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)

I think my favourite thing about about them is that they have no engine so only working parts are break pads

A common misconception. EVs are full of “working parts”.

A reduction in car use is also something to strive for. Humans can change their habits and can adapt

@Flamingojune

A reduction in car use is also something to strive for. Humans can change their habits and can adapt

For sure - no debate from me. Cars impose all kinds of costs on society and it would be fantastic in all kinds of ways if we reduced car use generally.

It’s just that a mere reduction will not solve global warming. Even a reduction to zero cars, which I think most sane people would realise is an impossibility in the timeframes we are talking about (less than 20 years).

Cars represent only a fraction of our overall emissions - we need to decarbonise pretty much everything. That is only possible with an energy economy built on solar, wind and storage.

And the quickest way to build energy storage is using batteries - there are solar power sites being built with enough batteries to provide 24x7 output. And the more EVs replace ICEVs and home/grid storage replace fossil fuel generation the costs of that approach will come down even lower than it is now.

So desire a reduction in car use by all means. But don’t kid yourself that it is a solution for anything other than local congestion and other issues in the medium term - on a planetary scale it will do nothing.

@Elbowpatch

EVs are full of “working parts”.

Not exactly sure what you’re trying to suggest - purely on the pedantic semantics, you’re not wrong, but that is only because @lizzyBennet08 didn’t use the words “moving parts”.

An ICEV has over 10x the number of moving parts as in an EV, and in an EV their role is very different.

The most painful (and expensive) things to go wrong in both my old Volvos were the engine, gearbox and transmission components, which contain 100s of moving parts, all of which are put under high and variable stress and many have to operate across a huge temperature range and in dirty conditions with combustion gases, vapours, particulates and lubricants either in contact or in close proximity. Seals, filters and pumps try to keep the whole shebang working, but require diligent maintenance to keep them in good working order.

The braking system of an ICEV is almost entirely mechanical, and uses friction to convert the vehicle’s kinetic energy to heat, whilst slowly sacrificing key components (discs, pads etc.) that then need relatively frequent replacing.

In an EV there is typically a very simple single-gear ratio, and much simplified cooling and heating arrangements, with no combustion products and huge temperature range to worry about, and over 90% of braking can be achieved with battery regeneration. The latest generation of EVs are now boasting zero maintenance engineering in the transmission with friction brake components designed to potentially last the lifetime of the car.

A hybrid or plug-in hybrid can do a certain amount of regenerative braking, but their limited battery capacity puts strict limits on that - the sort of single-pedal driving that you can do for the entirety of a long distance trip is beyond them, and what little they can do is achieved by having the worst of both worlds - all the complexity and maintenance cost of an ICEV with the additional weight and “working parts” of an electric drive train on top.

An ICEV has over 10x the number of moving parts as in an EV, and in an EV their role is very different

Their role is mostly exactly the same.

The only moving parts that are being replaced are the IC engine and parts of the transmission. Bearings can fail, suspension components can fail. Heating and cooling components can fail. Coolant pumps, for example. Even the transmission, although usually simpler, can (and does) fail. Ditto driveshafts etc.

Got one of each, can’t say I’m impressed with the charging network across the UK. Fine for shortish journeys and when we charge at home, further afield we take the petrol car as there simply isn’t the infrastructure where our families live. Nothing worse than running low on miles and then trying three different chargers to find them broken, that they have connectivity issues or the app isn’t working. Or they’re all full. Never had that at a petrol station. Ever.

@Elbowpatch

The only moving parts that are being replaced are the IC engine and parts of the transmission

which are an order of magnitude more complex in an ICEV. Brakes are used an order of magnitude more often in an ICEV. Working temperatures are an order of magnitude higher in an ICEV

An order of magnitude is ten times. Ten times more moving parts, Ten times more things to break. Ten times as much friction braking. In the 100-200,000 mile working life of an ICEV you will need to change the following multiple times:

• brake pads
• brake discs
• engine oil
• oil filters
• air filters
• spark plugs (petrol only)
• timing belts

Most likely you’ll also need to change

• exhaust system
• radiator, cooling pump

With an EV, you have to check stuff, and change the odd filter for sure, and maybe change the gear oil at a similar interval to an ICEV, but most of the above is simply not there.

