ULEZ (Ultra Low Emission Zone) vs. zero emissions

[Bletchleyite]

No, but my question was what is particulate level? How much is actually due to diesel engines? Filters now trap almost all particulate emissions on diesel engines so be interested to know, not arguing a point but am generally interested. I know we're drifting off topic, though.
The other issue is there are still a number of ICE vehicles travelling around London so but of a sweeping statement that the ULEZ has solved your asthma problem? If it has then Euro 6 diesels must be fine?

Euro 6 is certainly a big improvement, yes, I really notice the gobful of fumes from older diesels in other places. I'd definitely be in favour of a UK-wide ULEZ being introduced as soon as feasible. Euro 7 is coming soon.

However, zero emissions surely has to be better?

I was actually a bit of a ULEZ cynic until I experienced it. It's just so nice that the air in London is breatheable and isn't full of diesel fumes, and is so noticeable that elsewhere it's so much worse. The dirty London of my youth has gone.

 

[Ted633]

Of course zero emissions is better from an air quality perspective. The main issue with implementing one would be the sheer amount of people it would inconvenience. We saw how much 'uproar' there was about the ULEZ, even though the percentage of affected vehicles was low (something like 10%(?), which is even lower now). If a ZEZ was introduced now, what percentage of current vehicles would be affected? It would certainly be a majority, maybe even 75%.
A ZEZ will happen, but only when the proportion of zero emission vehicles reaches a certain point.

 

[Richard Scott]

Euro 6 is certainly a big improvement, yes, I really notice the gobful of fumes from older diesels in other places. I'd definitely be in favour of a UK-wide ULEZ being introduced as soon as feasible. Euro 7 is coming soon.

However, zero emissions surely has to be better?

I was actually a bit of a ULEZ cynic until I experienced it. It's just so nice that the air in London is breatheable and isn't full of diesel fumes, and is so noticeable that elsewhere it's so much worse. The dirty London of my youth has gone.

Zero emissions may well be better but is it better on a global scale? Where do the materials for batteries come from, are there ethical matters surrounding employment of those that mine said materials?
So we can sit there saying how virtuous we are with our EVs without any concern about above issues.
You may have guessed I'm not convinced by EVs, they have only been developed over past few years and too may questions surrounding ownership.
Where do I charge it, how long does that take? If I can't get a charger as all are in use I may have to wait ages, not an issue at a petrol station. If I'm really honest I just don't want one, I like having an ICE engine, I enjoy driving a car with one.
My car is ULEZ compliant, I drive comparatively few miles a year, I do try and use public transport when convenient but the wonderful government is telling me it's not good enough and try to force me into something I don't want.

 

[Tetchytyke]

don't have time to wait for an EV to charge on the way to work.

No, but your car is then parked outside work all day. Charging infrastructure is developing all the time, to the extent that my employer’s car park now has charging points. The multi-storey in town does. The business park down the road does too, and those charging points are powered by solar.

Zero emissions may well be better but is it better on a global scale?

Even the best ICE power units are extremely inefficient, far worse than large oil or gas fired power stations. And not all electricity is generated from hydrocarbons- electricity is also generated from water, from solar, from wind. There’s a business park near here, on the famously sunny (!) Isle of Man, with solar panels on the roof that power the EV charging stations in the car park. Costs pence to charge your car and it charges whilst you’re in work.

So on a global scale, yes, electricity is better.

But it also doesn’t have to be on a global scale. Moving the emissions out of the city is much better for the inhabitants of the city who would otherwise be breathing all that muck in.

Where do the materials for batteries come from, are there ethical matters surrounding employment of those that mine said materials?

Whereas the largest oil producing countries have amazing employment rights?

If I'm really honest I just don't want one, I like having an ICE engine, I enjoy driving a car with one

That’s the real answer, isn’t it? I can understand that viewpoint but that doesn’t mean EVs aren’t the solution.

I don’t know if you’ve ever driven an EV but they’re actually pretty fun. Instant torque, even something like a Leaf accelerates like poo off a hot shovel, far in excess of the power and torque from an equivalent ICE.

 

[Richard Scott]

No, but your car is then parked outside work all day. Charging infrastructure is developing all the time, to the extent that my employer’s car park now has charging points. The multi-storey in town does. The business park down the road does too, and those charging points are powered by solar.


