morons vandalise EVs

[C_T_Russell]

And they call themselves climate activists?
What do they expect you to drive?
They will go after horse and cart because of methane next.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-67893216

[harm_less]

And they call themselves climate activists?
What do they expect you to drive?
They will go after horse and cart because of methane next.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-67893216

The whole ICEV vs. EV issue has become very inflammatory with incredible ignorance and conspiracy theorism from both sides, but particularly from the pro fossil fuel side. Like any contemporary issue the blinkered approach and short attention spans makes rational discussion very difficult as parties with vested interests flood social media with misinformation.

[C_T_Russell]

I hear people saying that EVs are bad for the environment because of lithium mining and then they go on to say that it uses child labour.
They are getting mixed up with cobalt which most newer batteries have now moved away from.
Lithium out of salt lakes doesn't seem too damaging to the environment either when you see how they evaporate the brine in the ponds.

[harm_less]

I hear people saying that EVs are bad for the environment because of lithium mining and then they go on to say that it uses child labour.
They are getting mixed up with cobalt which most newer batteries have now moved away from.
Lithium out of salt lakes doesn't seem too damaging to the environment either when you see how they evaporate the brine in the ponds.

The anti EV brigade just keep rolling out the same old FUD. The problem for them is that their negative claims are increasingly being debunked so the move onto the next clickbait garbage. Now that EV ownership is moving into early mainstream uptake beyond early adopters the amount of owners with real positive ownership experiences is reaching some sort of critical mass so the luddite anti EVers are meeting ever greater resistance.

[Mike Oxlong]

They are attention seakers and they were lonely before they met the other attention seakers. They are for or against anything that gets them in the media. Best to ignore them.

[Praktica]

They are attention seakers and they were lonely before they met the other attention seakers. They are for or against anything that gets them in the media. Best to ignore them.

Like Peters and Seymour?

[Wainuiguy]

EVs aren't the panacea that many believe. They still contain significant amounts of oil within them. They require significant amounts of mining and manufacturing all which still uses oil. In the large majority of countries they will be charged using oil, gas or coal (we are lucky in this regard that so much of our power comes from renewable sources).

Hydrogen isn't the answer either until they can find a way to create Hydrogen in a mass way without using large amounts of electricity (more energy than can be released by the hydrogen). Storage of Hydrogen is a major issue - you think LPG is dangerous? The only good thing is that unlike LPG which is heavier than air Hydrogen is lighter so should dissipate quickly of there was a leak.

EVs have their place. As round town and short trip cars they are perfect. Long distance their benefits begin to diminish.

Just watched a video where they took 2 cars '- both BMW 7 series- 1 ICE (petrol) and 1 EV and drove from Melbourne to Sydney. The ICE car made the entire trip on 1 tank. The EV required 2 stops and around 2 hours of charging. The cost? The ICE cheaper by $17.

[harm_less]

EVs aren't the panacea that many believe.  They still contain significant amounts of oil within them.  They require significant amounts of mining and manufacturing all which still uses oil.  In the large majority of countries they will be charged using oil, gas or coal (we are lucky in this regard that so much of our power comes from renewable sources).

Hydrogen isn't the answer either until they can find a way to create Hydrogen in a mass way without using large amounts of electricity (more energy than can be released by the hydrogen).  Storage of Hydrogen is a major issue - you think LPG is dangerous?  The only good thing is that unlike LPG which is heavier than air Hydrogen is lighter so should dissipate quickly of there was a leak.

EVs have their place.  As round town and short trip cars they are perfect.  Long distance their benefits begin to diminish.

Just watched a video where they took 2 cars '- both BMW 7 series- 1 ICE (petrol) and 1 EV and drove from Melbourne to Sydney.  The ICE car made the entire trip on 1 tank.  The EV required 2 stops and around 2 hours of charging.  The cost?  The ICE cheaper  by $17.

