OP
Black Hole
May contain traces of nut
I think there's loads of confirmation bias and emperor's new clothes here. I'm amenable to have my mind changed, but it will take proper evidence to do that and so far it is just propaganda. Surely everyone knows by now they need to back up their argument by hard, unbiased, measurable, facts.
I found myself at a Hyundai showroom some months ago, killing time while a friend was waiting for her i10 to be discharged from annual service, and I had plenty of time to look around the Hyundai electric and hybrid offering and ask questions. OK, I could have picked one up for a little north of £30k, but no they did not have a real-world range anywhere near 250 miles (the advertised figure was about that, but we can be sure that was only in ideal conditions* - not real world). You would need the expensive battery upgrade for that.
* Ideal conditions: brand new batteries; daytime (no lights); no heating or aircon; not raining; no entertainment; not motorway speeds.
I'm not trying to get at Mike specifically, but he does seem to have taken up arms as an EV defender. What he says about the Kona might well mirror his personal usage, but clearly that's not the kind of usage I would demand of a car. Nothing I have read so far changes that view, including a relatively glowing report from Autotrader.
However, I'm not only considering my personal needs and affordability. My main thrust is to extrapolate the situation to when the political situation has driven petrol/diesel out of the market:
1. Demand ramps up. There are long waiting lists for EVs now, and the main hold-up appears to be supply of batteries. Battery manufacture will no doubt ramp up, and lithium is pretty abundant in the universe, but mineable deposits are not so common as all that. Neither do lithium batteries only require lithium. And the fancy motors need fancy materials too. Not only is there a "my first EV" demand: the stock needs turning over far more rapidly than for ICVs. Scrap yards will be brimming over with EVs that have been replaced rather than rebuilt, because the cost differential between a rebuilt car and a new one is insufficient to generate a profit. Long term, the batteries will need to be 100% recyclable.
2. Segregation by affordability. I do not agree with Mike's assertion there will be reasonable value in 6 year old second-hand EVs, because of the proportion of cost concentrated in the batteries. There is no such capability-depreciation in ICVs, old cars remain perfectly serviceable and available to even low-income households. That was not the case when I was growing up in the '60s. There has been a democratisation of personal transport, which will have the clock turned back if there is no alternative to EV. Hydrogen has a chance of addressing that, by retaining internal combustion (fuel cells suffer similar problems as batteries). Decision makers in government are largely unaware of the lives of the lower classes - they are the "haves" and do not have experience of being "have nots".
You can argue that the overall lifetime cost of EV compared with ICV is similar, and that might well be the case when purchasing new - but that requires a large up-front cost or (effectively) a mortgage. EVs are high capital, low running cost. Second-hand ICVs are low capital, high running cost - but that provides choice. With an ICV you have the opportunity to make a journey on demand, and then you can take a case-by-case decision whether a particular journey is justified by cost. A rented EV costs whether you decide to use it or not.
3. Segregation by access. The overwhelming majority of housing stock does not have off-street parking. All such will be reliant on public charging points, at public charging point costs. These costs alone change the balance, and drive house prices so that the difference between the "haves" and "have nots" becomes even more marked. Hydrogen addresses that. There is enough ill feeling about competition for on-street parking as it is, what do you think it will be like when everyone is fighting for the one working kerbside charging point? I have experienced arriving home late at night and patrolling the streets to find somewhere to park - it isn't nice.
4. Disenfranchisement by range. You could argue that people who live in towns should be able to manage quite well with public transport, because their needs can be met locally. Again, that is turning the clock back and asking people to accept they are no longer able to do what they used to: a day trip to the beach for example. In my case, I don't much go to the beach but Bournemouth offers facilities unavailable to me here. Let's suppose I have a second-hand EV on its last legs bought cheaply, and I keep it fully topped up at home. To take a trip to Bournemouth I would have to be sure I could find somewhere to charge up again when I got there before going to the event, and if finding somewhere to charge up took all day it would have been a journey for nothing. When EVs become de rigueur, you can be sure demand for charging points will outstrip supply, and time will have to be factored in for queuing up.
In sort, the way things are going I predict will create a political divide and ultimately instability, and is therefore unsustainable long term when you take the entire population into account instead of saying "EVs work for me therefore they can work for everybody". People with money can adapt their world to meet their needs and wishes. I can probably just about manage to do the same. Anyone with fewer resources than I could find it difficult, therefore be dissatisfied with their lot, and thus vote down any measures which reduce their personal freedom (and riot against imposed measures). And all this for the possibility that going electric might "save the planet"*? I don't think so.
I am not saying there is no answer to this. What I am saying is the rush to EV is capitalist-driven, undemocratic, and other possibilities are not being given sufficient prominence. OK, hydrogen might be relatively inefficient, but if a system can be found to use it for personal transport there will be fewer sociological drawbacks than EV. Not enough work is being done to look for a solution.
* By "save the planet", I mean maintain human life as we know it. The planet itself is fine, and will be until the Sun goes supernova. What is the actual moral case for worrying about life as we know it? So far as I can see, none. The problem with climate change is not extinctions of species per se, but the effect that might have on food supply. The human population has already gone beyond its capabilities to sustain itself at current levels of sophistication, and my thesis is there is no point adopting sack cloth and ashes in the vain belief it will somehow prolong the human race. When you're dead, your dead and you don't care any more.