Even the best ICE power units are extremely inefficient, far worse than large oil or gas fired power stations. And not all electricity is generated from hydrocarbons- electricity is also generated from water, from solar, from wind. There’s a business park near here, on the famously sunny (!) Isle of Man, with solar panels on the roof that power the EV charging stations in the car park. Costs pence to charge your car and it charges whilst you’re in work.

So on a global scale, yes, electricity is better.

But it also doesn’t have to be on a global scale. Moving the emissions out of the city is much better for the inhabitants of the city who would otherwise be breathing all that muck in.

Whereas the largest oil producing countries have amazing employment rights?

That’s the real answer, isn’t it? I can understand that viewpoint but that doesn’t mean EVs aren’t the solution.

I don’t know if you’ve ever driven an EV but they’re actually pretty fun. Instant torque, even something like a Leaf accelerates like poo off a hot shovel, far in excess of the power and torque from an equivalent ICE.

I would be surprised if we ever have charging points at work, there are too many cars for it to be practical.
I have been in an EV but, to be honest, I like the sound of an ICE and I want to drive a car not an iPad On wheels.
Fair point on the oil but that's known (also doesn’t make it acceptable for mining raw materialsfor EV batteries), EVs are marketed as being green and that everything is wonderful when it just isn't true. Let's have the reality around them not the good points and excuses for the rest.
As I said I don't drive in cities so my car isn't causing a problem; I use trains and buses when possible.
As far as efficiency goes I'd be surprised, thermal power stations are about 30% efficient, a diesel engine around 40%; I know there are then transmission losses to be accounted for.
I don't like government attitude that tells me I'm wrong for wanting to drive an ICE car and taxing me disproportionately for doing so. As I said I try my best to keep my mileage down to the bare minimum.
Let's also remember an average EV is way heavier than my car doing more damage to the road, has bigger tyres releasing more particulates (and tyres also contain compounds with more unpleasant materials in them) and has a higher CO2 output for its manufacture.
As a final point what are the levels of pollutants due to ICE vehicles in cities? I don't know the answer but if Euro 6 engines are so clean is it even significant? Again, I don't know the answer.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think a zero emission zone in London won’t be too far off - my guess is that proposals will be out for consultation before the decade is out, when all black cabs will be EVs by then, and (I think) all London buses. I’ve posted in the other thread that in central London, getting on for half of all non-commercial vehicles are now Evs (including black cabs in that, as although hybrids they rarely use the range extender). This has all happened in about 6-7 years. In another 6-7 years it will be near 100% anyway.

The difference in air quality is stark. As is the difference in noise.

I don't like government attitude that tells me I'm wrong for wanting to drive an ICE car and taxing me disproportionately for doing so.

Plenty of people didn’t like the government attitude that we should wear seat belts, or should strap kids into car seats, or shouldn’t send 5 year olds up chimneys, either. But society did the right thing and improved.

Let's also remember an average EV is way heavier than my car doing more damage to the road, has bigger tyres releasing more particulates (and tyres also contain compounds with more unpleasant materials in them) and has a higher CO2 output for its manufacture.

You’ll need to evidence your views on road damage, more particualtes, and lifetime CO2 output

 

[Richard Scott]

Plenty of people didn’t like the government attitude that we should wear seat belts, or should strap kids into car seats, or shouldn’t send 5 year olds up chimneys, either. But society did the right thing and improved.



You’ll need to evidence your views on road damage, more particualtes, and lifetime CO2 output

Seat belts aren't exactly difficult, cars were already fitted with them, easy win so I don't think those examples are comparable.
Evidence, not hard, EVs are heavier so do more damage by virtue of that fact, they contain more material and rarer elements, which cause more CO2 to be produced during refining/manufacture.

 

[Bald Rick]

Seat belts aren't exactly difficult, cars were already fitted with them, easy win so I don't think those examples are comparable.

Except they weren’t all fitted. As I well remember. And there was a great deal of resistance by drivers when the law came into being in Januaty 1983.

Evidence, not hard, EVs are heavier so do more damage by virtue of that fact

I’m sorry but writing a sentence and stating it is a fact isn’t evidence.

Evidence would be a higher wear rate of tyres due to increasing particualte matter. Yet we’ve heard from many people on this forum that their tyre wear rate is no different to an ICE car, paging @trebor79 @Hadders.

Similalrly there are various studies (google EV life cycle emissions) re whole life CO2 emissions from EVs, they are clear EVs are far better. (Especially when you include the whole production cycle for getting fuel from the oil well into the car, which some of the studies do not)

 

[trebor79]

Except they weren’t all fitted. As I well remember. And there was a great deal of resistance by drivers when the law came into being in Januaty 1983.