So it appears you've been sucking up the EV FUD that is so prevalent currently. And I'm guessing you're still relying on fossil fuel for your vehicle's energy.

Yes EVs require minerals and hydrocarbons in their manufacture but unlike ICEVs they continue consuming mineral resources during their everyday use. The minerals contained in an EV remain as a recyclable resource unlike the fuel burnt by ICEs that is only ever going to be a single use product, with the emissions ending up in our atmosphere. In New Zealand the source of the electricity used to recharge EVs comes from a grid that is made up of >80% renewables so our country is a perfect use case for EVs as the distances we travel are comparatively small (i.e. within EV battery range) and carbon neutrality for EVs is reached in less than 20,000km. Long distance ourneys are exactly where EVs shine as their running costs are less than for ICEVs and the more they are used the greater the positive benefit of their lower emissions.

So far as your Australian example is concerned Melbourne to Sydney is a 9 hour/900km journey. Firstly this is a brave call for the BMW 7 series with a 74L fuel tank and claimed 7.9L/100km fuel consumption. Also did the BMW driver require a picnic hamper and piss bottles to be able to drive that distance without having to also stop? Not enough detail in your story to support the calculations involved in the $17 but even when RUCs are introduced in April our Polestar2 will still be less expensive to 'fuel' than the fuel costs of an equivalent ICEV even with the more expensive electricity costs of public charging, and Australia don't charge EVs any RUCs.

If you're going to start regurgitating EV criticisms you might want to find reliable sources than you have here or you will be shot down.

[Wainuiguy]

EVs aren't the panacea that many believe.  They still contain significant amounts of oil within them.  They require significant amounts of mining and manufacturing all which still uses oil.  In the large majority of countries they will be charged using oil, gas or coal (we are lucky in this regard that so much of our power comes from renewable sources).

Hydrogen isn't the answer either until they can find a way to create Hydrogen in a mass way without using large amounts of electricity (more energy than can be released by the hydrogen).  Storage of Hydrogen is a major issue - you think LPG is dangerous?  The only good thing is that unlike LPG which is heavier than air Hydrogen is lighter so should dissipate quickly of there was a leak.

EVs have their place.  As round town and short trip cars they are perfect.  Long distance their benefits begin to diminish.

Just watched a video where they took 2 cars '- both BMW 7 series- 1 ICE (petrol) and 1 EV and drove from Melbourne to Sydney.  The ICE car made the entire trip on 1 tank.  The EV required 2 stops and around 2 hours of charging.  The cost?  The ICE cheaper  by $17.

So it appears you've been sucking up the EV FUD that is so prevalent currently. And I'm guessing you're still relying on fossil fuel for your vehicle's energy.

Yes EVs require minerals and hydrocarbons in their manufacture but unlike ICEVs they continue consuming mineral resources during their everyday use. The minerals contained in an EV remain as a recyclable resource unlike the fuel burnt by ICEs that is only ever going to be a single use product, with the emissions ending up in our atmosphere. In New Zealand the source of the electricity used to recharge EVs comes from a grid that is made up of >80% renewables so our country is a perfect use case for EVs as the distances we travel are comparatively small (i.e. within EV battery range) and carbon neutrality for EVs is reached in less than 20,000km. Long distance ourneys are exactly where EVs shine as their running costs are less than for ICEVs and the more they are used the greater the positive benefit of their lower emissions.

So far as your Australian example is concerned Melbourne to Sydney is a 9 hour/900km journey. Firstly this is a brave call for the BMW 7 series with a 74L fuel tank and claimed 7.9L/100km fuel consumption. Also did the BMW driver require a picnic hamper and piss bottles to be able to drive that distance without having to also stop? Not enough detail in your story to support the calculations involved in the $17 but even when RUCs are introduced in April our Polestar2 will still be less expensive to 'fuel' than the fuel costs of an equivalent ICEV even with the more expensive electricity costs of public charging, and Australia don't charge EVs any RUCs.

