I agree with you, but be honest from start that it's a vested interest article. I suppose it's hard to do if that's not mandatory for both sides though
I think it should be part of the remit of ZEVI to put out articles that match the experience of most EV drivers to counter the clickbait stories. The newspaper only cares that they are getting paid, whether that's by generating clicks for adverts or direct placements. It's been a long time since journalism was about educating and informing people.
It's daft how ever it happens.
I'm not sure some people here read past the headline, or read the article. Because it doesn't really say what they think it does, and their comments reflect that disconnect.
Headlines are often not written by the person who writes the article. Often the editor totally changes the title to make it more appealing or click bait.
With online articles journalists are measured on their performance by number of reads, higher number of reads means you are better, even if article is rubbish.
Tricky to spot?
The link has "sponsored" in it.
Reads like an advertisement straight away and then you see the mention of zero emissions vehicles Ireland crowd at the bottom, just to confirm it is a paid ad and not actually journalism.
Most newspaper articles now are actually paid advertisements dressed up as a story and can be tricky to spot.
a bit desperate I think, and definitely counterproductive.
Papers want to sell papers.
"...Surge in borrowing to buy electric cars, while green loans for home improvements also up..."
The headline doesn't seem to align with the article it headlines.
"...The stand-out rise was loans for cars, up by almost 40pc to €189m when compared with a year before.
The number of car loans rose by almost 26pc to 14,994 in the period, with one in five of those for electric vehicles...."
Seems like 75% of loans are for ICE cars, no?
Have anybody seen the first page of today's Independent?
Headline article: Switch to electric vehicles helps fuel surge in car loans
The content:
The number of car loans rose by almost 26pc to 14,994 in the period, with one in five of those for electric vehicles
...
This was due, in part, to the continued growth in new car sales, especially electric cars.
This is likely to reflect higher car prices and growth in luxury and e-vehicles,.....
Must have been a very slow day for them. I wonder what's the objective as the whole thing is full of obvious stuff. Like water is wet increase in sale => increase in loans. EVs have 1/5 market share in 2023, loans for EVs are 1 in 5. Prices have increased since 2020. I see no reason single out EVs. Who benefits?
Maybe I should get a Mazda diesel, or a ford eco boost, or one of those Porsches with the ims.... there's a very long list of fossil cars with catastrophic failures and report back....
Ya know what I have to replace the **** cheap run around car at home, I'll get a leaf and report back.
All Mr Beans fault apparently, https://news.sky.com/story/mr-bean-actor-rowan-atkinson-blamed-for-slow-electric-car-sales-13065947
I think you're conflating a few things, people aren't generally given a hard sell, it's common for posters to start a thread along the lines of I'm looking to buy a new car and am considering an EV, my use case is X and budget is around Y.
Thanks to crazy media stories and often experienced EV drivers who formed their opinion of public charging in 2017 who don't use the charging networks at all, you'll hear how any travel beyond the range of your car is basically impossible unless you have access to Tesla's Supercharger network.
There's a lot of value in used cars with between 200km and 300km of range that are currently on sale for around 20-25k. They'll cover 99% of a person's use case, there's a bit of education needed on how spending a high c/kWh at an Ionity a few times a year is much better than spending an extra 10k up front on a car with a bigger battery. That's where I'd like to see press stories, but I guess showing people how it can work doesn't get as many clicks as manufacturing outrage.
For people who are often doing longer trips at weekends directing them towards PHEVs is better than suggesting petrol/diesel/hybrids. We can get the benefit of them not polluting our towns and cities during daily usage and they can avoid regular mid journey charging on their long trips.
I think it's wise to save the fossil burners for people who truly can't switch to any form of primarily electric propulsion. People who can't charge at home who need to make regular longer journeys. They either need to buy a big battery so they don't have to charge often, or a hybrid because keeping a PHEV charged is too much hassle.
The Telegraph and Spectator are probably making themselves more attractive to Abu Dhabi! https://news.sky.com/story/redbird-imi-proposes-new-structure-to-ease-telegraph-ownership-fears-13055432
From the bbc
“Electric cars: Lords urge action on 'misinformation' in press”
maybe ZEVI could come out with a few comments here, they’ve been extremely quiet for the last few months…
In that case that person doesn't have a commute (daily use) of only 50km. They have daily use of 100-120km. So personally I wouldn't buy a EV that can only do 60-80% if my daily use.
There is a huge disconnect in the general discussion between what some need as their daily driver e.g. the school drop off, with a short commute of 10km to work, only ever charging at home, and those who need an EV to do the long cross country hauls without too much delay using DC charging on the road.
I had to do a Mayo to Bray return journey (approx. 500km total) for a 2 hour in person meeting last week (no handy AC charging at the destination), where a 20 minute DC charge in Kinnegad got me back to Mayo with 40% left. That was a long day with almost 7 hours behind the wheel in total, with one charging stop and as much I think as anyone might reasonably do in one day without being a danger to themselves and others behind the wheel because of tiredness.