I’m sorry but writing a sentence and stating it is a fact isn’t evidence.

Evidence would be a higher wear rate of tyres due to increasing particualte matter. Yet we’ve heard from many people on this forum that their tyre wear rate is no different to an ICE car, paging @trebor79 @Hadders.

Similalrly there are various studies (google EV life cycle emissions) re whole life CO2 emissions from EVs, they are clear EVs are far better. (Especially when you include the whole production cycle for getting fuel from the oil well into the car, which some of the studies do not)

Yep. Weight does not equal higher tyre wear. Tyres on my Tesla were not new when I bought it and have done 40,000 miles in my ownership. They still have about 3mm tread on them. The car has done 28,000 miles when I bought it, so I wouldn't be amazed if those are the original tyres.
Tesla Model 3 actually weighs less than a 3 series beemer anyway.

 

[Richard Scott]

Except they weren’t all fitted. As I well remember. And there was a great deal of resistance by drivers when the law came into being in Januaty 1983.



I’m sorry but writing a sentence and stating it is a fact isn’t evidence.

Evidence would be a higher wear rate of tyres due to increasing particualte matter. Yet we’ve heard from many people on this forum that their tyre wear rate is no different to an ICE car, paging @trebor79 @Hadders.

Similalrly there are various studies (google EV life cycle emissions) re whole life CO2 emissions from EVs, they are clear EVs are far better. (Especially when you include the whole production cycle for getting fuel from the oil well into the car, which some of the studies do not)

Writing a sentence may not be but do you go through life always asking everyone for evidence when they state something that they know is likely to be true? Let's be honest a heavier car is going to do more damage. My car is around 1200kg, what is the average EV? Remember I'm comparing it to what I have not what's currently available on the new market, no chance I'll ever be able to afford a new car.
Please read what I said, I said that bigger tyres will produce more particulates not that they will wear quicker, would you like to dispute that?
I'm sure that given time EVs may well have a better CO2 birth to death emissions but trying to get people to buy lots of new ones and ditch their old ICE car is not the way, same as old scrappage scheme was flawed. However, the CO2 I was referring to was for tyres, apologies if that was unclear.
Yes, I admit I don't want an EV and for many reasons. If others do that's fine but I don't want to be forced into having one, wearing a seat belt was not hard as car was already fitted and, not a difficult action and didn'tcost anything (and by 1983 I would image figure of cars fitted was in high 90% figure?) but an EV is a total change.
I also stated I don't drive in cities (I fact I drive very little but public transport not convenient for work so I keep the car and also I enjoy driving) as I'd rather use the bus or train. Solution in cities is not EVs, it's try to encourage people not to drive in cities in first place. Notice I say encourage not force.
What we need to remember is there is no such thing as green transport, it's all about damage limitations and, maybe, EVs are part of solution but it's not for me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Please read what I said, I said that bigger tyres will produce more particulates not that they will wear quicker, would you like to dispute that?

Tyres don't burn anything, so the only way a tyre can produce particulates is by way of wearing them off the tyre or the road surface, typically the tyre as it's softer. Thus the only way they can produce more particulates is by greater wear.

EV tyres are not "bigger".

I'm sure that given time EVs may well have a better CO2 birth to death emissions but trying to get people to buy lots of new ones and ditch their old ICE car is not the way, same as old scrappage scheme was flawed. However, the CO2 I was referring to was for tyres, apologies if that was unclear.

Tyres don't emit CO2. They don't burn anything.

Their manufacture might, but so does the manufacture of anything due to energy requirements.

Yes, I admit I don't want an EV and for many reasons. If others do that's fine but I don't want to be forced into having one, wearing a seat belt was not hard as car was already fitted and, not a difficult action and didn'tcost anything (and by 1983 I would image figure of cars fitted was in high 90% figure?) but an EV is a total change.

You might love it.

I also stated I don't drive in cities (I fact I drive very little but public transport not convenient for work so I keep the car and also I enjoy driving) as I'd rather use the bus or train. Solution in cities is not EVs, it's try to encourage people not to drive in cities in first place. Notice I say encourage not force.
What we need to remember is there is no such thing as green transport, it's all about damage limitations and, maybe, EVs are part of solution but it's not for me.

There isn't one solution, there are several, and we need to pursue all of them. Increased public transport use is one, increased cycling/walking another, EVs are yet another.