If you're going to start regurgitating EV criticisms you might want to find reliable sources than you have here or you will be shot down.

Did you read what I posted?  I commented that NZ is lucky re renewable- however most other countries- especially those with larger EV fleets rely predominately on gas, oil and coal for electrical generation. 

Don't believe me on the test - watch it yourself 

https://youtu.be/Ggn1zQMMZMI?si=sMFL6XPgV-lAEdwz

And I didn't say the ICE driver didn't stop - he stopped along with the EV driver. But the cost was still cheaper using the ICE car for this example.  Sure if you only charge at home it will be cheaper than public networks but for a  long trip?  You have to use the public network.

Polstar2s are nice cars - and just watched a review on the 2024 where he drove Auckland to Wellington with a single stop in Levin.  But it's a $94k car.  A similar size would be say a Mazda CX 5.  Top of the line is about $66k.  $28000 buys an awful lot of gas.

[harm_less]

So it appears you've been sucking up the EV FUD that is so prevalent currently. And I'm guessing you're still relying on fossil fuel for your vehicle's energy.

Yes EVs require minerals and hydrocarbons in their manufacture but unlike ICEVs they continue consuming mineral resources during their everyday use. The minerals contained in an EV remain as a recyclable resource unlike the fuel burnt by ICEs that is only ever going to be a single use product, with the emissions ending up in our atmosphere. In New Zealand the source of the electricity used to recharge EVs comes from a grid that is made up of >80% renewables so our country is a perfect use case for EVs as the distances we travel are comparatively small (i.e. within EV battery range) and carbon neutrality for EVs is reached in less than 20,000km. Long distance ourneys are exactly where EVs shine as their running costs are less than for ICEVs and the more they are used the greater the positive benefit of their lower emissions.

So far as your Australian example is concerned Melbourne to Sydney is a 9 hour/900km journey. Firstly this is a brave call for the BMW 7 series with a 74L fuel tank and claimed 7.9L/100km fuel consumption. Also did the BMW driver require a picnic hamper and piss bottles to be able to drive that distance without having to also stop? Not enough detail in your story to support the calculations involved in the $17 but even when RUCs are introduced in April our Polestar2 will still be less expensive to 'fuel' than the fuel costs of an equivalent ICEV even with the more expensive electricity costs of public charging, and Australia don't charge EVs any RUCs.

If you're going to start regurgitating EV criticisms you might want to find reliable sources than you have here or you will be shot down.

Did you read what I posted?  I commented that NZ is lucky re renewable- however most other countries- especially those with larger EV fleets rely predominately on gas, oil and coal for electrical generation. 

Don't believe me on the test - watch it yourself 

https://youtu.be/Ggn1zQMMZMI?si=sMFL6XPgV-lAEdwz

And I didn't say the ICE driver didn't stop - he stopped along with the EV driver. But the cost was still cheaper using the ICE car for this example.  Sure if you only charge at home it will be cheaper than public networks but for a  long trip?  You have to use the public network.

Polstar2s are nice cars - and just watched a review on the 2024 where he drove Auckland to Wellington with a single stop in Levin.  But it's a $94k car.  A similar size would be say a Mazda CX 5.  Top of the line is about $66k.  $28000 buys an awful lot of gas.

A few rookie errors in that review. Firstly the BMW7i is capable of a 150kW charge rate at public charging facilities that are capable of that supply. The rate of charge beyond 80% of the battery's capacity slows dramatically in all EVs so charging to 100% is best avoided because you occupy the charger for far longer than is optimum, it is potentially damaging to the battery chemistry to charge to 100% (as is depleting it to below 10%) and of course it means you will spend longer waiting for your vehicle to charge. It is more usual to part charge between 20% & 80% as charging is available to avoid the above issues and save time overall. Also some chargers will impose a time charge if the charging rate is too low to discourage unnecessary occupying of their facilities though this doesn't seem to have been the case here.

