Electric cars are NOT the future, are they?

[Isometimeswonder]

I am genuinely torn. I need want a new car but really don't want electric.
But so few smaller petrol cars are made now.
I haven't got a place to charge a car at home.
AIBU I should accept electric is the future.
AINBU I should get petrol. (Please recommend a small city car)

So anyway as a neutral observer I would say the truth is in the middle. As is always the case.

@Likeoohlaalaala

EVs come with an 'I'm saving the planet' badge too.

That’s true, but not for the reason that most people think (in general). Each individual EV does nothing to save the planet (our Polestar took 20 tonnes of CO2 to make, and whilst super clean on the UK’s majority green electricity) still creates a lot of CO2 even if a lot lower than a petrol burning car. I’m not naive about that.

I like to imagine that we have helped pay our climate debt because we survived as a family without a car for years after our old Volvo died, but the truth is my debt is 100s of times the UK average because I used to fly to Germany or Spain every week for years, whilst working in the oil & gas sector, so I will die a climate sinner regardless 😶

And PPs that have said that private car ownership is actually the problem are correct. In an ideal world we would all live in a Swiss city, where private cars are barely a thing and everyone catches trams everywhere, or a Dutch one, and cycle.

But that’s utterly naive too. The private car has been one of the great liberators for millions of people, and it’s never going to go away. And as long as that is the case, the only way we can get CO2 emissions down to reduce the impact of global heating is if the transport sector is as clean as possible. And that can only happen if the economics of EVs get to a place where they are a no-brainer for almost* everyone.

And that can happen only if a critical mass of EVs are made to help bring their cost down below those of ICEVs, and at the same time competitive pressure is brought to bear on the charging industry, and some governmental pressure is brought on manufacturers to begin promoting them rather than contributing to all the lies and misinformation that swamps the media and social media (looking at you, Toyota).

So each of the 1.8 million EVs on UK roads is individually making climate change worse, but in aggregate, over the long term, is helping to bring about a generational shift in technology that may allow us to dodge the worst effects of it in the future.

Hybrids can play no significant long term role, because while they are marginally cleaner than pure ICEVs they still burn fuel. It’s possible to conceive of a world where zero carbon steel (using hydrogen rather than cooking coal) is used to make cars that run on zero carbon electricity, so that future EVs will be, in effect, zero carbon vehicles, but to get there we need enough EVs on the road to swing the economics in their favour.

• Not everyone. There will always be a small number of people for whom an EV doesn’t work, and I’m not naive about that either. And that is why you are correct in saying that ICE vehicles will still be around for a very long time, and certainly as long as I’m due to be on this Earth.

Even if the 2030 mandate remains, one can wait until December 31 2034 and get a hybrid vehicle of some kind. And if it’s a good one, it might be on the road for 20 years in this country and another 20 years somewhere else. So there will be demand for fuel running into the 2050s and beyond.

But the economics will change, and make it steadily harder to source fuel for that hybrid. What people forget when they drive their shiny new ICEV around is that the economic pyramid that supplies the fuel for it is immense, and yet some of it is exceptionally old. The oil rigs and refineries and distribution networks take 100s of $billions of fresh capital every year just to keep running, never mind the cost of exploration to open up fresh resources as current wells run dry.

And all the while the Chinese are pouring more money than that into making better batteries, and into renewable energy. Nothing that Trump or the Western/Russian/Saudi oil companies do can stop the fact that EVs will keep getting better and better as ICE technology stagnates.

What is instructive is the history of another energy transition, when diesel and electricity usurped steam on the UK railways. It is possible to keep a steam locomotive running, and even build a new one, like Tornado. But it is becoming very difficult to source the kind of high energy coal they rely on. And that stuff can literally be dug out from the ground. It doesn’t need to be drilled out from 5,000m down and processed in a $multi-billion refinery.

