wyx087

I think Mr EV did a good job demonstrating no home charging still works. Albiet charging is always on one's mind. Keeping in mind his is also worst case scenario, where they both work from home (no work place charging) and they are in a remote rural area with fewer public charging infrastructure. I think most people living in rural area will have the space for driveways. Not seen a lot of terraced house in rural area.

He has a point on petrol stations, every station should have ultra-rapid charging these days. The Ford is a VAG car in disguise. Surprising it's much more efficient than Q4, I think they are the same car underneath. The "test" is missing the ID4/5 and Enyaq. Why does every reviewer talk about no Carplay/AA in Tesla? The infotainment is so good it doesn't need to use your phone. This year's Xmas update will add traffic visualisation along route for free, shows 3 routes with traffic Waze/G map style. Also, the MY rear seat back rest is adjustable. Another addition is rear cross traffic alert. Paid add-on feature in other cars, comes in a free update on all few years old Tesla. https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/2412/tesla-reveals-features-in-this-years-holiday-update Most other manufacturers seems to have zero interest once the car leaves the factory. Oh yes, the update also adds preference to trailer friendly superchargers when towing:

https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/2143581-bid-to-develop-europe’s-largest-site-for-electric-vehicle-ultra-rapid-charging-spaces “Our proposals will deliver a further 47 ultra rapid chargers (250kW), taking the total at the centre to 65, which is expected to make Trafford Centre the largest ultra rapid charging hub in Europe.” 65 at a single location! 🤩

Page 19, on the Stavanger Airport in Sola Norway in 2020: "Observations made during the fire, as well as water analyses in retrospect, thus imply that electric car batteries were not involved in the fire. However, technical investigations of the actual batteries of the burnt-out or partially burnt-out electric and hybrid vehicles are necessary to substantiate this point and provide a definite answer" Then Page 20, talking about the Luton fire: "There are further similarities from the investigation into the Kings Dock Car Park fire in Liverpool which stated that ‘Running fuel fires were witnessed by BA crews and this undoubtedly led to fire spread through the drainage system, down ramps and along the rib slab floor."

Of course not true of all plastics and many even when said to be recycleable is not recycled at scale. Hence the clown face at plastic industry's claim.

Average car age was quoted as low as 9 years and up to 15 years by some. FWIW, my Nissan Leaf is just over 10 years old now, from 2014. It is still just about do 50 miles in winter and more in summer. Over last year it had been discharged every day for vehicle-2-home (using EV as home battery). Battery health reading from a few weeks ago is 78%. I have zero doubt the battery will continue to be fully functional for us both as vehicle and home battery, until other part of the vehicle is beyond economical repair, other parts that could also be a problem on ICE vehicle, such as suspension and bodywork. EV main battery are more than reliable enough that it will last longer than lifetime of the vehicle. To be re-used in stationary applications before needing to be recycled. Reduce (more efficient vehicle), Reuse (re-use EV battery as home battery or stadium battery), finally it's Recycle. I wonder how much does it cost to build a brand new petrol station. Also, if it's cheaper to change petrol station into rapid charging hubs, than building brand new ones. Key is stop burning stuff, and stop consuming it as single-use. Plastic can be recycled....... according to the plastic industry.......... 🤡

As always, people behind these sort of predictions have their own agenda to push, often making logical jumps in order to arrive at their conclusion. The end result many years down the road will always be somewhere in between. Having been 1 year ago, I don't feel the friendly sentiment towards EV. I've not met any extreme hostility towards EV like some on this forum, but there's large percent still view petrol station as easiest. So personally, I also don't feel the decline will be as sharp as predicted, even in China.

The video talks about China's EV and petrol demand. I'm guessing this is the Bloomberg article: China’s EV Boom Threatens Gasoline Demand in Worry for Global Oil Market - Bloomberg This analysis is by other main stream media: China's gasoline demand peak nears as EV boom hastens transition | Reuters As always, worth reading/watching beyond the clickbait titles.

As I keep pointing out (and kept getting ignored) there is also union, car industry itself and other industry messing with it. Therefore, by your definition the car market can not be always right, there is always something/someone messing with it for their own gain (workers, industry bosses, oil industry, etc) The car market has had those forces messing with it waaaaay before the UK government's ZEV mandate. No it was not appropriate and relevant. individual opinions about another individual has zero relevance when talking about market as a whole. 2016 UK: Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles: funding fleets to be early adopters - GOV.UK 2023 Japan and Australia: Hydrogen is developing fast in Japan, closer to societal use | World Economic Forum

Yes, we are good, we have always been. This is about discussions on the market, not who said what. But I must say, I did not promise anything. Looks like you wish to "paraphrase and expand" by adding your imaginary words. Still it is a mystery why you would elect to say such thing ("Don't object to me not wanting one.") completely unprompted when we are talking about completely different topics. Now let's get back to your statement "market is always right", it's not. As per my example with GM EV1, car companies resisting any and all change, and unions not wanting change of competency. The topic then evolved into climate science, where I highlighted personal opinions doesn't matter in discussions about scentific topics, suggested learning about the scentific method.