PS: Anyone who thinks life on Earth is in any way important to the vast expanse of the Universe is deluded.
I found myself at a Hyundai showroom some months ago, killing time while a friend was waiting for her i10 to be discharged from annual service, and I had plenty of time to look around the Hyundai electric and hybrid offering and ask questions. OK, I could have picked one up for a little north of £30k, but no they did not have a real-world range anywhere near 250 miles (the advertised figure was about that, but we can be sure that was only in ideal conditions* - not real world). You would need the expensive battery upgrade for that.
* Ideal conditions: brand new batteries; daytime (no lights); no heating or aircon; not raining; no entertainment; not motorway speeds.
I'm not trying to get at Mike specifically, but he does seem to have taken up arms as an EV defender. What he says about the Kona might well mirror his personal usage, but clearly that's not the kind of usage I would demand of a car. Nothing I have read so far changes that view, including a relatively glowing report from Autotrader.
However, I'm not only considering my personal needs and affordability. My main thrust is to extrapolate the situation to when the political situation has driven petrol/diesel out of the market:
1. Demand ramps up. There are long waiting lists for EVs now, and the main hold-up appears to be supply of batteries. Battery manufacture will no doubt ramp up, and lithium is pretty abundant in the universe, but mineable deposits are not so common as all that. Neither do lithium batteries only require lithium. And the fancy motors need fancy materials too. Not only is there a "my first EV" demand: the stock needs turning over far more rapidly than for ICVs. Scrap yards will be brimming over with EVs that have been replaced rather than rebuilt, because the cost differential between a rebuilt car and a new one is insufficient to generate a profit. Long term, the batteries will need to be 100% recyclable.
2. Segregation by affordability. I do not agree with Mike's assertion there will be reasonable value in 6 year old second-hand EVs, because of the proportion of cost concentrated in the batteries. There is no such capability-depreciation in ICVs, old cars remain perfectly serviceable and available to even low-income households. That was not the case when I was growing up in the '60s. There has been a democratisation of personal transport, which will have the clock turned back if there is no alternative to EV. Hydrogen has a chance of addressing that, by retaining internal combustion (fuel cells suffer similar problems as batteries). Decision makers in government are largely unaware of the lives of the lower classes - they are the "haves" and do not have experience of being "have nots".
You can argue that the overall lifetime cost of EV compared with ICV is similar, and that might well be the case when purchasing new - but that requires a large up-front cost or (effectively) a mortgage. EVs are high capital, low running cost. Second-hand ICVs are low capital, high running cost - but that provides choice. With an ICV you have the opportunity to make a journey on demand, and then you can take a case-by-case decision whether a particular journey is justified by cost. A rented EV costs whether you decide to use it or not.
3. Segregation by access. The overwhelming majority of housing stock does not have off-street parking. All such will be reliant on public charging points, at public charging point costs. These costs alone change the balance, and drive house prices so that the difference between the "haves" and "have nots" becomes even more marked. Hydrogen addresses that. There is enough ill feeling about competition for on-street parking as it is, what do you think it will be like when everyone is fighting for the one working kerbside charging point? I have experienced arriving home late at night and patrolling the streets to find somewhere to park - it isn't nice.
4. Disenfranchisement by range. You could argue that people who live in towns should be able to manage quite well with public transport, because their needs can be met locally. Again, that is turning the clock back and asking people to accept they are no longer able to do what they used to: a day trip to the beach for example. In my case, I don't much go to the beach but Bournemouth offers facilities unavailable to me here. Let's suppose I have a second-hand EV on its last legs bought cheaply, and I keep it fully topped up at home. To take a trip to Bournemouth I would have to be sure I could find somewhere to charge up again when I got there before going to the event, and if finding somewhere to charge up took all day it would have been a journey for nothing. When EVs become de rigueur, you can be sure demand for charging points will outstrip supply, and time will have to be factored in for queuing up.
In sort, the way things are going I predict will create a political divide and ultimately instability, and is therefore unsustainable long term when you take the entire population into account instead of saying "EVs work for me therefore they can work for everybody". People with money can adapt their world to meet their needs and wishes. I can probably just about manage to do the same. Anyone with fewer resources than I could find it difficult, therefore be dissatisfied with their lot, and thus vote down any measures which reduce their personal freedom (and riot against imposed measures). And all this for the possibility that going electric might "save the planet"*? I don't think so.
I am not saying there is no answer to this. What I am saying is the rush to EV is capitalist-driven, undemocratic, and other possibilities are not being given sufficient prominence. OK, hydrogen might be relatively inefficient, but if a system can be found to use it for personal transport there will be fewer sociological drawbacks than EV. Not enough work is being done to look for a solution.
* By "save the planet", I mean maintain human life as we know it. The planet itself is fine, and will be until the Sun goes supernova. What is the actual moral case for worrying about life as we know it? So far as I can see, none. The problem with climate change is not extinctions of species per se, but the effect that might have on food supply. The human population has already gone beyond its capabilities to sustain itself at current levels of sophistication, and my thesis is there is no point adopting sack cloth and ashes in the vain belief it will somehow prolong the human race. When you're dead, your dead and you don't care any more.
PS: Anyone who thinks life on Earth is in any way important to the vast expanse of the Universe is deluded.
Last edited:
So what facts make the Kona an SUV?