The BMW 7i  is a fairly high consumption EV at ~22kWh/100km but as it was put side by side with an equivalent BWW ICE model that's understandable. On that subject our Polestar2 (MY2022) consumes ~18kWh/100km.

The inexperience of the driver in respect to EVs is also made clear when he is commenting about the energy consumption of the likes of windscreen wipers. Pretty much anything on the 12V circuitry of an EV is infinitesimally low in regard to its effect on the high voltage main battery. This inexperience also raises the question of how well he minimised his electricity usage. One pedal driving engaged? (Where the car can be driven with just the throttle pedal which inititates regenerative braking on lifting the throttle). Also the guy driving the ICEV was treating the journey as an economy trial whereas the EV driver just didn't have the skills to do so.

I also note that the public charging rates were stated (65c x2, and 69c/kWh) whereas the only petrol price provided was if you noted that displayed on the pump ($2.09.9/L). Public charging rates are at similar prices to NZ but the petrol price is considerably cheaper. 

So far as where you charge is concerned we tend towards plugging in at our host's when visiting out of province. Domestic power plans are usually <1/3 of public charging rates and we shout our hosts out to a meal during our stay so a win-win situation as still cheaper than using public charging for us. I expect this practice to become increasingly common as EVs become more mainstream and owners install wall chargers for their own EV's use. At that stage an offer to 'plug in' will become as common as serving visitors a coffee or a beer is now.

[Wainuiguy]

I think you will find that the charging to 100% was done as you don't tend to fill a gas tank to 80%. And sure if the EV driver was driving to maximize range then he could have gone slower but again it was done to try and get as equal a comparison as possible. They never said it would be a scientific test. It is however an interesting one.

And for for some reason you thing I am against EVs. I'm not. Likely the next car we buy will be an EV. The only EV availabl in our price when we bought our current car in 2017 was a Leaf (blerk).

[harm_less]

I think you will find that the charging to 100% was done as you don't tend to fill a gas tank to 80%.  And sure if the EV driver was driving to maximize range then he could have gone slower but again it was done to try and get as equal a comparison as possible.  They never said it would be a scientific test.  It is however an interesting one.

And for for some reason you thing I am against EVs.  I'm not.  Likely the next car we buy will be an EV.  The only EV availabl in our price when we bought our current car in 2017 was a Leaf (blerk).

Filling to 100% is a common approach in trying to maximise the range of either vehicle but in reality it is mistaken logic. In the EV for the reasons I stated earlier but also in the case of an ICEV as it will result in increased wastage through evaporation, especially in warmer conditions as the petrol expands and rises through the overflow.

Higher highway speeds are a negative in both vehicles as wind resistance will increase energy/fuel consumption exponentially.

I've calculated similar comparisons over longer journeys for the Polestar using home charging vs. public charging (e.g. 17c/kWh vs 85c/kWh) so essentially 5x the expense and at public charging rates the addition of RUCs will bring the Polestar's running cost/km up to similar to an equivalent petrol vehicle. My experiences correlate pretty well with the results gained in the video, with a few local variations in fuel costs and driving skills.

I would think that your expectation of your next vehicle being an EV would be pretty much the case for most NZers as the move towards EV adoption is well under way and will only accelerate from here on in. Within the next decade or so EVs will become the norm and ICEVs will be increasingly regarded as redundant technology and too expensive compared to those of owning an EV. If you're in the market for an EV currently there are some reasonably priced Hyundai Ioniq 5s to be had 2ndhand. Not all the bells and whistles of the latest EVs but good electricity economy and their battery health tends to hold up pretty well.

[Praktica]

The future is not in personal transport - unless you pedal it yourself - but in public transport and bicycles. I don't think most people understand what is coming down the pike...think simple, frugal living.

[harm_less]

The future is not in personal transport - unless you pedal it yourself - but in public transport and bicycles. I don't think most people understand what is coming down the pike...think simple, frugal living.