As I explained, with much lower operating temperatures, and zero combustion products to worry about, all the coolant pumps and lubrication systems in an EV are under a lot less stress.

The first EV I bought was a secondhand Nissan Leaf that is now 11 years old and still going strong. It has had a suspension component replaced (which any car might need), and that’s about it. And that’s a first generation vehicle with limited battery management technology. DS’s BMW i3 is 7 years old and has cost very little to keep on the road - he recently checked his battery health and it’s showing almost zero degradation.

By 10, my diesel Volvo had failed, with a broken gearbox/engine that made it uneconomic to keep on the road. The petrol Volvo managed 18 years, but also died with engine failure (I had to put a new gearbox in when it was 15)

There is a reason car dealerships have been less than enthusiastic in selling EVs, and in the US actively sabotaged them in many markets where they maintain local monopolies, leading Tesla to sell directly to the public - they hate the fact that there is much less (highly profitable) maintenance required.

Your insistence that EVs are somehow comparable to ICEVs from a complexity/maintenance perspective feels a little desperate, to be honest, and is at odds with the experience of actual EV owners here.

@Offherrockingchair

there simply isn’t the infrastructure where our families live

I can believe that - it’s certainly not universally good, and I don’t think it’s easy to manage long range trips if you have an EV with less than 200 miles of real-world range (in all conditions).

We’ve found things totally fine, but we have a car which can easily do 300+ miles on a charge, in winter, so everywhere in the UK is in reach of one or other rapid charging networks, and we’ve had very few issues with chargers and busy sites etc. - Apps like Tesla’s and Electroverse tell you how many chargers are available and our car’s SatNav is clearly updated with the same information, so we have never had to queue.

@Ayebrow

Your insistence that EVs are somehow comparable to ICEVs from a complexity/maintenance perspective feels a little desperate, to be honest, and is at odds with the experience of actual EV owners here.

As I said. The only difference in the number of moving parts between an IC engined vehicle and an EV is in the engine and much of the transmission. All the other moving parts remain the same. Do you disagree?

I didn’t mention maintenance at all.

Maybe what's happening in the Gulf will give the EV industry a boost. Admittedly you need gas to generate electricity but we have other renewable options. You can't run a petrol car on anything else (though my father claimed to have used a mini bottle of whisky to get his car to a petrol station once when he was very low - may well have been a shaggy dog story... :) )

@Elbowpatch

The only difference in the number of moving parts between an IC engined vehicle and an EV is in the engine and much of the transmission.

That may be true, but your original post read like an attempt to dismiss another’s as a “common misconception” when what they had simply been reporting, in effect, was their delight in EVs being simpler mechanically, which they manifestly are.

When you say, “the only difference” you are again attempting to imply that they are essentially equivalent, playing down the extent of that difference.

So I would agree that EVs and ICEVs differ in their powertrains, but that is pretty trite and not worth debating (the clue is in the terms themselves). What I have done is explain to neutral lurkers that this translates into hundreds of impactful individual differences - it is not a misconception that EVs have many fewer moving parts than ICEVs (wherever they sit in the vehicle), it is the truth, and that leads to hugely reduced maintenance requirements and risk of failure.

Ultimately, this thread questions whether EVs are the future, and their very mechanical simplicity is one of the reasons they will become so - having 10x fewer moving parts, working in much less challenging conditions, will win out. Or do you disagree?

@Elbowpatch

Bearings can fail, suspension components can fail. Heating and cooling components can fail. Coolant pumps, for example.