 

[Richard Scott]

Tyres don't burn anything, so the only way a tyre can produce particulates is by way of wearing them off the tyre or the road surface, typically the tyre as it's softer. Thus the only way they can produce more particulates is by greater wear.

EV tyres are not "bigger".



Tyres don't emit CO2. They don't burn anything.

Their manufacture might, but so does the manufacture of anything due to energy requirements.



You might love it.



There isn't one solution, there are several, and we need to pursue all of them. Increased public transport use is one, increased cycling/walking another, EVs are yet another.

No, they don't burn but produce particulates by virtue of wear, small particles are given off and are damaging to health, same as brake dust.
Making tyres does emit CO2 so yes they have a carbon footprint as does disposal of them, that was my point, please don't treat me like an idiot as I'm well aware tyres don't burn.
Heavier cars usually have bigger tyres by being wider and taller.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Heavier cars usually have bigger tyres by being wider and taller.

This is not necessarily true.

One thing I don't understand is why anti-EV people don't simply say "I purchase my cars by way of emotion, not by way of logic, and I have simply decided I don't want an EV"? Instead they come up with all manner of spurious objections, some of them simply totally false and some based on false inferences. Purchasing cars by emotion is a perfectly normal thing to do - it basically drives the entire market for sports cars, for example, as there is never any practical reason to own one of these for use on public roads.

 

[Richard Scott]

This is not necessarily true.

One thing I don't understand is why anti-EV people don't simply say "I purchase my cars by way of emotion, not by way of logic, and I have simply decided I don't want an EV"? Instead they come up with all manner of spurious objections. Purchasing cars by emotion is a perfectly normal thing to do - it basically drives the entire market for sports cars, for example, as there is never any practical reason to own one of these.

I did say usually.
I have stated I don’t want an EV for a number of reasons, one is it's not practical where I live but one is I enjoy an ICE car. I'd consider a hybrid but government has decided it wants to tax those to the max too.

 

[Bald Rick]

Please read what I said, I said that bigger tyres will produce more particulates not that they will wear quicker, would you like to dispute that?

Ah, sorry no, I won’t dispute that. However the tyres on like for like EVs compared to their ICE equivalents appear to me to be near identical. It is also true to say that tyres on ICE SUVs are bigger than tyres on small EV hatchbacks.

I'm sure that given time EVs may well have a better CO2 birth to death emissions but trying to get people to buy lots of new ones and ditch their old ICE car is not the way

No one is suggesting that. Everyone is free to buy an ICE car for another 11 years.

Writing a sentence may not be but do you go through life always asking everyone for evidence when they state something that they know is likely to be true?

Only when I don’t beleive it is likely to be true.

 

[Richard Scott]

Ah, sorry no, I won’t dispute that. However the tyres on like for like EVs compared to their ICE equivalents appear to me to be near identical. It is also true to say that tyres on ICE SUVs are bigger than tyres on small EV hatchbacks.




No one is suggesting that. Everyone is free to buy an ICE car for another 11 years.




Only when I don’t beleive it is likely to be true.

Don't get me started on SUVs, really what is the point?
Sorry if people have one/like them they just don't appeal at all. All the space of a hatchback in something significantly heavier and larger on the outside!!

 

[En]

a lot of the stuff about tyre wear and EVs is driver behaviour as people like to play silly sods when they realise you can properly 'send it' in even quite modest EVs due to the torque characteristics of electrical machines

 

[trebor79]

No, they don't burn but produce particulates by virtue of wear, small particles are given off and are damaging to health, same as brake dust.

a lot of the stuff about tyre wear and EVs is driver behaviour as people like to play silly sods when they realise you can properly 'send it' in even quite modest EVs due to the torque characteristics of electrical machines

Except those of us with EVs are finding the tyres last way way longer than with ICE.

 

[En]

Except those of us with EVs are finding the tyres last way way longer than with ICE.

i'm guessing you don't 'send it' from every set of lights or down every slip road, and overtake in a manner previously associated with 'litre bike' riders ?

 

[trebor79]

i'm guessing you don't 'send it' from every set of lights or down every slip road, and overtake in a manner previously associated with 'litre bike' riders ?

I accelerate much quicker than any ICE I've ever driven. I hardly ever floor it, be ause I just don't need to, or there isn't opportunity to do so.
When I set off from the lights on a 60mph road I get to that speed in about 5 or 6 seconds I guess. So a little slower than the 4.2 the car is capable of if I floored it. No ice I've ever driven could have got to that speed in 6 seconds even if I did floor it!