Oops - coking coal, not cooking coal 😂

I've found the electric car we would need. It has 50 litres less boot capacity than our current car, which is a bit of a pain given what we mainly use the car for.

At present even the second hand ones are too expensive for us. The above said, as older ones become available and hopefully more affordable, and if the charging infrastructure gets better and more affordable where we live and where we travel regularly, we will definitely consider it.

What?!?

You posted that they make it clear that their numbers are based on PAYG rates.

and I agreed with you! ZapMap is telling the truth, if you’re prepared to read.

What I have done is prove that it is trivially easy to pay half the PAYG rates, and in many cases 1/5 of them. That’s not just for localised areas and at specific times. That’s all the time across the whole country.

Not a faff. Not a balls ache. One click and you’re a member of a network of your choice for a month. And that’s in 2026, which is already far better for than most of 2025 was.

Please don’t waste my time misrepresenting what I have posted. I will begin to think you are a troll rather than merely repeating someone else’s out-of-date information.

@Satisfiedwithanapple

The idea that some 3 tonne EV tank is better for the environment than a petrol fiat 500 is just nonsense.

No advocate for EVs would claim that, at least not in general. But a 3 tonne EV tank is better than a 3 tonne diesel tank for sure 😀

Oh contrare @Ayebrow you are being too too kind

What a fun comparison to Google @Satisfiedwithanapple

so I did 😁

Comparing a petrol Fiat 500 (approx. 1 tonne) with a 3-tonne Electric Vehicle (EV) highlights a trade-off between
production emissions and operational efficiency. While the 3-tonne EV is much heavier, causing higher production emissions and greater tire particulate pollution, it generally results in lower lifetime CO2 emissions due to zero tailpipe emissions and superior efficiency.

Here is the breakdown based on environmental impact:

1. Environmental Impact Comparison

• Manufacturing (Initial Debt): A 3-tonne EV has a significantly higher carbon footprint to build than a petrol Fiat 500, primarily due to the energy-intensive manufacturing of its large battery. A 3-tonne vehicle often requires a larger battery, making its manufacturing debt higher than an average (lighter) EV, and much higher than the 1-tonne petrol Fiat 500.
• Driving Emissions: The petrol Fiat 500 continuously emits carbon and pollutants (approx. 110–120g/km CO2). The 3-tonne EV has zero tailpipe emissions, making it vastly superior for urban air quality.
• Efficiency: Even a heavy EV is generally more efficient than an internal combustion engine (ICE). While the 3-tonne EV consumes more electricity per mile than a smaller EV, it still translates to lower overall carbon emissions than burning petrol, especially as the electricity grid becomes greener.
• Weight & Particulates: The 3-tonne EV will produce significantly more tyre wear and brake dust particles than a 1-tonne Fiat 500, contributing to higher non-exhaust pollution.
• Recurrent +6

1. Lifetime Carbon Balance

• Break-even Point: Although the 3-tonne EV starts with a higher carbon "debt," it will likely pay this off within 2 to 6 years of driving, depending on how often it is used and how clean the electricity grid is.
• Total Lifecycle: Over a typical lifetime, the 3-tonne EV will still emit less CO2 than a petrol car because the efficiency of electrical power outweighs the initial manufacturing penalty, provided it drives enough miles to offset that initial debt.
• Recurrent +3

Summary Table
Feature Petrol Fiat 500 (approx. 1 tonne)3-Tonne Electric Vehicle
Manufacturing Emissions
Lower
Much Higher (due to large battery)
Tailpipe Emissions
High (110+ g/km CO2)
Zero
Efficiency
Lower (12-30% efficient)
Higher (~77% efficient)
Particulate Pollution
Lower
Higher (due to weight)
Overall Environmental Impact
Worse (over long term)
Better (over long term)

Conclusion: If your goal is to minimize, exclusively, CO2 emissions, the 3-tonne EV is better in the long run. If your goal is to minimize total resource consumption and particulate (tire) pollution, the lighter petrol vehicle is paradoxically better for the environment, provided it is not driven enough to make the EV's higher efficiency relevant because there is a break off point

Exactly. This is why some people are sceptical when the EV lobby crow about how great their EV is for them. It's an environmental 'solution' that is completely impractical for about a third of the population.