True to some extent but more likely personal ownership of transport is not a sustainable situation in most cases. Consider that the average vehicle spends 90+% of the time parked it really doesn't make sense to own something that you only utilise <10% 0f the time, and when not in use they cost to garage, park or store. Doesn't it make a lot more sense to hail a vehicle as required and then relinquish it when you're done? For urban dwellers an Uber or vehicle share scenario does just that, and once autonomous vehicles develop to an acceptable level of safety and reliability they can come and go of their volition without the expense of a driver to worry about. Even better an autonomous EV can shuffle off to a nearby induction charging space to ensure they're charged for their next journey.

Sure this scenario won't work for rural environments due to the sparse populations in such areas but for city dwellers this sounds like the solution to bespoke travel that isn't catered for or suited to public transport services, mobility for those with personal mobility issues and of course those with properties that lack vehicle parking.

More on the subject here:

[joe 90]

EVs aren't the panacea that many believe.  They still contain significant amounts of oil within them.  They require significant amounts of mining and manufacturing all which still uses oil.  In the large majority of countries they will be charged using oil, gas or coal (we are lucky in this regard that so much of our power comes from renewable sources).

Hydrogen isn't the answer either until they can find a way to create Hydrogen in a mass way without using large amounts of electricity (more energy than can be released by the hydrogen).  Storage of Hydrogen is a major issue - you think LPG is dangerous?  The only good thing is that unlike LPG which is heavier than air Hydrogen is lighter so should dissipate quickly of there was a leak.

EVs have their place.  As round town and short trip cars they are perfect.  Long distance their benefits begin to diminish.

Just watched a video where they took 2 cars '- both BMW 7 series- 1 ICE (petrol) and 1 EV and drove from Melbourne to Sydney.  The ICE car made the entire trip on 1 tank.  The EV required 2 stops and around 2 hours of charging.  The cost?  The ICE cheaper  by $17.

Ford  have just  annouced the  V8  Mustang is   staying in production  for the near  future    as    demand is  still  up  .   GM &  Chysler  downsizing     weell see  who  sells the most   .-----  Evs are fine   for their  origonal intention  Ie  as  commuter   vehicles  traveling  short  distances   daily   as that is  where the most   fossil  fuel  is used   including     trucks in USA  .  But  now the    urbanites  want  EV   remuera  tractors  thatl    do  1000Kms   without  recharging  to   use   as shopping baskets   &  school run  .

[harm_less]

Evs are fine   for their  origonal intention  Ie  as  commuter   vehicles  traveling  short  distances   daily   as that is  where the most   fossil  fuel  is used 

The horse and cart owners probably made similar comments a century or so back because those new fangled fossil fuel powered vehicles weren't able to graze on the roadside like horses could but instead had to carry cans of motor spirit with them. The more things change the more they remain the same eh?

[joe 90]

Evs are fine   for their  origonal intention  Ie  as  commuter   vehicles  traveling  short  distances   daily   as that is  where the most   fossil  fuel  is used 

The horse and cart owners probably made similar comments a century or so back because those new fangled fossil fuel powered vehicles weren't able to graze on the roadside like horses could but instead had to carry cans of motor spirit with them. The more things change the more they remain the same eh?

Along term study in US also found that WOMEN use the most fosil  fuels   & that includes the  trucking industry   .      So it    women & their remuera tractors causing all these  emissions    ,    exactly     suited for EVs  

[harm_less]

The horse and cart owners probably made similar comments a century or so back because those new fangled fossil fuel powered vehicles weren't able to graze on the roadside like horses could but instead had to carry cans of motor spirit with them. The more things change the more they remain the same eh?

Along term study in US also found that WOMEN use the most fosil  fuels   & that includes the  trucking industry   .      So it    women & their remuera tractors causing all these  emissions    ,    exactly     suited for EVs  

Sexist, chronic misspelling and writing skills, EV falacies. How about we ignore your post until you can come up with something something cogent?