wyx087

It is definitely a misprint. I saw a Cybertruck for sale with very similar number on Autotrader about 2 weeks ago. The number is missing a 1 in front of the 48K.

Where's BT when you need them..... I bet there isn't a re-purposeable green cabinet in sight? (I have doubts about their pivot) Steady on, it's only January. You are giving away 3 months worth of money! It's the feed-in tariff which incentivise such things and make your free panels possible. My was also installed in similar time, Oct 2015. Soon after government pulled FIT and lots of solar install companies went away because the market demand disappeared overnight. Of course, people would cry "subsidy" and "have-have-not's", it's the EV thing all over again.

1 out of 2 numbers used for the percentage came out of stuff you typed into Google, you did not make the effort to state year (rubbish in, rubbish out). Therefore the numbers are not comparable. In oder to work out pecentage of something, you first need to use comparable numbers. Then you need to divide the number by the total (A / (A + B)). Primary school maths class stuff. May be better education is needed rather than only posting one liner.

The cars are registered in 2023. Your sales figure are in 2024, not factually comparable. Also you got the percentage calculation wrong. May I suggest you revisit maths classes. Same parameter (<100 miles) change year to 2024 shows: 6161 ICE vehicles 1470 EV New & Used Cars for Sale - Auto Trader UK 1470 / (6161 + 1470) = 19.3% share of EV vs all vehicle for sale that was registered in 2024

There seems to be more ICE vehicles in similar limbo for 2023 under 100 miles: 287 ICE vehicles 156 EV https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-search?advertising-location=at_cars&fuel-type=Petrol&fuel-type=Diesel&fuel-type=Petrol Plug-in Hybrid&fuel-type=Petrol Hybrid&make=&maximum-mileage=100&moreOptions=visible&postcode=Al12bx&sort=mileage&year-from=2023&year-to=2023 Using edge cases to make a generalised case? Why I’m not surprised with you? - Edit: I see you've posted a screenshot of lots of EV's but failed to disclose total comparable numbers.

Back on topic, for 2024: In the news, Norway is very close to 100% BEV sales: Norway on track to be first to go all-electric - BBC News Published sales stats says UK has had 21% YoY increase in BEV sales: UK new car registration data, UK car market - SMMT Charge point mapping website stats say over 100% increase in charging hubs: 2024 EV charging statistics reveal record rate of charge point installations - Zapmap That means in 2024 alone, number of charging hubs doubled!

All of them, as long as the published paper has been through peer review. There is no enforcement. Only we are not qualified to comment on this matter just as we are not qualified to comment on effectiveness of COVID vaccine. However, the way certain things are run by the government (eg. ZEV mandate, lockdown, require vaccine for working) is a political matter and we are fully entitled to our opinions on how things should be run. Opinions of what count as political matter differs greatly, that's where situations like this thread arise and your sentiment arise. I personally think adoption of EV is linked to climate change, due to government mandates and their gaol of net-zero. But I'm happy to start a new thread called climate change if people want to move the discussion?

Consensus: "a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/consensus Definition of consensus is exactly "nearly all" in agreement. On this page, Wikipedia is written in the style of meta analysis with lots of very valid and verifiable references. Therefore I think it is sufficiently reliable source. Meta-analysis: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/studydesign101/metaanalysis But here is a fully published meta analysis paper: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266

The "debate" on effects of human activity is not conducted with scientific methods. Within the scientific community, where the experts on this matter reside, they have reached consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change The only topic we, the public, are qualified to have a debate and can be politicised is level of government involvement and ways to meet their climate obligations.

First, not social media. Not for news, certainly not for scientific topics. It's simple really, you have a large selection: General news from any news outlet (they all have their biases), as long as their sources are verifiable to be considered expert in the relevant area, not likes of "anonymous sources" or "member of public". Scientific related (includes climate change) must be from scientific journals, papers that had gone through peer review process. Meta analysis papers are better. Climate change in the context of EV's is for man-made climate change. Just because the climate is always changing does not mean we can forego any responsibility. It's funny, people who are against (include raising issue after issue without making an effort to understand) a small change of car powertrain are the biggest proponents of a much bigger global change. "I'm all right Jack"

For something to be true, I need to see evidence or reporting from reputable sources. (not social media) If you can't provide the evidence nor reputable sources, then the stuff you say should be pre-fixed to state that it is only your opinion or rumour. Neither of which are worth people's time in this thread.

Would Mr Witty commenter please provide such evidence of such censorship?

Explainer by CEO of Osprey, in plain numbers, why public rapid charging are so expensive: As I keep saying, EV transition is not just about swapping one powertrain to another. It's a change of mentality to grazing, plug in as much as possible.

You weaponising a completely different topic to "dissent ruthlessly suppressed". Just like you used bogus CO2 graph to make your point many moons ago. I've never seen posting anything against climate change on Xwitter/Zuckbook get censored. Again, different things. Threatening to report you is about protecting my image. Your accusations were false, purposefully done in order to put a black mark on my name. The dissent you were saying that were "ruthlessly suppressed" are usually poorly written papers that cannot pass peer review. Please do speak up if you think you are, in any shape or form, the voice of dissent where you feel you are fighting "the cause". All I see is a social media know-it-all that doesn't believe in authority, thinks your opinions can be dressed up as statement and does not need fact checked.