Tons of small cheap petrol cars available here: https://www.selectcarleasing.co.uk/special-offers?display_fueltype%5B%5D=Hybrid&display_fueltype%5B%5D=Petrol&sort_by=price%7Casc

There's 20 or so for under £200/month.

But if a terraced street has bumper to bumper parking, where there will be about 50 cars parked between lamp posts or other onstreet chargers. That means there will be masses of cabling criss crossed over the pavements.

It only works for low density housing. For high density housing, it doesn't work.

Yes, it's a lot worse.

@StandingSideBySide

you are being too too kind

😂

Love it.

I did think, “I suspect there’s a tipping point where the Fiat 500 begins to create more greenhouse gases than a 3 tonne EV” but decided not to get into that particular bun fight.

Thank you for posting that though 😀

You are assuming everyone charges their car on the street every night.

In reality, just as your neighbours don't all drive to the same petrol station every night at the same time, so they won't all want to charge at the same time. Some will find it easier at the gym, or while they are shopping, or be happy to pay for superchargers while they catch up on emails in the car. There will be economic incentives for businesses with chargers on their land to make them available to the public overnight.

The one thing I have learned in life is that change creates change. Assuming people will charge EVs in the future in the same ways they do today, or like they fill petrol, is the wrong way to think about it.

There's a good article linked to below on the difficulties in Wales, relevant to several of us on this thread.

https://nation.cymru/news/wales-ev-charging-network-is-growing-but-gaps-still-risk-slowing-adoption/

One important point it makes is that the dearth of chargers means "a single out-of-service charger can make the difference between a viable journey and a failed one."

We won't have masses of cables because that's a really stupid thing to do. So it will be solved.

Maybe overhead booms for lampposts, maybe pavement channels so you can have a home charger running into the street. Problems are solvable.

There are companies that will install pavement channels.

At least three problems.

Affording the work.

Getting the local council to agree to the work.

Not being able to park outside your house to connect your car to the terminal in your pavement channel.

It will make life more difficult for people living in high density housing. If you live in low density housing, it's fine. It seems fairly typical of green initiatives. They work best for people with plenty of resources and worst for the less well off.

Surely we will have vehicles with solar panels of some sort on them, charge as you go along.

@5MinuteArgument

This is why some people are sceptical when the EV lobby crow

I’m not seeing any crowing here. Using that term carries more than a little negativity, which I doubt is accidental.

What I see is people with EVs calmly explaining that it works for them even when they don’t have the ability to charge at home and don’t have local street charging either.

As I’ve said several times I know that there are places where it is not currently possible, or at least very difficult, for someone to have an EV, but what several people have posted is also true - some of those that complain vociferously about it being impossible are really just saying “I don’t want to be inconvenienced” or “I don’t want to have to change my habits” or “I don’t like what I imagine an EV is like to drive, so it cannot work for me”.

But inconvenience takes many forms. I was inconvenienced by finding it hard to breath at times when Dieselgate was at its peak and major roads in London were literally choked with NOx. I don’t think people have been that inconvenienced by being given 10 years notice that vehicles pumping out that shite will have to pay £s per day to be here. Note that they’re not banned.

Plenty of people moaned about being inconvenienced by having to wear a seatbelt, or avoid drinking alcohol when driving, or change their car so it could run on unleaded petrol, or again to have a catalytic converter. In each case years and years of notice was allowed that change was coming and people could make adjustments to their lives.