Let's lay this out plain and simple for you 1. Post was not edited when quoting. Seems like you've decided to move on from your previous lie. 2. You have posted 2 contradictory points. (see below) 3. I am directly responding to your points I feel need responding and all the acusations. Everything is based on what you wrote. 4. If you get a lot of people responding in such way, that you feel is different to what you said, perhaps you are the one with poor comprehension or dishonest. (your words) 2 expanded: " I NEVER SAID YOU OBJECTED TO ME NOT WANTING AN EV.😄" Contradicts with your computer: "the speaker should have the same freedom to not want one without being criticized or judged." Again, please be reminded that you were not "criticized" or judged in any shape or form. Find us the post that you were "criticized" or judged in talks about "market is right" or move on from your latest lie, your pick.

Oh wow, you have completely run out of reasonable thing to say. You really have nothing interesting to say, no evidence to back up any of your claims. Now it's on to sentiments. But to be clear, no it was not a stealth edit, look again, all words are exactly what you posted. I removed your repeated waffle about why evidence wasn't provided because "not about science". I have left a blank line to clearly signal words were removed in the quote. No reasonable reader is going to be confused about the quote. Ok, if you want to focus on this bit. Happy to oblige Where, in my last few posts from your "market is always right" post, have I objected to you not wanting an EV? A very simple question based on your statement of accusation. I'm sure you can find and screenshot the exact sentence if your statements are not downright lies.

New report is out: https://www.london.gov.uk/media-centre/mayors-press-releases/new-data-shows-mayors-ulez-expansion-working-better-expected-bringing-cleaner-air-five-million-more Money raised is to fund public transport expansions. Recent addition of Super Loop is brilliant, I've used it a few times.

There it is again, no where in the last few posts have I ever objected to you not wanting EV. Unless you are linking you, the individual, to represent the whole market. Me saying market isn't always right, using multiple supporting evidence, is ignored. Are you turning the whole topic around to me objecting you not wanting EV...?? You have utterly zero understanding of how scientific community works. No, it is not the truth you highlighted. You highlighted a mathematical phenomenon expressed in graph form (as number approaches 0, anything divide by it approaches infinity). Your screenshot is not representative of the truth. In another words, you have manipulated the data for your narrative. I'd be happy to see anything you have to back up many radical claims you've made, from reputable sources. However, you are not providing any. Examples just from your latest post: As I said, my opinion doesn't matter. But if you insist on a direct answer for your internet points and to fuel more personal attacks: Of course no, I fully expect a lot of my personal opinion to be different to experts in many issues. But I live to learn and if their scientific papers gain momentum and get verified in multiple other papers using different methodology, I will change my opinion after reviewing the evidences. Just like how apes see the effect of gravity, except through the lens of academia papers. 😜

Why do you keep putting words into other people's mouth. The quoted bit does not have anything to do with what you said. It simply stated that you are wrong about market always right, summarising multiple evidences I've presented throughout. You have completely ignored that point because you no longer have anything to add, zero evidence or examples throughout last few posts. Ok, let me present my evidence that scientific consensus is the truthful and trustworthy. The scientific consensus for man made climate change comes from many researches building on one another. It is not artificial because the majority has to be in agreement and all evidences have been through the scientific method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method To combat what today we call climate change FUD, lots of scientists banded together: https://www.ucsusa.org/about/mission-values The level of consensus for man made climate change is as as strong as gravity, which is a fact. Now, I await your evidence to why you say that climate change scientific consensus is artificial and has vested interest. How could the majority be bought? My apologies. I meant to frame it as "EnterName's manipulated graph" vs "Truth". The website defaults to the truth I posted. Your graph was chosen to highlight your point. But percentage change from 0 will always be much higher than 1. Yes, the underlying data haven't changed, this is important and very valid point. But the way you chose to change the graph is not representative of truth and make your posts untrustworthy. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific consensus vs personal opinions. My opinion on climate change does not have any weight in climate science because I am no climate scientist. All the same, you and probably everyone on this forum opinion on climate change does not have any weight in climate science because they are no climate scientist. Indeed, very true. But it's important to remember that the overturning and change of consensus was done through the scientific method by actual scientists verifying work by "pariah". They eventually gain recognition if multiple papers verified their new theory. Thus the new theory becomes the consensus. They key is always that the public doesn't get involved. Can you image how long news networks like CNN/GBNews could debate if Earth circulating sun was just discovered today?

