So, have you any documented (or even anecdotal) evidence which supports your statement that manufacturers are not meeting the Nox targets set by Euro 6?

 

It's not a hard question to understand, after all you must've read somewhere something to give you the notion that it's happening...

10 hours ago, 310golfr said:

all batterys have a shelf life though and the batteries aint cheap

you need to factor in this cost, you could always sell it before it needs a new battery i suppose, but people will get wise to this and cars will be worth alot less

Also worth remembering that battery costs will continue to fall as sales increase, economies of scale and all that. New technology is always more expensive for early adopters but prices generally fall over time. 

 

There was a pretty big owner study of Tesla’s which found that over 160,000 miles degradation was less than 10%: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/electrek.co/2018/04/14/tesla-battery-degradation-data/amp/

 

Most people never own a car anywhere near that long, and how many people own an ICE that long without more than minor wear and tear maintenance?

Edited 3 July, 20196 yr by maffyou

11 hours ago, wyx087 said:

I'm paying £30 road tax for my Skoda dirty diesel and £0 for my Leaf EV. 10p per mile in the diesel, 2.5p per mile in EV. £120 minor service for Skoda and £0 minor service for EV because there's no engine oil or filters, just rely on MOT for checks. Cheapest motoring ever.

 

Err...  By far the biggest cost in motoring is the cost of the car less what it's worth when you sell it. What's the Skoda equivalent of a Leaf - a Fabia?  So how much is a Fabia and how much is a Leaf? ( note: the Leaf is subsidised by the taxpayer for the time being but we'll ignore that for now ) 

 

Now I didn't know this because I've no personal experience, but all the reports I've read so far state that an EV costs more to insure.  Out of interest you can buy a Golf petrol, a Golf diesel and a Golf EV. So using confused.com and entering the reg of three cars (del miles) I've found on Autotrader, all 19 reg and under 1000 miles if I were to buy a Golf, the cheapest insurance quotes are:

 

Petrol: Golf 1.0 match £17500 quote: £295

Diesel: Golf 1.6 match £17500 quote: £298

EV: Golf 99kw 35kwh £25000 quote: £467

 

So £170  year extra in insurance would suggest the articles I've read about EV insurance costing more are correct.

 

I see lots of people try to compare things but I guess it's only human nature to look thru rose tinted specs when trying to achieve the figures they want to achieve rather than make comparisons on a level playing field.

 

 

Edited 3 July, 20196 yr by Guest

9 hours ago, Scot5 said:

 

Err...  By far the biggest cost in motoring is the cost of the car less what it's worth when you sell it. What's the Skoda equivalent of a Leaf - a Fabia?  So how much is a Fabia and how much is a Leaf? ( note: the Leaf is subsidised by the taxpayer for the time being but we'll ignore that for now ) 

 

Now I didn't know this because I've no personal experience, but all the reports I've read so far state that an EV costs more to insure.  Out of interest you can buy a Golf petrol, a Golf diesel and a Golf EV. So using confused.com and entering the reg of three cars (del miles) I've found on Autotrader, all 19 reg and under 1000 miles if I were to buy a Golf, the cheapest insurance quotes are:

 

Petrol: Golf 1.0 match £17500 quote: £295

Diesel: Golf 1.6 match £17500 quote: £298

EV: Golf 99kw 35kwh £25000 quote: £467

 

So £170  year extra in insurance would suggest the articles I've read about EV insurance costing more are correct.

 

I see lots of people try to compare things but I guess it's only human nature to look thru rose tinted specs when trying to achieve the figures they want to achieve rather than make comparisons on a level playing field.

 

You'd have to pay a bit more for the petrol/diesel version of the Golf to match spec of the e-Golf, also remember spec the automatic gearbox. Let's say that'd be ~£5000 more for the car and £170pa more for insurance. If you own the car for 3 years, price difference after selling would likely be £2500 for the car and £170*3 for insurance => spent £3010 more for EV. That is ~30,000 miles in the diesel assuming no diesel price change.

 

So total cost of ownership for EV is only more by cost of electricity to cover 30k miles. Which is going to be only £250 a year (4mi/kWh, 10p/kWh electricity when real world electricity would be 7-10p on economy 7)

 

Buy second hand, your car depreciation cost will be lower, while everything else stays the same, meaning you'd save money. Soon, cost to purchase EV will be similar to petrol/diesel, making total cost of ownership much cheaper on EV's.