As long as we are all clear that it (the statement regarding dissent ruthlessly suppressed) is an opinion, a (shared) personal world view that may or may not be the truth. Only when evidence are cross examined by experts in the field, we can move towards establishing it as a theory. No one is right 100% of the time. But to keep repeating their opinion as though it is a statement, then never back up their statements makes the individual seem untrustworthy and seem like a tin foil hat wearer. It is my opinion that man made climate change require action ASAP. I am prepared to provide evidence to back up my opinion, therefore I feel I am able to justify repeating my opinion as statements without prefixing. But in no way I am forcing anyone to do anything in any shape or form. I typically share my real-world experiences or my opinion on how things should be done. But again, it is only my opinion of how things should be done, it can be in no way be understood as forcing anyone in any shape or form. If people don't like my posts, feel free to ignore or challenge my opinions, I welcome constructive criticism through critical thinking. I am always happy to provide evidence to back up the reasoning that formed my opinion. But I do hold everyone to similar standards, especially those who post statements that are different to my views. Please don't be upset if I ask for evidence, it is the best way to get to the truth. Last time I checked, this thread isn't called "talk **** about EV's".

Be extremely careful when using extension cord(s). The charging 3-pin cable has the brick near the plug to both do signalling and safety check. One of safety check is to ensure the plug pins doesn't overheat. You will loose that when using extension cord at the other end of the cord. Having said that, I've used extension cord charging at AirBNB in Skye. But I set it at 5 amps and monitored it for a few hours before going to bed. Also had Home Assistant to toggle charging on/off every 9 minutes (if 10min off and the car goes to sleep). Overall this is lower power draw than electric heater. Done over 2 nights it was able to get us comfortably back to Fort William, or quite close but doable if didn't rapid charged using CPS.

You forgot to add that, it is your opinion and your opinion only. You are fully entitled to your opinion. Every time, you have provided absolutely zero valid evidence for this statement. Thus it is reasonable to conclude you are only speaking your view of the world not based on the truth. In reality there is no "dissent ruthlessly suppressed". There's evidence China is moving at a staggering pace: EV: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-ev-sales-to-overtake-traditional-cars-2025-report-says-2024-12 Energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China Capacity and yearly installs: I am explaining why government intervention may be necessary. I'll say it again, I'm not forcing anyone to adopt anything. One more time and you will be reported for repeatedly attempting to put words into my mouth.

Question for Renault people, why is 4 bigger than 5?

The man made climate change is real, this has been settled years ago. In order to keep man made climate change under control, transition to electric is required, we cannot continue to burn stuff. Whether you like it or not, we (human) have done too much damage and cannot continue to live in such way. This may require government intervention to push a change for people who don't like changes.

Stalk is back! Front camera will be great if it's true. (but M3 had removed it in volume production) HW4 and suspension upgrade from my car. But don't like the BYD look for all exterior lights. Just like everything things in tech, not worth upgrading to the immediate next generation. -edit: https://www.tesla.cn/modely/ Also powered frunk and powered rear folding seats from the product page animations. The product page makes a note about front nose camera, so it will probably be true. Fully spec'd out it's so cheap over there:

Based on that single metric (CO2), diesel as pushed for the public to adopt, and many did. But local pollutant NOx emission remains high and that is a major contributing factor for diesel's decline. On grid, EV does not require billions invested and does not require much increased generation capacity even if all cars were EV overnight. https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/electric-vehicles-myths-misconceptions Most of grid investments are for bringing online more and more renewables in different areas than traditional power plants. Also, plugged in EV provides capability for increased grid stability by soaking up any excess renewables. EV and batteries are the special sauce for more renewable generation from grid perspective.

There's evidence China is moving at a staggering pace: EV: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-ev-sales-to-overtake-traditional-cars-2025-report-says-2024-12 Energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China Capacity and yearly installs: Australia have lots solar and battery projects. Can't speak for America or Africa though. Goal is no longer matching supply to demand. It will be the reverse. If everyone had batteries, supply fluctuation due to renewables wouldn't be any problem. Everyone charge up with cheap energy from cheap renewables. Everyone wins, net-zero achieved, totally sustainable.

Electricity have never had a constant wholesale price. What domestic customers pay should reflect that to start with. Therefore, battery has always been a solution to get off-peak price. Fluctuating demand is not a recent problem. But the extreme price as you pointed out earlier is indeed going to be more and more prevalent. I personally think it will be a necessary price to pay on the journey to net-zero.

You are paying perhaps. Not me and many people, we are on batteries drawing 0 from the grid.

The original "question" was talking about whether EV's will exist in relation to tax. I pose the same question whether fossil fuel industry will exist in relation to tax/subsidies. It's never about closure of industry overnight. Just like you can't transition a baby from milk to solid food overnight. The world has grown dependent on fossil fuel and EV is a necessary step towards transitioning away. But new drilling permits and new subsidy deals should not exist.