I’ll just leave this here, to show that @lizzyBennet08 was right, and you were wrong to dismiss her comment as a “common misconception”. Neutral readers can judge for themselves:

https://www.alphamotorinc.com/about/ev-vs-ice-fewer-moving-parts-less-maintenance

EV Vs. ICE: Fewer Moving Parts, Less Maintenance
How Fewer Moving Parts Translate to Better Reliability and Reduced Ownership Costs: Comparison of Moving Parts
Electric Vehicles (EVs):
EVs are designed with a far simpler drivetrain compared to their ICE counterparts. On average, an EV contains around 20 to 25 moving parts in its drivetrain. These components typically include:

• Electric motor
• Bearings
• Reduction gears

The simplicity of this configuration is one of the defining characteristics of electric vehicle technology. With fewer mechanical interactions, there is less wear on the components over time.

Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Vehicles:
In contrast, ICE vehicles are significantly more complex, containing 200 to more than 2,000 moving parts in both the engine and the drivetrain. Key components include:

• Key engine components: Pistons, valves, camshafts, crankshafts, and connecting rods.
• Fuel system: Includes fuel pumps, injectors, and filters.
• Exhaust system: Components like the catalytic converter, muffler, and exhaust manifold.
• Transmission system: Includes gears, clutches, and synchronizers, all contributing to the number of moving parts.
• Other mechanical systems: Power steering, air conditioning, alternators, and various belts and chains.

The reduced number of moving parts in electric vehicles boosts their reliability and durability while significantly lowering maintenance needs. As a result, EV owners benefit from lower long-term ownership costs. This reduced mechanical complexity is a key factor driving the growing appeal of electric vehicles in today's automotive market.

I’ll just leave this here, to show that @lizzyBennet08 was right, and you were wrong to dismiss her comment as a “common misconception”. Neutral readers can judge for themselves

@lizzyBennet08 said the only working parts (in an EV) are brake pads.

I believe this is a misconception.

If you disregard the drivetrain, an EV is as mechanically complex and has as many moving parts as an equivalent IC vehicle. Am I wrong?

If you disregard the drivetrain

That is disingenuous. Let’s go back to the original words you were attempting to “correct”, rather than getting tangled up in sophistry.

“I think my favourite thing about about them is that they have no engine so only working parts are break pads . I used to live in fear of something like head gasket going in a car costing thousands”

Her clearly stated point of concern with ICEVs was precisely the engine. One cannot casually disregard the drivetrain in this discussion purely to cherry-pick an error to correct. I’m really not sure why you keep repeating that trite correction again and again and then asking for confirmation from me, when right at the start I said, “you’re not wrong”.

So what if an EV shares many common working parts with an ICEV? That just provides the baseline for comparison - all cars have them, so they can be ignored in a thread looking to decide if EVs are the future or not. What matters is the differences not the commonalities.

So I’ll reframe it thus, which will be closer to the original point being made: If you disregard the common working parts in both technologies entirely you are left with an ICEV having 10x more moving parts than an EV, with all that implies about their relative reliabilities. Am I wrong?

@Ayebrow

That is disingenuous. Let’s go back to the original words you were attempting to “correct”, rather than getting tangled up in sophistry.

“I think my favourite thing about about them is that they have no engine so only working parts are break pads . I used to live in fear of something like head gasket going in a car costing thousands

I think you must be mixing me up with somebody else. Let’s go back to the actual original words I responded to. Which were…

”I think my favourite thing about about them is that they have no engine so only working parts are break pads”

This is a common misconception.

Oh for goodness sake what a silly argument!

One look at the service interval and the service checklist for an electric car will show you that there is way less to need routine replacement or to break down on an electric car.

The dealers hate them. The dealer model is to sell cars at low margins and make all their money back on servicing costs.

Electric vehicles break this model completely.

It is not a misconception that an EV has no engine. It is literally the difference between an INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE vehicle and an ELECTRIC vehicle.