For those who really only ever do the school run, a short commute or a trip of up to 50km and back to their preferred shopping location and back, buying a new EV capable of 400km+ in the winter is really a waste of their hard earned cash and they shouldn't be getting the "hard sell" from the EV owning community. They should go with a car better suited to their needs in the near term and perhaps that will be a petrol / diesel / hybrid rather than an EV to allow a trip "down the country" a few times a year, if that criteria is really important in the buying decision.
To be clear though, longer range EV's are already here and are very capable of replacing diesels in Ireland, albeit at the newer end of the market, where it will take some time for these cars to work their way towards second hand buyers if longer range is important in the buying decision. I think that realisation is dawning in the media, irrespective of the negativity at times and to be honest, the more discussion there is, the better, as it will normalise the conversation around mainstream EV adoption.
Tell the public the positives and the negatives about EV ownership and let them make informed decisions.
Agree with all of that. I was referring earlier to comments that even a degraded Leaf would suit anyone with a commute of 50km or so or someone who only did 20k km per year as that averages out at only just over 50km per day. While it might if that person didn't have anywhere else to go but work but in reality plenty people would expect their car to have a bit of flexibility to undertake unplanned journeys and cover longer journeys in relative comfort. In short its the absolute nature of some of the discourse that can be off-putting at times
It was your analogy. You picked the product.
There are 10yr old EVs like Tesla that are still going fine.
10 yr old diesel will not have the emissions of a new one. Probably be banned soon in many cities. So no it's not a useful vehicle in 2024.
Tesla aren't a car company they are a technology company. The similiarties between Tesla and Apple can't be ignored. Its only naturally though that something we use so much of all day comes under tech now.
The value of your electric vehicle will not hold in the used market atleast until the technology has peaked and by then we'll be onto something else like hydrogen or whatever.
That is is very bad example and you make it seems to say EVs aren't build to last.
I have an open mindset and genuinely think EVs are perfect for cities and urban areas.
But if you're trying to say they will be able to replace ICEs (not in urban driving) I think your delusional.
No matter the technological advancements an EV will never to be able to compete with a 3.0L 6 Cylinder diesel in terms of power, affordability, practicality durability and range
But who wants a 10 year old iPhone? I can buy a 10 year old diesel now and it'll do exactly the same thing as a brand new one, a few more modern in cabin features but thats it really. The core of the product will be the same. A 10 year old EV will be outdated in charging, battery capacity, range, like all lithium the battery will have degraded and cost the price of the vehicle to replace.
You could buy a 10yr old iPhone and use it for limited things. MP3 player 2/3G phone calls.
Which phone do you use that has non lithium battery?
An early leaf is extremely limited in use case it's irrelevant to an discussion on EVs in 2024. Even as an example. The tech has moved on.
I would want to be able to all daily driving on one charge. So that one overnight charge is enough.
If I was doing longer trips on a regular basis, like down the country at the weekend. I would want to be able to do that on one charge. Perhaps I'd consider one quick fast charge on route. If it was my habit to stop for a break in an non EV.
One of the examples given was 7 hrs none stop perhaps twice in the same day. Diesel is the only choice for that. For me.
No every EV on the market does not have sufficient range for my needs, unless you're saying that I should buy a new one. This is the kind of statement I find irrating at times. I've suffered the pita of a low range EV and when I'm replacing it will be a 400km+ range car. I'm sure I'm not the only person with this criterion. I'm also sure there are many who would be more than happy with a lower range car. Personal choice is good.
My thing about EV's is we have crossed into iPhone territory. You buy an EV today it feels like its obsolete in 12 months, the new model will have a bigger battery and faster charging. I expect Apple and Samsung to start making cars next, a car is just a piece of tech now, no longer an example of precision mechanical engineering.
Would you buy a 10 year old iPhone? So I don't see the 2nd hand EV market holding much value, past a few years.
This is all before you even get into the ecosystem damage that mining for lithium to make massive batteries is creating
I said nothing about a short range EV. Every EV on the market has comfortably enough range for your use case. An older degraded Leaf is pretty much the only EV in existence that would struggle. I wasn't talking about ancient Nissan Leafs, I was talking about people who say 400km isn't enough range because they need to drive from Donegal to Cork without stopping every other day and this kind of nonsense. Yes, there are some people who genuinely drive that much without stopping (and I don't envy them or their bladder), but for the vast majority of people, including the usage you described, almost every EV that is on sale today has enough range to comfortably cover them for 99% of their journeys.
That's my position also but unlike others I'm not going to berate others who think a much lower range EV suits them. I'm contemplating holding onto my old Leaf as a local run around for kids to learn to drive in but don't consider it a functional car for my needs even as a 2nd car.
And that I why I dislike our government, why cant they promote usage of the correct vehicle for the job rather than the bullshit they come out with and we'll all be happy
I would have to stop between A and B at present to charge though