We have agreement about tobacco industry, that's good. Remember that was the truthful scientific consensus that is being brought into doubt using very unscientific methods. Now you are now putting words in my mouth. Vast sum of money going into climate change initiatives does not equal to tobacco industry promoting misleading data. Former is late in the action phase while latter is in the early discovery phase. Just like during discovery phase, vast sum of money was spent by oil industry to bring climate change into doubt (see book below). But somehow, you are convinced money into this is for scientists to reach consensus on climate change. Again, same question as before, are MAJORITY of scientists being bribed to achieve this consensus? Again, this book is worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt I'm sensing a lot of commonality: The data you presented was designed to be evoke a reaction in your favour. You chose the data to make your point, not to be truthful. (see first post you linked) When pointed out, you moved the goal post by changing to a different metric. (see your second link, where you changed from per capita CO2 emission to total country CO2 emission) Your data: Truth: I think this recent summary video nicely sums up why the market is NEVER left to operate by itself, there is too many invested stakeholders trying to resist any and all changes. Why does correctness or alignment of opinions matter? My opinion doesn't matter, you are free to agree or disagree. Neither does opinions of smartest people on the planet, why does anyone's opinions matter? Why do you care about opinions of individuals? Fact of the matter is climate change require action, government policy intervention is normal when the companies making the products keeps resisting the change. Governing entities using policy/incentives/disincentives to drive change is completely normal from dawn of civilisation. Another fact is that the car market cannot be always right. Not only there's not enough competing product choices, there's also too many vested interest resisting change. As shown with GM EV1, Vauxhall Luton plant blame "stories", the VW video and there's countless more.

Here lays the problem. EV haven't been promoted fairly and without biases. There is intense pressure to surpress its transition, from "opinion pieces" to straight up lies told to the public, creating misinformation and "people like" you. Unfair publicity = skewed perception = market isn't representitive of true demand. I'm sensing a lot of similarity here, histroy is reapeating itself. I bet if you were a smoker back then, you'd be saying the same thing. "It's a made-up problem" 🤪 For a change to take hold. The market will not buy into just being good enough replacement. Time and time again, people have only expressed willingness to change if it benefits them in some way. It's far easier to continue in old ways. Therefore, as I keep saying, the market isn't always right, change doesn't always happen from market forces alone. Especially when profit margin is being threatened. Exactly, including cheating consumers and government. The market only works if everyone is at level playfield, car and energy industry is never a level playing field. I do wonder, do you think VAG dieselgate was justified? I'm not going to get into a quoting contest with a reply for every point. That's just silly. I'm trying to stay on topic regarding "market is always right".

Good, we are on the same page. I don't think anyone is blind to car industry and oil industry's manipulation in politics. But I think a lot of people misunderstand their manipulation goal. They manipulate to maximise their profits margins. However, mass market EV hurts their profit margins. No prizes for figuring out which way they push. Hum. Let's consider the evidences. Billions are poured into fossil fuel industry, manipulating the prices people pay for fossil fuel [1]. Billions more damages as result of using this is not compensated by the end user nor the industry. Perhaps now would be a good time to consider the effect of fossil fuel subsidies on fuel prices, it is the definition of predatory pricing. Then I think it's more than reasonable for governments to apply subsidies/grants/whatever you call it, in order to protect against predatory pricing. There is no longer any subsidies for EV's in UK. There is discounts in form of BIK but no longer any subsidies like in 2010's. The free energy 2 hours was due to excess wind generation. It was purely by Octopus Energy. There was no grid or government involvement, I'd have thought you will call this evidence for a working because it is completely driven by changes in wholesale energy prices. Lots of wind supply, low demand => cheap energy => supplier decided to pass it on. 1 company achieve this whilst going against intense pressure from legacy auto makes. Where are those venture capitalists for the legacy manufacturers? Consumers and legacy manufacturers have always resisted changes, from seat belts [2] to new energy vehicle [3][4]. The whole car industry is set up such that the most profit is made by the "fast follower", not the innovator. Apart from meeting regulatory changes over the years, is there anything that is actively pushed by the car industry for all their vehicles (not just most expensive ones) that benefits vast majority of people? I cannot think of one, EV would not be a thing if it wasn't for disrupters such as Tesla (not just Mr Musk), Leaf/Zoe and governments realise needing to do something about climate change. Let's be honest with ourselves. when there is a change needed that does not benefit the bottom line for established industry, the change will not happen. As evident earlier: GM EV1. Industry resisting change is seen time and time again with: tobacco industry, CFC ban, car emissions, financial industry resisting regulation leading to 2008 crash, tech industry poor data privacy until GDPR, and many many more. EV's worsen ICE manufacturers profit margins and dilutes their established in-house knowledge, so you can only expect car industry to resist the change. This is the reason judging success of EV by saying market is right doesn't work. The product lines are limited by established manufacturers in order to slow the adoption, maximise profit. As result, public cannot buy their choice of size/shape, the trade is not equal, it is controlled by the products offered by car industry and usage prices have been subsidies in favour of long established industry. [1] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#History [3] https://www.pcmag.com/news/toyota-mazda-subaru-resist-full-ev-push-will-co-develop-new-gas-engines [4] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/nobody-wants-buy-electric-cars/322832/

