Joining the electric car club

[dickygrace]

Also depends on what it’s made from. If it’s come from sugar cane where they’ve chopped down half of the Amazon or Borneo to grow it not so good, if it’s a by-product of existing farming, as some is, then ok.

Le Mans and WRC have been using 100% biofuels for a couple of years.

The main saving is surely in the lack of CO2 being emitted in manufacturing as this allows us to drive ICE cars on petrol and reduce by 65% the tailpipe emissions.

 

[CatmanV2]

That wouldn't be my understanding of the current definition of tailpipe emissions. i.e. your glorious V8 is still going to pump out exactly the same pollutants from its tailpipe if you're running it on biofuel or normal petrol.
I *think* the main saving is that you're massively reducing the carbon cycle time from millions of years (which effectively we're releasing carbon into the atmosphere which was captured by dinosaurs) to months (we're releasing carbon into the atmosphere that was captured by some crop sown in the spring)

So *overall* (assuming CO2 emissions during production to a useable fuel is comparable) a total switch to biofuels right now will not do very much to reduce the overall levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. We'll just be spinning it around faster.

I fully expect someone to explain why this is wrong, BTW

C

 

[zagatoes30]

This is where it all gets very messy, there are a number of ways of defining "green"

• An EV does not add CO2 to the air at point of use but components, especially batteries, do in production
• A car running on biofuel does not add any new CO2 to the air at point of use and probably uses less in production especially if using current farm grown waste
• Running an older car on current fuel does add new CO2 to the air at point of use but does not have CO2 production impact other than from fuel production
• Off setting produces the same amount of CO2 at point of use but offsets this be planting an equivalent number of trees etc. to offset this CO2 and balance the books

Additionally it is easier to reduce CO2 release into the air in large scale producers i.e. large industrial plants, large ships etc as it is more cost effective to develop efficient methods of capture than it is to try to capture at smaller point of use producers e.g. Motor Vehicles.

If you want clean air in cities & towns EV is the winner, if you want to reduce CO2 in the air then "true" offsetting might be the answer but only if you can plant enough to capture more CO2 than you create. If you truly want a cleaner planet you need to reduce CO2 being released to the air and plant more trees to convert what is already there to lock it out of use.

Note: CO2 isn't the only pollutant but the same logic applies in one form or another

 

[dickygrace]

Thanks both of you, such a complex situation with infinite variables.

 

[montravia]

Thanks both of you, such a complex situation with infinite variables.

And, I'm afraid, much opportunity for misleading obfuscation.
One doesn't need to have a background in science or maths to keep in mind the need for whole life cycle 'cost', cost being any parameter One is focused on minimising, be it Net CO2, total energy or whatever.
I'm afraid most of these articles are marketing led attempting to satisfy a particular niche, and often focus on positive attributes, and disregard the negative attributes.

We have only one source of energy. It's beating down on us now. Anything else is merely a storage medium for past capture.

Of particular note in omissions in calculations is energy lose in converting from one storage source to another. No energy conversion is 100% efficient.

Another: EV are on average twice the mass of its equivalent IC vehicle. Laws dictate that even at 100% efficiency and all other things being equal, that twice the energy consumption, disregarding all the energy losses in producing the driving energy source, Electricity or hydrocarbon.

 

[CatmanV2]

EV are on average twice the mass of its equivalent IC vehicle.

That's a little bit much innit? I thought it was more like 30-40%?

C

 

[montravia]

Cf my daughter's Tesla, my wife's BMW SUV

 

[midlifecrisis]

This is where it all gets very messy, there are a number of ways of defining "green"

• An EV does not add CO2 to the air at point of use but components, especially batteries, do in production
• A car running on biofuel does not add any new CO2 to the air at point of use and probably uses less in production especially if using current farm grown waste
• Running an older car on current fuel does add new CO2 to the air at point of use but does not have CO2 production impact other than from fuel production
• Off setting produces the same amount of CO2 at point of use but offsets this be planting an equivalent number of trees etc. to offset this CO2 and balance the books

Additionally it is easier to reduce CO2 release into the air in large scale producers i.e. large industrial plants, large ships etc as it is more cost effective to develop efficient methods of capture than it is to try to capture at smaller point of use producers e.g. Motor Vehicles.