 

[43066]

No one is suggesting that. Everyone is free to buy an ICE car for another 11 years.

And what’s the betting it’s extended significantly beyond that?

I'm well aware tyres don't burn.

If you try setting fire to one you might just get a shock .

 

[cactustwirly]

Euro 6 is certainly a big improvement, yes, I really notice the gobful of fumes from older diesels in other places. I'd definitely be in favour of a UK-wide ULEZ being introduced as soon as feasible. Euro 7 is coming soon.

However, zero emissions surely has to be better?

I was actually a bit of a ULEZ cynic until I experienced it. It's just so nice that the air in London is breatheable and isn't full of diesel fumes, and is so noticeable that elsewhere it's so much worse. The dirty London of my youth has gone.

I would not be in favour of a nationwide ULEZ.
It would make me unemployed

I can't afford a Euro 6 ULEZ compliant vehicle and my work is in a rural area with only 1x bus a day which is totally unusable.
My car is perfectly good and it would write it off unnecessarily.
I do not drive into big cities, so I don't see why I should be penalised for going to work outside the town where I live.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would not be in favour of a nationwide ULEZ.
It would make me unemployed

Depends what assistance could be given.

I can't afford a Euro 6 ULEZ compliant vehicle and my work is in a rural area with only 1x bus a day which is totally unusable.
My car is perfectly good and it would write it off unnecessarily.
I do not drive into big cities, so I don't see why I should be penalised for going to work outside the town where I live.

Because old diesels stink everywhere. I'm in Penrith at the moment and they utterly stink here. They harm my health, they harm children's health.

The air in London is now nicer to breathe than in Penrith. Let that sink in, that's big.

If a newer van isn't affordable, consider an older petrol estate car instead. 10+ year old models often comply. Or if this is just a car, just get a petrol car of similar value (I would expect a national ULEZ to include a scrappage scheme based on values before announcement as resale won't be possible).

 

[cactustwirly]

This is not necessarily true.

One thing I don't understand is why anti-EV people don't simply say "I purchase my cars by way of emotion, not by way of logic, and I have simply decided I don't want an EV"? Instead they come up with all manner of spurious objections, some of them simply totally false and some based on false inferences. Purchasing cars by emotion is a perfectly normal thing to do - it basically drives the entire market for sports cars, for example, as there is never any practical reason to own one of these for use on public roads.

EVs are not logical, they are very expensive to buy and the running costs are higher than a typical petrol.

Replacing the battery packs writes the car off and they are only warranted for 8 years, well below the typical lifespan of a car

 

[Bletchleyite]

EVs are not logical, they are very expensive to buy

Only because bar the Nissan Leaf the used market hasn't filtered through yet.

and the running costs are higher than a typical petrol

False.

Replacing the battery packs writes the car off and they are only warranted for 8 years, well below the typical lifespan of a car

Your internal combustion engine is typically only warranted for 3 years.

 

[cactustwirly]

Depends what assistance could be given.



Because old diesels stink everywhere. I'm in Penrith at the moment and they utterly stink here. They harm my health, they harm children's health.

The air in London is now nicer to breathe than in Penrith. Let that sink in, that's big.

If a newer van isn't affordable, consider an older petrol estate car instead. 10+ year old models often comply. Or if this is just a car, just get a petrol car of similar value (I would expect a national ULEZ to include a scrappage scheme based on values before announcement as resale won't be possible).

You're putting all diesels in the same basket, mine is a Euro 5b which is practically Euro 6 but wasn't tested as such as the standard didn't exist when my car was manufactured. It is not the same as a Euro 3. Penrith is a rural town, I'd imagine it's impossible to get public transport everywhere and the car is needed.

Petrol cars are expensive to run and tax, especially if you are running a bigger car for families etc. I do a 50 mile round trip to get to work, an old petrol car isn't feasible for that journey.

My car is mostly used on rural roads and motorways so it's hardly a problem. It's an unfair tax from the pompous middle classes that can afford brand new EVs etc or work in cushty work from home jobs and has no regard for ordinary working people who need a car to get to work.

In a few years the natural cycle of cars will mean that there are fewer diesels on the road anyway. I will look to replace mine in the next couple when I am in the financial position to.

Only because bar the Nissan Leaf the used market hasn't filtered through yet.



False.



Your internal combustion engine is typically only warranted for 3 years.

Public chargers are very expensive, and taking into account the efficiency of a EV. It's like running a big petrol engine that barely does 30mpg.