 

Let's forget theoretical numbers. Here's what I know from my actual spending:

 

		Skoda Octavia	Nissan Leaf
Last updated:		14/06/2019	30/06/2019
Years of ownership:	years	2.04	1.70
Insurance	Per year	£598.05	£688.55
Car purchase price		£8,800.00	£9,072.28
Estimated car value		£5,487.79	£6,177.66
Depreciation Cost	Per year	£1,620.59	£1,704.09
	Per month	£135.05	£142.01
Road tax	Per year	£30.00	£0.00
Service/Fix/Tyre/etc	Total:	£1,249.99	£308.12
MPG or mi/KWh	Overall:	53.41	3.99
Litres or KWh	Recorded:	1,381	4,256
Miles	Recorded:	16,227	16,999
	Per year:	7,939	10,008
Fuel Cost	Recorded:	£1,668.47	£355.90
	Per year:	£816.34	£209.52
	Per mile	£0.1028	£0.0209

 

Both Octavia and Leaf are classed as "Small family car (C)" on Wikipedia. But I agree you get a lot more "car" with the Octavia, the Rapid is probably more comparable.

 

The '63 reg Skoda was bought May 2017 from small time dealer using cash. '64 reg Leaf bought Nov 2017 from manufacturer dealer on PCP with 2 free servicing. £9072 is the total after all PCP payments and deposits + trade-in. Skoda estimated remaining value works out by estimating a car loses half its value over 3 years (=K8*0.5^(K4/3)). Leaf estimated value is result of PCP payments, but in actual fact, similar age and condition is selling for over £7500 on autotrader.

 

Service cost is high because timing belt, DSG oil were all done on Skoda, also 4 new tyres, with front brake due soon. Leaf only had 2 new tyres and front brake. So I think it's somewhat representative of ICE vs EV ownership over longer periods (5+ years)

 

For the expensive insurance (probably due to my post code), Skoda is on my 10yr NCD, while Leaf is on my wife's 3yr NCD. Both 10k annual mileage. Make what you will of that.

 

So to me, looking through actual facts, it looks like I've spent less to drive a newer and better equipped EV than ICE car. Only thing missing in the Leaf is ACC, while my Skoda is missing full leather seats, LED headlights, 360 parking camera, keyless entry and remote telemetrics + pre-conditioning. Also, the Canton speaker is no where near as nice as the Bose system.

 

 

15 hours ago, Rustynuts said:

So, have you any documented (or even anecdotal) evidence which supports your statement that manufacturers are not meeting the Nox targets set by Euro 6?

A quick google search came up this:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/37-popular-diesel-cars-sail-7808803

Well that's just daft, look at the purchase prices - the Nissan has already suffered horrendous depreciation. You can make any figure you want buy buying the correct car.

 

Buy a Classic car, keep it a few years for it to appreciate, sell it and you'll find a 20mpg car will be cheaper than an EV.

 

23 hours ago, 310golfr said:

isnt'nt  it co2 thats destroying the planet and petrol cars produce more co2 than diesel cars

Methane, as produced by cows and burnt by us as natural gas, is 7 times more damaging to the ozone layer than CO2.

10 minutes ago, PetrolDave said:

Methane, as produced by cows and burnt by us as natural gas, is 7 times more damaging to the ozone layer than CO2.

 

Is this 'more damaging' in natural form or the by products from combustion as in the petrol/diesel cars we have?

52 minutes ago, MarkyG82 said:

 

Is this 'more damaging' in natural form or the by products from combustion as in the petrol/diesel cars we have?

Natural form

1 hour ago, Scot5 said:

Well that's just daft, look at the purchase prices - the Nissan has already suffered horrendous depreciation. You can make any figure you want buy buying the correct car.

 

Buy a Classic car, keep it a few years for it to appreciate, sell it and you'll find a 20mpg car will be cheaper than an EV.

Well, no, the first owner did not suffer horrendous depreciation. You can't only look at the sticker price, does anyone really pay the RRP on cars?

 

There were loads of deals going before 2017, before EV's took off:

https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/nissan-leaf-hatchback-acenta-5dr-auto-pch-6-23-16616pm-8k-milespa-481864-at-whatcar-2761619

https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/nissan-leaf-pcp-159-per-month-3816-at-nissan-2163596

 

This deal indicates probable cost for my car's first owner at around £18k when the car was new in late 2014.

https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/nissan-leaf-hatchback-tekna-5dr-auto-battery-bought-17390-at-drivethedeal-2063755

So 3 years later, ~50% depreciation and I bought it for £9k in 2017. In line with industry average.