If you want clean air in cities & towns EV is the winner, if you want to reduce CO2 in the air then "true" offsetting might be the answer but only if you can plant enough to capture more CO2 than you create. If you truly want a cleaner planet you need to reduce CO2 being released to the air and plant more trees to convert what is already there to lock it out of use.

Note: CO2 isn't the only pollutant but the same logic applies in one form or another

How many front lawns and bushes have been paved over to all parking by the house so you can charge up your EV SUV? Water run off into the street has a knock effect too.

Yes I'm looking at you number 34...(up my road)

 

[Ewan]

A friend of mine has just landed a new job, greenwashing for a bank. I'll be interest to hear his spin on EVs in due course.

 

[Zep]

An EV isn’t twice the mass of a ICE equivalent. The batteries are heavy and the motors are light.

Even if it was, the energy conversion efficiency of an ICE engine is at best 35-40%.
Then add the energy consumed to drill for, refine and transport the petrol.

Over the lifetime of the vehicle, the energy and carbon efficiency of EVs is better than an ICE, because ICE is both woefully and wonderfully inefficient.

Bio or E-fuels still have a carbon footprint for the production and transportation, even if they are neutral at the point of use (until that supply chain is also carbon neutral).

Running a car on old fuel ands carbon in drilling, refining and transporting that fuel, as well as the tailpipe carbon.

This is fiendishly complicated, but in the end, if people who don’t care what makes their cars go have the most efficient (EV) method, maybe we can keep ours for high days and holidays.

 

[philw696]

I reckon the carbon footprint of my 27 year old Jaguar XJ6 is long gone plus it's just passed it's Spanish IVA test and emissions with no problems at 237,000 kilometres now on 239,000.

 

[DLax69]

 

[Ewan]

I started this thread 3 years ago, and now my Audi E-Tron 55 Quattro is about to go back. So here's a quick end-of-term update. (This update is purely about fuel costs. Maybe I'll do another looking at the servicing/repair side of the running costs equation. And maybe another about the big issue - depreciation!)

Over these 3 years, it has covered 34,000 miles, at an average of about 2.5 miles per KWH.
With night-time charging with my Intelligent Octopus Go tariff, I'm currently paying about 8p per KWH. Giving a fuel cost of roughly 3p per mile, or £3 for 100 miles.
(My electricity was only 5p per KWH until the energy crisis, so it may have actually cost a bit less. But it's close enough.)

The new replacement, a Q4 E-Tron Black Edition, arrives on the 22nd Dec.
Looking at the stats for this car, we should average closer to 4 miles per KWH. Giving a fuel cost of around 2p per mile, or £2 for 100 miles.

As a silly comparison, if I do 100 miles in the Aston or Ferrari or Westfield, it costs about £65. Not good.
Slightly better, in either of the Maserati's or the 911, it's about £35-£40.
Better again, in the Rangie (which is a mild-hybrid), it's about £20.
Obviously a more sensible and economic modern diesel would be better again, maybe in the region of £10 to £15 for 100 miles.

So while the EV doubters will harp on about EV fuel costs now getting towards that of ICE vehicles, that's not my personal real-World experience. But of course, not everyone has the ability to only charge at home, or only at night. So not everyone will experience the same as me. But at £2 per 100 miles, not the (approximately) £30 of my other vaguely sensible car options, you can see why it's the EV Audi that takes the majority of the driving workload in my house.

Hopefully this is useful info for anyone thinking about adding an EV to their stable. (Though of course, there's more to think about than just fuel costs.)

 

[Church of Noise]

4 miles per kWh is impressive for the new car, curious what your real life numbers will be.

(for ref: my EQE is at around 22 kWh per 100 km so 2.8 miles per kWh since June, albeit that a lot of the distance covered is on motorways, which drives things up considerably. During spring/autumn and non-motorway trips, we got at or below the WLTP value of 17 kWh per 100 km, which is ~3.7 miles per kWh...)

