped by 30.7% in the last year, versus 12.1% for a diesel GLB and 11.8% for the petrol GLB.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Those petrol/diesel/hybrid models have done incredibly well. Considering that there’s been a very significant market correction - and higher than average inflation - a drop of 3-7% is pretty much standing still in relative terms.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Then choosing to live nowhere near industry is the solution. Also as your fellow humans exhale similar gases an area with a low population density may also be preferable.

I’m alright Jack.

If we all choose to live where there is no industry, and traffic, then won’t we all end up living where the industry and traffic is? Oh and in the meantime then we will have mass unemployment, famine and homelessness on a an unprecedented scale?

 

[ChipChop]

If we all choose to live where there is no industry, and traffic, then won’t we all end up living where the industry and traffic is? Oh and in the meantime then we will have mass unemployment, famine and homelessness on a an unprecedented scale?

Why would we all make that choice? Assuming everyone is offended by the inevitable pollution legitimate human activity creates is a nonsense akin to the garbage in garbage out computer modelling some branches of new science rely on.

 

[markjay]

I’m alright Jack.

If we all choose to live where there is no industry, and traffic, then won’t we all end up living where the industry and traffic is? Oh and in the meantime then we will have mass unemployment, famine and homelessness on a an unprecedented scale?

Here's a thought: EV-bashers could be told to relocate to near one of them Ionity 350Kw mega-chargers stations... and they can then replace their entire stable with EVs

Job Done

 

[190]

I really don't see the point of shouldering 30% or so in depreciation over the first year of ownership. No idea why anyone with any commercial sense (and not unlimited funds) would ever make such an investment.

I agree , it makes no sense and I don't see me ever buying a new car again with the prospect of 30% depreciation in the first year but such rates of depreciation were not always the case. Between 1977 an1983 I bought 4 new cars in a row. I'll admit I only did this because I was driving 20,000 miles per year on business and getting a generous milage allowance. Considering each of these cars was traded with double the average miles, the depreciation doesn't look too bad by modern standards. I wonder what it is that causes cars to lose so much more in recent years. Is it lower car price inflation ?

 

[ALFAitalia]

Lots more corporate sales at 30% plus discount is the main reason...when they come back on the market they affect the value of all the others..

 

[BTB 500]

I agree , it makes no sense and I don't see me ever buying a new car again with the prospect of 30% depreciation in the first year but such rates of depreciation were not always the case. Between 1977 an1983 I bought 4 new cars in a row. I'll admit I only did this because I was driving 20,000 miles per year on business and getting a generous milage allowance. Considering each of these cars was traded with double the average miles, the depreciation doesn't look too bad by modern standards. I wonder what it is that causes cars to lose so much more in recent years. Is it lower car price inflation ?

View attachment 156888

We bought our Vito new 17 years ago. Even assuming it was worth nothing now (which is not the case) that would be just 5.8% per year. Leasing over that period would have cost something like four times the purchase price (academic to us as only business leases are available). Buying a low mileage ex-demonstrator etc. would have been fine but the V6 we wanted for towing was a new model and there weren't any (we bought our current C300 estate as a 1 year old demonstrator with 5800 miles on the clock, but were able to wait for that to come up).

Of course the difference between buying price and selling price isn't necessarily depreciation - if you buy something (whether new or used) from a dealer one day and sell it the next day you will make a loss which isn't age related.

The Carwow video I posted was comparing like with like ... average trade-in value of a particular car now at 1 year old with 10k miles vs average trade-in value for the same model 12 months ago at 1 year old with 10k miles. So the difference is purely down to changes in market value.

 

[BTB 500]

This guy is undoubtedly an 'EV basher' but as an engineer and lawyer he's not just a ranting loony and makes some good points about EV fire risk assessment (low probability but high impact) and whether this should be factored in to future parking facilities. The initial story is that Chinese EV maker BYD have just (allegedly) had their 10th dealership burn down in 3 years (although their initial statement is that this fire was caused by faulty wiring in the building).

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Why would we all make that choice? Assuming everyone is offended by the inevitable pollution legitimate human activity creates is a nonsense akin to the garbage in garbage out computer modelling some branches of new science rely on.

Why wouldn’t they if it’s the solution as you suggest?

 

[markjay]

We bought our Vito new 17 years ago. Even assuming it was worth nothing now (which is not the case) that would be just 5.8% per year. Leasing over that period would have cost something like four times the purchase price (academic to us as only business leases are available). Buying a low mileage ex-demonstrator etc. would have been fine but the V6 we wanted for towing was a new model and there weren't any (we bought our current C300 estate as a 1 year old demonstrator with 5800 miles on the clock, but were able to wait for that to come up).

Of course the difference between buying price and selling price isn't necessarily depreciation - if you buy something (whether new or used) from a dealer one day and sell it the next day you will make a loss which isn't age related.

The Carwow video I posted was comparing like with like ... average trade-in value of a particular car now at 1 year old with 10k miles vs average trade-in value for the same model 12 months ago at 1 year old with 10k miles. So the difference is purely down to changes in market value.

Back in 2020 I insisted that we decommission (scrap) our 23 years old Toyota Previa, in spite of the fact thst it has never set a foot wrong.

The car was used as a family transporter on motorways, and I just felt that it wasn't providing the same level of safety that more modern cars did.

It had no ABS (let alone ESP), only two front airbags, and the centre seat belt was a lap belt with manual adjustment (that no one ever adjusted). I am also confident that in terms of crumble zones safety, the design was outdated. Driver aids and active safety didn't even exist when the car was originally built.

I am well aware that there are many people out there who happily drive all sorts of older cars including classic ones, and it's certainly a personal choice.

However, my point is that there are good reasons why people might want to change their cars every 3-4 years, and it's not just vanity.

 

[ChipChop]

Why wouldn’t they if it’s the solution as you suggest?

Because not everyone is offended by the inevitable pollution legitimate human activity creates.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Alles klar.

 

[markjay]

Because not everyone is offended by the inevitable pollution legitimate human activity creates.

Apologies on behalf of my lungs, who find pollution offensive.... it's an involuntary response, they can't help it.

 

[ChipChop]

Apologies on behalf of my lungs, who find pollution offensive.... it's an involuntary response, they can't help it.

Outrageous isn't it. Legitimate human activity in this nations capital - ban it all!. Still clears the path for a future controlled by AI where human activity is surplus to requirements.

 

[markjay]

Outrageous isn't it. Legitimate human activity in this nations capital - ban it all!. Still clears the path for a future controlled by AI where human activity is surplus to requirements.

True, but unfortunately I won't live long enough to benefit from it. I still have to work for my living, in spite of my old age... but I am happy in the knowledge that my children and their children will rip the benefits of AI.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Because not everyone is offended by the inevitable pollution legitimate human activity creates.

Outrageous isn't it. Legitimate human activity in this nations capital - ban it all!. Still clears the path for a future controlled by AI where human activity is surplus to requirements.

I noticed you used the word legitimate in your last few posts, I just wondered why?