 

Yes, as you've said, you can make up any calculation in favour of your argument. I'm only posting my real-world expenditures. So far, with real-world data, second hand EV is currently the cheapest form of motoring, as long as you can make it work!  (driveways and don't do daily mega-miles, etc it's not for everyone)

6 hours ago, PetrolDave said:

Methane, as produced by cows and burnt by us as natural gas, is 7 times more damaging to the ozone layer than CO2.

Don’t blame the cows. Humans produce vastly more!! 

Diesels used to be promoted by governments due to lower CO2. Now they are being demonized and penalized, and EVs are being favoured. I wouldn't be surprised in a few years time to find that EVs are not as good for the planet as we are being led to believe. Although EVs do not have tailpipe emissions they have environmental impact in terms of car and battery production, recycling or disposal, and electricity generation which may well involve some amount of CO2 or other pollutants. There is a relevant article here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/battery-batteries-electric-cars-carbon-sustainable-power-energy/  which among other things states "It takes nine years for an electric car to be greener than a diesel car."   

18 hours ago, OldBoyScout said:

Diesels used to be promoted by governments due to lower CO2. Now they are being demonized and penalized, and EVs are being favoured. I wouldn't be surprised in a few years time to find that EVs are not as good for the planet as we are being led to believe. Although EVs do not have tailpipe emissions they have environmental impact in terms of car and battery production, recycling or disposal, and electricity generation which may well involve some amount of CO2 or other pollutants. There is a relevant article here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/battery-batteries-electric-cars-carbon-sustainable-power-energy/  which among other things states "It takes nine years for an electric car to be greener than a diesel car."   

The full quote:

For example, in Germany - where about

40% of the energy mix is produced by coal and 30% by renewables - a mid-sized electric car must be driven for 125,000 km, on average, to break even with a diesel car, and 60,000 km compared to a petrol car. It takes nine years for an electric car to be greener than a diesel car, assuming an annual average mileage of 13,500 km

Considering most cars can be driven for 10-15 years, and the basis for that calculation comes from 40% coal electric production, I think it's safe to say EV lifetime emission will always be lower than ICE cars.

 

Also consider how national grid will continuously try to improve its renewable energy mix, as it is the cheapest form of energy production. All EV in the country will benefit. Unlike current model, where incremental ICE emissions reductions take years to trickle down and old, most polluting cars take years to be off the road.

The only idea that had any real impact on numbers of old vehicles on the road was the government scrappage scheme.  I don't think it will be long till we see something similar.  the only issue this time round is no one can make their minds up what propulsion system is least bad.  Hydrogen fuel cells seem to be the cleanest but they are expensive to produce and very few places provide the fuel.

It's all very complicated. According to what has been quoted a diesel car must be greener than a petrol car, since it takes just over twice the mileage for the EV to achieve break even with the diesel (125,000 km) compared with the petrol (60,000 km). Since diesels are favoured by high mileage drivers over petrol cars, the difference in years to achieve break even with EV will be less than the difference in km. The article which we have already quoted is also saying "When the capacity of electric car batteries drops below 70-80% after about 10 years of use, they are no longer strong enough to power the car", so according to this we have nine years for the EV to reach break even with the diesel car, and just one more year before the EV battery becomes unfit for it's original purpose. OK this is in Germany where they use a lot of coal to generate their electricity and have a big vested interest in their motor industry, but the difference between EV and diesels seems to be a lot more marginal than I would have thought before reading the article.

 

 wyx087 it will take a long time to change the "current model, where incremental ICE emissions reductions take years to trickle down and old, most polluting cars take years to be off the road". Even with the proposed ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars from 2040, or possibly sooner, there will still be a lot of older cars on the roads for many years to come.

 

MarkyG82 with another scrappage scheme I think the biggest issue would be the funding. Last time the financial incentives on offer seemed to be enough to hasten the scrapping of any old bangers that were probably already on the way out, but not enough to make it worthwhile for older vehicles with a lot of life left in them. The current UK Government grant scheme for electric vehicles is kind of equivalent to a scrappage scheme, although the incentive is applied to the purchase of the new vehicle rather than the disposal of the old one. This scheme has been cut for some vehicles, and more or less ceased for PHEVs. Given the much higher purchase prices for new EVs compared to petrol and diesel cars, more so in the case of hydrogen, I don't see any UK government being prepared to cover the cost of a scrappage scheme to promote the take up of these vehicles. A more effective way of taking older vehicles off the road would be tougher MOTs, and indeed we have recently seen some tightening up in this area.