What if there is a huge upfront R&D cost to a new technology that completely negates existing technical knowledge of legacy manufacturers. Innovation is hard, it's far easier to keep building ICE cars with tweaks to 10 year old platform than making a completely new platform. That would be more than enough incentive to actively resist the change. Case in point: people really wanted the EV1 made by GM. But they were rounded up and crushed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1#Demise As I shown in my earlier post with Luton Vauxhall plant, blaming random stuff and putting pressure on slippery politicians are all part of legacy car manufacturer's playbook. It's all about getting handouts (not free market) or getting special treatment (not free market). I guess you forgot the word "free". But there is no such thing as free market. Funny how you are quoting tiny subsidies when there is far more money being pumped into fossil fuel to prop it up. There is still record amount of money flowing into fossil fuel industry. For example, according to Guardian, fossil fuel received £20 billion more than renewables between 2015 and 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/09/fossil-fuels-more-support-uk-than-renewables-since-2015 If you truly believe market is always right, then you ought to stop and define what is the market. The energy market is certainly not free from corruption and backroom dealings. Fossil fuel only works because of support they receive from governments that are not widely publicised. I guess what you are saying is a market that is being manipulated in favour of your view is always right? Because legacy ICE and oil industry certainly still have large amount of leverage over the many of world's governments.

Credit now appearing on accounts page. I got £9.37 Around 36 kWh worth. Actually only saved £2.50 when converted to overnight cost. But was fun seeing how much I can draw and making sure when drawing maximum, nothing glows.

They key is getting accurate information. Trip computer only tells historic driving data because that was the technology in the 90's. Just like remaining range guess-o-meter, the trip computer is only useful as a general metric. In EV's, depend on implementation (some count parked, some doesn't), it is not far removed from legacy ICE/hybrid style trip computer. Sitting in traffic, Tesla still counts consumption in trip computer, just like ICE vehicle of 90's. Not including P (parked) makes it more accurate source of information for driving, but understandably this is personal preference. It takes less than 5 seconds to work out true consumption with (new to most people) energy app, how much used when parked and 1 glance to see if there is enough energy left in the battery to reach destination. This accurate information is faaaar more useful than anything based on previous driving data.

There's waaaaay more useful metric than consumption figure. Set sat-nav to destination and you'll get an estimated arrival %, much better to use this for estimating range. (it is also recently updated: https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/2392/tesla-improves-trip-planner-arrival-state-of-charge-coming) Setting sat-nav is also super easy, just share the destination from any map app on mobile. How often do you, or anyone, sit in the car while parked? Does people always do this without thinking about their fuel use in other cars? What meaningful information does adding parked consumption give you? It certainly doesn't make estimating range easier by detaching the consumption number from real driving consumption. Why must EV/Tesla include this consumption in the legacy "trip computer" display from 90's? When there's much much better place for this consumption data, Tesla puts them in the energy app. There's a section for overall energy use, a section for standby energy use and another for this drive vs sat-nav estimate.

It does drop when sitting in traffic. It counts everything outside of P gear. It is a trip computer. It doesn't count when sitting in P gear with heater blasting, gaming on the screen and car door open/closing all the time as wife goes around different shops and drops off stuff. Difference is I think ICE car does count everything, including engine idling when waiting around. Displayed as l/hr? I suspect they were sitting in the car for some time for whatever reason. Route planning? Shooting B-rolls with doors open and AC on?

May be. I view ultra-rapid charging as mandatory move when done, petrol station mentality. I find people don't like it when being told it's best to move their car once complete charging. People are only friendly when they look confused and help was offered. I was just offering a rough estimate with 1 hour as typical time spent at supermarket. Some spend more time, some spend less. If speed is limited by the car, then it's probably close to full? The important thing is to not let the idea of parking at ultra-rapid charging get into people's heads. It's not a parking spot. But adding ultra-rapid charging to current parking spot without changing layout will give people the opposit idea.

It's great they are building more. But adding charging to car park spaces send the message that you charge while you park, which does not help with healthy understanding of very different charging speeds for EV. Going forward, I think supermarket/retail park car parks should only get maximum of 50 kW charging. 1 hour shop fills up the car, no overstay charge. AC 22 kW nearby at slightly cheaper price and no expectation to move on AC. At other end of scale, park & ride, train station, residential streets get 7 kW, the long stay locations. Ultra rapid should all get petrol station forecourt style layout at dedicated stations, with heafty idle fee. Most people will hopefully get the message that this operates like petrol station, move once got enough.