 

[mjheathcote]

For sure if range isn't an issue, and charging at home is possible, the fuel cost is a significant saving.
The Mrs audi a3 hybrid is the choice for all our local running around in full ev mode, at 7,5p overnight charging with Octopus Intelligent.
Now, let's hear about the 3 year maintenance and depreciation costs...

 

[doodlebug]

4 miles per kWh is impressive for the new car, curious what your real life numbers will be.

(for ref: my EQE is at around 22 kWh per 100 km so 2.8 miles per kWh since June, albeit that a lot of the distance covered is on motorways, which drives things up considerably. During spring/autumn and non-motorway trips, we got at or below the WLTP value of 17 kWh per 100 km, which is ~3.7 miles per kWh...)

4m/kWh is very good for such a big car.

I've averaged 3.5m/kWh in my AWD Kia EV6 in the 2 years I've had it. It does a mix of mostly motorway, with some A-road and urban. Unfortunately I don't have a cheap night-time tariff but it is still a bit cheaper to run than the Maserati.

 

[Ewan]

4m/kWh is very good for such a big car.

I've averaged 3.5m/kWh in my AWD Kia EV6 in the 2 years I've had it. It does a mix of mostly motorway, with some A-road and urban. Unfortunately I don't have a cheap night-time tariff but it is still a bit cheaper to run than the Maserati.

Motorway driving is not so good for EVs. For example, you get better m/kWh at 30mph than 70mph. As we use ours mainly for local running about, it helps with the efficiency.

It may transpire that the 4m/kWh average I'm expecting/hoping for with the new car is optomistic. Time will tell. But even at 3m/kWh, it's a tenth of the price of my other options.

 

[Ewan]

Just had a look at the other running costs. The total bill for all servicing, repairs and tyres over 3 years and 34k miles has come to £1200. Tax has been zero. So I’m pleased with that.

Probably not fair to compare the Audi with my other cars, but just for fun, over the last three years:

I‘ve had the Aston less than a year, and although I’ve not added it up, repair/restoration costs so far are somewhere around the £50k mark. Mileage - a few hundred.
The Ferrari’s not had too much done, as I completed the big jobs about 5 years ago. I’d say maybe £10k on servicing and repairs over the last 3 years. Mileage - towards 2k.
The 911 I’ve had for exactly a year. That’s had £2.5 in repairs and is due a service in Feb. Mileage - 2k.
The QP I’ve had for almost 2 years. £5k on repairs and servicing. Mileage - 2k.
The Spider is new to me, so nothing so far. Mileage - 100.
I took the Landie to Spain a year ago, so largely that’s out of sight, out of mind. But it had about £6k spent on it the two years before that. Mileage - 250 (it was trailered to Spain).
The Westfield has had a few upgrades, so I’ve spent £4k on that. Mileage - 1k.
Obviously the Rangie continues to be faultless. Has a service every year at an average of about £700, plus has had another set of tyres. Let’s say £3k. Mileage - 25k.

So it’ll come as a surprise to absolutely no one that the car without an engine has had the lowest servicing/repair costs. Being brand new when I got it, and therefore under warranty, would also help (not that anything broke or needed repair under warranty). Added to which, the other cars I have here at home for occasional use are hardly of the economical/practical/daily type.

What it shows though is that if you add up the costs for fuel, servicing, repairs, tax (basically everything other than depreciation), the Audi E-Tron has cost about £750 per year, for just over 11k miles per year. With fuel accounting for less than half that! Crazy.

Next issue to tackle is the big one. DEPRECIATION.

 

[Oneball]

What about insurance is it any different to say a Q5?

 

[Ewan]

What about insurance is it any different to say a Q5?

For my wife and I the E-Tron was £306 a year with Churchill.
I’d guess that like-for-like, ICE for EV, insurance would be similar.
Maybe a bit more for ICE, as easier to break/sell as parts.