 

 

It's easy to take any stats and twist them to suit your agenda but just been thinking about Co2 and using that scientifically accurate method of 'Google' to check something out.

 

I cycled thru to the repairers today to collect my car. A distance of 19 miles or 30 km. It took me 1.5hr ( it's generally uphill )

 

An average human will produce 1kg of Co2 per day, so in that 1.5hrs I'd have produced 62.4g.

 

But wait, under heavy exercise, a human will produce up to x8 as much C02. So that's 500g

 

It means that on my cycle today, I was producing 16.67 g/km

 

The journey home is less distance 12 miles - that's because you can use the motorway, but if I were driving an EV it wouldn't make any difference because it produces 0 g/km C02.

 

So there you have it...   solid proof that an EV is much better for the environment than a bicycle yet the Green lobby promote Boris bikes - they're everywhere in our town now.

 

See, told you that you can make stats prove anything you want. 

Edited 8 July, 20196 yr by Guest

1 hour ago, OldBoyScout said:

The article which we have already quoted is also saying "When the capacity of electric car batteries drops below 70-80% after about 10 years of use, they are no longer strong enough to power the car"

That's a major misconception that needs addressing. When capacity of car battery drops below 70-80%, it doesn't reduce the battery's capability to power the car. It's not as though at 69%, the car would no longer able to maintain its performance, similar to an ICE car with broken turbo. There are very early Nissan Leaf with 60% capacity left that still functions as local runabout just as well. There are forum members on SpeakEV with Leaf that only has 8/12 healthbar left, that's around 66% health. Only thing changed is the range, the battery's strength to power the car doesn't change.

https://www.speakev.com/threads/down-to-8-capacity-bars.136880/

(This is a 2011 Japan built, battery chemistry is not as long lasting as my UK-built 2013-2017 model)

 

The metric for EV battery is whether the range they offer still satisfy your personal needs, so it is entirely possible to run an EV beyond 20 years if its range still covers your needs and other parts of the vehicle isn't beyond economical repair.

 

I have just re-read the article you've quoted, that statement did not have any source link and it calls upon the whole article's authenticity. We know the German study that concluded with "9 years for EV to break-even" has vested interest in motor industry. Similar German study can be interpreted as needing less than 4 years to break-even if powered using renewable energy (Norway)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-16/the-dirt-on-clean-electric-cars

 

End of the day, the biggest additional contributor to CO2 emission in EV is the size of battery. I am a firm believer in reasonably sized battery. People say they want 500 miles or 600 miles in their EV's. I believe 200 miles is plenty as long as we have the charging infrastructure. For that reason, in a few years time before my Octy DPF is almost full, I plan to buy a Tesla Model 3 standard range with only 225 miles of range, and rely on Tesla Supercharge network for long distance drives. Also keep our first-gen UK-built Nissan Leaf until it is beyond economical repair, I think its battery will outlast the car, due to our short range local needs.

Edited 8 July, 20196 yr by wyx087

3 minutes ago, Scot5 said:

The journey home is less distance 12 miles - that's because you can use the motorway, but if I were driving an EV it wouldn't make any difference because it produces 0 g/km C02.

Well, EV doesn't produce emission at point of use. Renewable power production still produces CO2 per kWh:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

If we take off-shore wind of 12 gCO2/kWh. Driving 12 miles in good weather will likely use 3kWh (EV average above 4mi/kWh in good weather). So that adds up to 36 gCO2 emission (+ 62.4g for one person to exist) when driving EV, in comparison to your 500 gCO2 if you cycled.  

 

Only way to spot twisted stats is to apply logic and ask, is there vested interest somewhere?

Note my posts have all been as factual as possible, reasoning from first principle, use as little statistics as possible.

(I've no vested interest in EV, battery or motor industry. I enjoy driving EV and wish to remove misconceptions with EV's)

The article that I quoted seems to be implying that diesel is greener than petrol, but in that case their idea of greener is not taking sufficient account of which is cleaner. We all know now that diesel is bad for people due to the higher emissions of NOX. We are probably less aware of the pollutants involved in the manufacture and disposal of batteries for EVs. Quoting from the same article "Battery production causes more environmental damage than carbon emissions alone. Consider dust, fumes, wastewater and other environmental impacts from cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; water shortages and toxic spills from lithium mining in Latin America, which can alter ecosystems and hurt local communities; a heavily polluted river due to nickel mining in Russia; or air pollution in northeastern China... An estimated 11 million tons of spent lithium-ion batteries will flood our markets by 2025, without systems in place to handle them".