The fact that you keep focussing on the mistake in that original comment (about the brakes being the only working parts), when her clearly stated concern with ICEVs is their ENGINE, and their unfortunate habit of having expensive to fix failures, is obtuse to the point of trolling.

It is true that ICEVs and EVs share a lot of common parts (many EVs are just their ICEV equivalents with the drivetrains swapped), but what exactly does that add to the debate?

I have not only said you are not wrong in saying that, but also provided an example that aligns 100% with your observation - the only major repair the 11 year old Nissan Leaf I bought has had is a broken suspension component common to both types of car.

But my experience with ICEVs is precisely why your insistence on trying to draw focus away from the drivetrain in the original comment is so disingenuous - I had two Volvo estates and both had to be scrapped because of engine/gearbox failures. The diesel also had expensive clutch failures and the older petrol car had more than one broken suspension arm in its 18 year life too.

So it may be a common misconception that EVs have hardly any moving parts, and the truth is that they share many moving parts in common with ICEVs, but the fact they don’t have an engine is certainly not a misconception, it is also the truth.

@Ayebrow

“So it may be a common misconception that EVs have hardly any moving parts, and the truth is that they share many moving parts in common with ICEVs, but the fact they don’t have an engine is certainly not a misconception, it is also the truth”

Which is why, in my original post, I specifically omitted anything to do with engines in the text I quoted.

If I had wanted to dampen the poster’s relief that EVs can’t suffer from head gasket failure I could have given examples of similar issues that can affect EVs, despite the fact they have no engine.

Head gasket failure is not unheard of with IC vehicles as they age. The seal between the cylinder block and cylinder head fails allowing coolant and/or lubricant to reach places it shouldn’t sometimes with dire consequences. Similar failures can affect EVs, particularly as they get older. For example, Tesla Model S/X have a known issue where a seal fails in the drive unit (engine/gearbox equivalent) allowing coolant to enter the motor. If left unaddressed, this can lead to inverter short circuits, motor seizure and even, in rare cases, battery fires.

You seem to be pinning the survival of the planet or rather us lot, on EVs, Batteries and renewable energy production.

Thats about as likely in the next few years as humans giving up ICE car use.

As far as i can see, we will continue to move, slowly, to EV cars (which also have a carbon foot print) we will be using them more, expanding generating capacity and digging up more copper for upgraded cabling... wrecking roads - which need oil to fix, driving EVs to airports and trebling the flights we take (worldwide) dumping all that carbon right up where it matters, we will continue building run ways and airport terminals and huge carparks - with environmentally damaging concrete and transport all this around with diesel lorries.

oh and thats before we get to all the roads and hotels which are and will be built for the worlds vastly increasing tourism industry - plus of course all the energy they consume.

I get you're passionate about CC and EVs but the reality is, we have around 5 billion people who want to have all the things we take for granted.

We all need to curb our behaviours and expectations but we will not, we will continue to destroy our own planet until it says "enough" and we will be gone.

You know you can change the EV overnight at your families home, off a normal socket. Just give them £20.- for the pleasure, its more than it will add to their bill...

@Alexandra2001

You seem to be pinning the survival of the planet or rather us lot, on EVs, Batteries and renewable energy production.

100% this.

Not sure why you’re mentioning repairing wrecked roads. EVs don’t damage roads any more than ICEVs - do you think a Nissan Leaf or EV6 or Kia Nero weighs more than a diesel 1990 Range Rover? Literally no-one talked about the weight of cars being a problem before the fossil fuel industry needed a myth to beat EVs up with. What damages roads is HGVs and failure to carry out timely repairs to small holes - which become big ones very easily.

We have plenty of copper and all the other minerals and metals needed to completely electrify the planet - once we get to a steady state, it will all be recycled. That’s just an energy problem, as explained in Tesla’s Master Plan that I posted a few pages ago.