I've seen multiple objective tests and on a longer journey it's almost twice the price to run and EV vs an ICE

Only because bar the Nissan Leaf the used market hasn't filtered through yet.



False.



Your internal combustion engine is typically only warranted for 3 years.

It doesn't cost £10,000 to replace does it?
My engine has a good reputation and will last over 200,000 miles with the correct maintenance. I don't have the same trust in a battery pack with unproven technology.

You have 5 year old PHEVs being written off, because a simple fault means the whole battery pack needs replacing which exceeds the value of the car

 

[notverydeep]

Only because bar the Nissan Leaf the used market hasn't filtered through yet.

If you can charge at home and have a sub 30 mile round trip commute, these are now a total bargain - with several on autotrader at around £2500. There are plenty of later Leafs and a few Renault Zöes in the £4000 - £5000 range now and these will have a much higher range and lesser prospect of degradation. It will be interesting to see if the arrival of 'relatively affordable' EVs will generate a new round of adopters. Most will still need to be able to charge at home (or at their work) to really benefits from the savings against fuel costs.

 

[Bald Rick]

I can't afford a Euro 6 ULEZ compliant vehicle …

If you can afford a car, you can afford a Euro 6 car. There are loads available out there at £1500-£2000

EVs are not logical, they are very expensive to buy and the running costs are higher than a typical petrol.

All new cars are expensive to buy. Second hand, less so.

Running costs of EVs are somewhat lower than a typical petrol, ask anyonne who owns one.

I don't have the same trust in a battery pack with unproven technology.

Batteries have been around for rather longer that the internal combustion engine; the technology is proven.

 

[43066]

I would not be in favour of a nationwide ULEZ.
It would make me unemployed

I can't afford a Euro 6 ULEZ compliant vehicle and my work is in a rural area with only 1x bus a day which is totally unusable.

But, as noted above, a nationwide ULEZ is a distant prospect and we will be way beyond Euro VI when it comes in. In the timescales involved EVs will become mainstream - even though I agree it won’t happen as quickly as some on here seem to be predicting.

At that stage a compliant vehicle will be no different to buying an “old banger” today.

It doesn't cost £10,000 to replace does it?
My engine has a good reputation and will last over 200,000 miles with the correct maintenance. I don't have the same trust in a battery pack with unproven technology.

You have 5 year old PHEVs being written off, because a simple fault means the whole battery pack needs replacing which exceeds the value of the car

Is this really happening on a large scale, though? I’m sure there are isolated examples of ICE cars blowing an engine at five years old if you look hard enough. There seems to be plenty of evidence that older EVs retain battery capacity and remain mechanically reliable. That stands to reason when battery packs driving electric motors are actually far simpler, with a lot less to go wrong, than ICEs.

Personally I’m in no rush for an EV - I enjoy my car’s petrol engine; the straight six is a wonderful thing, and indeed I’d like to own a V8 or V12 at some stage over the next few years, before they’re consigned to history (I do a small mileage, and don’t drive daily, so fuel costs aren’t a concern). However, all that said, I’d agree with the comments above that most of the criticisms of EVs don’t really stand up to scrutiny.

 

[bramling]

But, as noted above, a nationwide ULEZ is a distant prospect and we will be way beyond Euro VI when it comes in. In the timescales involved EVs will become mainstream - even though I agree it won’t happen as quickly as some on here seem to be predicting.

At that stage a compliant vehicle will be no different to buying an “old banger” today.



Is this really happening on a large scale, though? I’m sure there are isolated examples of ICE cars blowing an engine at five years old if you look hard enough. There seems to be plenty of evidence that older EVs retain battery capacity and remain mechanically reliable. That stands to reason when battery packs driving electric motors are actually far simpler, with a lot less to go wrong, than ICEs.

Personally I’m in no rush for an EV - I enjoy my car’s petrol engine; the straight six is a wonderful thing, and indeed I’d like to own a V8 or V12 at some stage over the next few years, before they’re consigned to history (I do a small mileage, and don’t drive daily, so fuel costs aren’t a concern). However, all that said, I’d agree with the comments above that most of the criticisms of EVs don’t really stand up to scrutiny.

The issue I’d have with an EV is, firstly, not being able to make a long journey without enforced stops to charge up, and secondly the prospect of the battery life degrading with age such that the first problem would become worse over time. For me this completely negates any benefit over a petrol car, which I also happen to enjoy driving.

What I would like to see is a crackdown on poorly maintained vehicles, which can produce some pretty invasive emissions.