And in most case there were solutions - those that really needed to keep an old car running could pour an additive in that took the place of tetraethyl lead and didn’t wreck children’s brains. Cars that were not made to have seatbelts, even as an option, could be driven without them. Cars without a modern engine weren’t forced off the road, at least not for many years. The social rules around alcohol were gradually changed so that it wasn’t just against law but utterly taboo to drink and drive (except for some remote corners of the country, as I was shocked to find out)

The big difference with EVs that I see is that there has never in history been such a rich and powerful industry, whose very existence is threatened, being in the mix. The staggering scale of misinformation that has been pumped out since the Rio Environment conference in the early 90s is now being amplified by every person that repeats nonsense that can be sourced back to that.

So I totally understand that many people will not find it as easy to switch as it has been for others. We have had to wait 8 years since we first bought a Nissan Leaf (for local journeys only), until EVs became available that could replace our old Volvo estate. And I fully expect that all the next 9 years until 2035 will be taken up finding solutions to more and more people.

But for all the people that struggle now to see how an EV can work for them, there are people for whom the old ICE world was no picnic. One family I know used to live in a remote village in the Lake District. The nearest petrol station was over 30 minutes drive away, so filling up was something done when other journeys were planned (sound familiar?).

I recently attended the memorial service of the matriarch of that family, in the beautiful church in the valley. And got to meet the people who now live in her old house. They own an VW ID.3 just like my sister’s. And they can charge it with the electricity that is already delivered to every house in the village.

And they love it.

There was one, the Lightyear 0. Its range was 43 miles per day at best from its solar panels. Production (of one per week) was suspended in early 2023 and has not so far been restarted.

One and two go away if the council are actively pushing this as a solution.

Three is not great but it's a temporary issue not a permanent blocker.

But taking a step back, the point is not that any one change is the only solution, the point is there will be multiple solutions. Some infrastructure, some tech, some behavioural.

Yesterday I typed out a comedy post about MN 1910 reacting to the idea that petrol cars would ever be a popular concept and laughing at the idea there could be petrol stations but I deleted it because I thought it was a bit silly. I am now wishing I'd saved a copy 😂

So extra cabling is worse than traffic jams pumping out toxic fumes?

It’s correct that a single charger failure can cause a lot of issues, which is why there are more and more sites with 4, 8, 12, 18, 20, 48 and upwards.

The Belgian car park we had our car charging in the other day had 72 of them.

Remote places will always have fewer facilities like chargers, but then they also have fewer petrol stations, mobile phone masts, broadband internet access etc. etc.

So people in remote areas will need to manage access to electricity (and their EV state of charge) just as they manage access to petrol. As my post above points out, in many remote places electricity is far more available than fuel ever was. When my sister was caught a little short of her destination in Ireland they were able to top up at a hotel.

And it’s not as if fuel is always available everywhere. I drove over 500 miles this weekend, and saw two service stations with “no fuel” signs up. Do we ever see news saying, “a single failed fuel delivery can wreck the journey of the odd person who decided to drive on reserve at the wrong time and couldn’t reach the next service station.”

Of course we don’t. The AA reckon over 10,000 people every year run out of either fuel or charge, and no one cares except the people who want to make EV driving sound more precarious than it is.

One and two go away if the council are actively pushing this as a solution.

Three is not great but it's a temporary issue not a permanent blocker.

So that I can get this clear, are you suggesting, that, under one, the council would be paying for the installation of pavement channels, rather than homeowners or landlords?

And under three, that only an EV owner will be allowed to park within reach of the terminal in the pavement channel connected to their meter?

Imagine.

”a company proposed that they want to dig holes in the ground and fill them with tanks with 1,000s of litres of toxic inflammable liquid to fuel vehicles that will carry that same liquid around in a thin steel box that is easily burst in a crash, exposing it to red hot metal and electrical sparks in the near vicinity”

The only reason anyone thinks ICE technology is a reasonable solution to anything is because we have all grown up with it like we’re the proverbial boiling frogs.

Watching a petrol car in flames as I drove north on Friday made me think about how ridiculous it is.