 

So EVs are probably not as good for the environment as we might have thought, but diesel cars may not be so bad. Recent tests by ADAC have shown that modern diesel cars can do much better than the legal limit for NOX, with one Mercedes car emitting no NOX at all in the test. 

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/106070/latest-diesel-cars-emit-almost-no-nox-according-to-new-research

 

 wyx087 thanks for putting me right on the battery misconception. I have no problem with your enjoyment of EVs. I just have concerns about the politicians pushing us down the EV route when it may later turn out to be not necessarily the right way to go. A bit like how it was with diesel, except that to me it doesn't look like diesel is as bad as it has been painted, given modern improvements in emission control. I like the Octavia Scout, as occasionally I need to go on unmade tracks where a bit of extra ground clearance and underbody protection is good to have. I also like it for driving from Norfolk to the West of Scotland for holidays, a distance of over 500 miles, and don't know of any EV that would suit me as well.

On 03/07/2019 at 16:46, Rustynuts said:

So, have you any documented (or even anecdotal) evidence which supports your statement that manufacturers are not meeting the Nox targets set by Euro 6?

 

It's not a hard question to understand, after all you must've read somewhere something to give you the notion that it's happening...

 

https://theicct.org/news/road-tested-sep2017-press-release

 

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/08/20170831-icct.html

On 03/07/2019 at 13:43, 310golfr said:

 

do some diesels produce zero nox --  yes

 

 

Which diesels do that?

5 hours ago, OldBoyScout said:

So EVs are probably not as good for the environment as we might have thought, but diesel cars may not be so bad.

Are they better than ICE is the important question? The evidence suggests that they are. Pretty much everything we do as a species has an environmental impact of some description, surely the point is to reduce that impact as much as sensibly possible?

5 hours ago, OldBoyScout said:

I just have concerns about the politicians pushing us down the EV route when it may later turn out to be not necessarily the right way to go.

Mum not sure politicians are really do much at all to push EV uptake (and nowhere near as much as they should, IMHO). They’ve slashed the grants, as you mentioned yourself, and increased road tax for hybrids. It strikes me they’re doing very little to push EVs. 

5 hours ago, OldBoyScout said:

A bit like how it was with diesel, except that to me it doesn't look like diesel is as bad as it has been painted, given modern improvements in emission control.

The biggest issue with diesel was the falsifying of emissions tests, coupled with financial incentives to buy diesels for people who shouldn’t have been choosing a diesel because they do low mileage. In fact, the issue was more that petrol cars were demonised when for mainly city drivers they’re better as their emissions are less directly harmful to humans. 

5 hours ago, OldBoyScout said:

I like the Octavia Scout, as occasionally I need to go on unmade tracks where a bit of extra ground clearance and underbody protection is good to have. I also like it for driving from Norfolk to the West of Scotland for holidays, a distance of over 500 miles, and don't know of any EV that would suit me as well.

Yet, is the missing word on your sentence. There’s no reason why an EV can’t be designed for off road use, but there’s probably pretty limited demand as it stands. And on that 500 mile journey, presumably you stop at least once on the way? With a rapid charger this would be quite doable. I recently timed how long our coffee and toilet stop at a services was - 40 mins almost, without any dallying around, just how long it took. In that time I’d have been 80% charged if I had an EV and good to go again. 

 

We need better infrastructure that’s for sure but transition takes time. 

2 hours ago, logiclee said:

 

Which diesels do that?

merc c class 220d

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/106070/latest-diesel-cars-emit-almost-no-nox-according-to-new-research

A ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars from 2040 or maybe earlier looks pretty much to me like we are being pushed down the EV route. OK it is several years away, but I would imagine that many people think long term when they are looking to buy a new car, and the announcement of the future ban is enough to discourage the purchase of ICE cars many years before it actually comes into effect.

 

The falsifying of emissions tests for diesel cars is something that happened in the past, and not relevant to the latest diesel cars. I have a certain amount of sympathy for the VAG car makers. Faced with a situation where they were technically unable to achieve the latest targets in time to comply with the regulations, what were they supposed to do? To stop selling the cars would not have been a commercially realistic option, and falsifying the tests would have been a very risky course of action that they would only have embarked on reluctantly as a last resort. I also have a lot of sympathy for the people who bought the affected cars, and feel fortunate that I didn't buy one. However, things have moved on since the introduction of Euro 5, and since September 2015, or even earlier in the case of some Audis, we have had Euro 6 cars. These cars seem to be meeting the emissions regulations without any suggestion of falsification, and even in many cases doing much better than the regulations require.

