electric vehicles

SeanW wrote: »

They take longer to refill than a petrol/diesel

This is only true when making a drive which is longer than the range of the battery. For most people, charging at home at night takes zero time.

The problem as I see it is that people are used to having one car do everything. People are buying cars for family cross-country trips they might do once or twice a year, rather than the solo daily commute. Here's an idea: get the electric car for the solo daily commute, and then rent a more suitable vehicle for the occasional long trip.

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Kia Nero EV Vs Hyundai Kona EV

Interesting competition, tough choice.

If I had the money

Niro everyday of the week. Much bigger car

I got a PHEV in the last few weeks - had thought about a full EV but the offerings out there in the price range were just non existent. The only one i really considered was the Tesla 3 - but it just didn't excite me.

I ended up getting a BWM 330e MSport Plus. So far i get a full charge in about 3 hours - getting between 42-48km pure EV on a full charge. Averaging about 110mpg over all - have about 2500km on the clock already.

90% of journeys fall under full EV range. and then you alway have the option of a 2l Turbo petrol engine and the joys of MSport Plus.

The VRT rebate and SEAI grant made it good value - and i'd say these grants on PHEVs could be in the firing line of any Green agenda in the next budget so might not be available for too long

Fred_ wrote: »

Yes. And that is why there are plans to ban ICE car sales in the next 10 - 30 years. We can't continue digging stuff out of the ground and burning it when there are much cleaner (but not perfect) alternatives being developed.

Firstly, it's the mainstream environmental movement that insists that we "continue digging stuff out of the ground and burning it when there are much cleaner alternatives". If you give the average Green the choice between burning gas for electricity and using nuclear energy (which does not involve burning fossil fuels) they'll choose the former in most cases.

Second, as of now, it's only Europe that wants to stop using ICEs. The rest of the world clearly understands that electric cars aren't for everyone

Wibbs wrote: »

That still doesn't deal with the consumerist elephant in the room though. So ICE cars are banned, but if people are still upgrading their EV's every four years we're still digging stuff outa the ground and burning it. It's not as locally obvious as exhaust gases, but the production of any car creates a shed load of CO2 before it ever turns a wheel.

Yes, but there are serious social benefits to this "Keeping up with the Jones" attitude. The actions of these idiots create a surplus of cars for the rest of us. Because ICEs have little inherent value, that is, they're made out of common metal, cheap plastic and various fibres, their value is determined solely by what one is willing to pay for it.

That means that if you're a cheapskate or a poor person, you can go to one of these eejits and be like: "Hey, you're ashamed to be seen in your 10 year old ICE car? I'll be happy to take it off your hands for 1/10th of what you paid for it"

The societal benefits of this are enormous. Poor people have the same access to mobility as the rich and/or foolish, because older cars are worthless on paper but still very useful. With electric cars, you're not going to be able to do that because the battery has an inherent value. So it won't depreciate to practically nothing like an ICE, unless the battery is worn out.

Another social benefit to allowing poor people to have worthless ICEs is that if you live somewhere like Finglas and have to park your car on the street, it's not worth stealing. It might still be vandalised for fun by the locals, but at least it's not likely to get stolen. And if it does, you've only lost 1000-2000 euro.