Ditto flying. Renewable energy, storage and electrolysis to create green hydrogen (all on exponential learning curves), will ultimately end up with economic E-fuels. I’m posting some charts to show the way costs have come down for 4 key technologies as deployment expands: Solar, wind, batteries, power-to-x fuel (E-fuel). They are log charts on the Y-axis.

I’m also posting a Sankey diagram from National Grid’s New Energy Scenarios for 2050, showing that serious people working in exactly this space can envisage a move to a world where very few fossil fuels will need to be burned. We’ll still need some in 2050, but the roadmap to a world without them is available, for those who care to look.

So you’re absolutely right that I am pinning my hopes on the progress that these diagrams represent, and that the progress continues - which relies on deployment of the above technologies at scale.

One of the reasons I am here challenging all the fossil-fuelled myths around EVs is precisely because I want to be part of keeping that progress going. We have to reduce our car use for sure, but the global vehicle parc will not shrink below 1.5 billion cars, and will most likely grow as more people from the 5 billion you mention get rich enough to want one.

So EVs are the future of the car, or we won’t have a future. Simple as.

The dealers hate them. The dealer model is to sell cars at low margins and make all their money back on servicing costs.

Electric vehicles break this model completely.

👏👏👏

@Ayebrow As i said, its not an oil industry myth to see that trebling flying/tourism and all the infrastructure that goes with this, is the reality, all this will happen long before significant improvements in fuel/engine types etc and the use in concrete use and manufacture.

More and more EVs obviously mean more roads and damage and many higher end EVs are very heavy, a Tesla 3 weights 1850kg min, a similar sized ICE car is around 1250kg with fuel.

I just do not see that us all in EVs, over time, is going to change the trajectory of climate change.

As far as i can see, EVs do mean better local air quality but even that is offset by tyre and brake dust particles.

@Alexandra2001

As far as i can see, EVs do mean better local air quality but even that is offset by tyre and brake dust particles.

EVs have regenerative braking, which means up to 90% less use of friction brakes. Even if you accept that on a like-for-like basis an EV is heavier than its ICEV equivalent, and therefore theoretically produces more tyre wear, only 3% of the wear particles of tyres end up in the air, so serious studies show that EVs are far cleaner locally - this idea that tyre and brake dust somehow offsets zero tailpipe emissions is another fossil fuel myth I’m afraid.

And how does comparing a heavy EV to a lighter ICEV prove anything? I can pick up almost any ICEV on the road today and find EVs that are lighter - it’s a silly exercise, particularly when cars do 1,000s of times less damage to the roads than 3.5-40 tonne trucks.

”More and more EVs” doesn’t mean more cars in total. The vehicle parc in the UK will stay around 40m vehicles, and just transform slowly over decades as older vehicles are scrapped.

And you are refusing point blank to engage with my central point - nothing about a currently bought EV is particularly clean (except for its virtually zero local emissions, which for many is all they need to justify getting one). They are not zero carbon in manufacturing yet.

But that will change as countries clean up their electricity supply. I have posted enough evidence that China is doing so at a pace that is awesome. And as batteries are made in increasing billions to build EVs their cost will continue to drop (also evidenced) to facilitate the greening of more and more of the global energy economy.

I will repeat what I said earlier. EVs are not perfect, but they are perfectable. ICEVs never can be.

@Ayebrow I do actually accept very much of what you say, where i disagree is on EVs will limit climate change, there is just too much else going on in the world.
EG world pop. is set to peak at 10.3 billion in 2080, stabilise then a v slight drop to 10.2 billion in 2100....

Thats another 2 billion on the planet, all demanding the lifestyles we atm take for granted and thats if we even make it to that point, people like Trump & Putin (and their successors) may well decide to end us all long before then.

I'm pessimistic on CC, i don't see the changes we urgently need, in fact the exact opposite.... China's emissions have stabilised but only because a down turn in their economy..... the USA is going in the opposite direction, India still burns wood and coal and Europe is heading away from net zero.