 

(Sorry, I am new on here and don't know how to do quotes properly yet)

 

Maffyou said "Are they better than ICE is the important question? The evidence suggests that they are. Pretty much everything we do as a species has an environmental impact of some description, surely the point is to reduce that impact as much as sensibly possible?" Yes, but we may have differing views on what is sensible. You may think it is sensible to switch to EVs, but I may think it is more sensible to stick with ICEs in some cases given that we are seeing great improvements in both. Given that I am doing a small annual mileage with my diesel cars, mostly in rural Norfolk and occasionally the West of Scotland where nobody's health is at risk from the emissions, I would imagine that the environmental impact is minimal.

 

 

8 hours ago, 310golfr said:

merc c class 220d

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/106070/latest-diesel-cars-emit-almost-no-nox-according-to-new-research

 

 

It can achieve zero in RDE tests. RDE is still done under strict laboratory conditions at set temperatures. Which is different to the ICCT testing that is actually done out on the road in actual driving conditions,

 

 

We will all have to come to terms with an EV future. VAG are spending $50 Billion on EV development and less than a tenth of that on diesel tech. And that spend on diesel is only to ensure it gets through the tightening of emissions standards over the coming decade. It's a stop gap.

 

In two decades time it will be illegal to sell new ICE models and that's only really two model cycles for VAG and most major motor manufacturers.

16 hours ago, OldBoyScout said:

 wyx087 thanks for putting me right on the battery misconception. I have no problem with your enjoyment of EVs. I just have concerns about the politicians pushing us down the EV route when it may later turn out to be not necessarily the right way to go. A bit like how it was with diesel, except that to me it doesn't look like diesel is as bad as it has been painted, given modern improvements in emission control. I like the Octavia Scout, as occasionally I need to go on unmade tracks where a bit of extra ground clearance and underbody protection is good to have. I also like it for driving from Norfolk to the West of Scotland for holidays, a distance of over 500 miles, and don't know of any EV that would suit me as well.

Thanks for being so level headed, many people I've spoken to throw a tantrum as soon as I point out any misconceptions drilled in by mass media.

 

Personally, I think the current EV route we are heading down is not right. Namely Jag I-Pace, Audi E-Tron are too inefficient, they require large battery to cover good enough distance. I-Pace has 90kWh battery only has 234mi range, E-Tron has 95kWh battery only has 204mi range. Whereas Tesla Model 3 gives 220mi using 55kWh battery, Hyundai Ioniq gives 124mi range with only 30kWh. (All range figures are more accurate EPA rating) Battery production, as you've rightly pointed out, produces most pollution, we should be concentrating on making the most efficient car possible and thus lessen our environmental impact with every change.

 

Unfortunately we are still in early days with EV. Manufacturers are starting to invest (they are all "fast followers") and we won't see volume production and consumer choice for many years. Manufacturers are also very slow at investing charging infrastructure, which I think need to come before the cars.

Say what you will about Tesla, I think without them, EV will probably still be short range niche products with odd looks like Nissan Leaf and i3. Tesla's supercharger network is the best in the world, it's the only truly reliable charging network.

 

7 hours ago, OldBoyScout said:

You may think it is sensible to switch to EVs, but I may think it is more sensible to stick with ICEs in some cases given that we are seeing great improvements in both.

I agree, but not for ICE to drive the wheels. There are still cases where it's not practical to blanket remote areas with high powered chargers, that's where range extended EV makes a lot of sense. Something like BMW i3 REx, LEVC Taxi. The ICE is small and managed by ECU, it recharges the battery at its most efficient operating parameters.

 

I think the 2040 ban recognises that, they will require a minimum EV range, but doesn't outright ban all ICE in cars.

 

 

1 hour ago, logiclee said:

It can achieve zero in RDE tests. RDE is still done under strict laboratory conditions at set temperatures. Which is different to the ICCT testing that is actually done out on the road in actual driving conditions,

A good example of how test method obscures the truth. The NEDC, WLTP and RDE test are all too lenient, doesn't really stress the car. All of which test the ICE emissions after it has been warmed up. There are zero emission check in-place for cold engines. All those tests are either conceived by ICE manufacturers or have been lobbied to test favourably by ICE manufacturers.