gangzoom

12 hours ago, valy said:

£1.32 for every 100 miles? that is incredibly cheap 

I am also thinking to get my wife one but not sure the range helps...plus I pay more for my electricity 

 

 

Running costs of the Leaf was/is pocket change!! Even if you dont use E7 electricity your looking at 4-4.5p per mile in fuel. Thats equivalent of a car doing 125mpg in real life assuming fule costs £1.2/L.

There is also no real servicing, brakes lasts ages due to motor regen doing most of the work, no oil/coolant to change, no spark plugs/exhausts to worry about either. Roadtax £0.

The battery and motor are sealed units, Leaf battery degredation is worse than Tesla/BMW due to lack of active temperature control but even so after 100k degradation shouldn't be more than 15-20%.

Range is the main weakness of the 24kWh cars. I would comfortably cover 80 miles in the summer but come winter 65 miles was my 'safe' limit - you really dont want to run out of charge on a cold windy Jan night and be stuck on the side of the road. Lowest charge status I got down to was 6 miles left. This means a trip out to somewhere 30 miles away was my comfortable max range in winter. Add on some degradation and your looking at 55-60 miles range in winter.

Still if your doing fixed commute and usage per day fits the range limits in winter itll likely be the cheapest car you ever buy. Used prices are currently static and not really falling, as I think people are realising how cheap to own these things are.

For insurance you need to ring around, not many companies do good EV rates, AxA, directline, LV are worth a go.

3 hours ago, davey_83 said:

Drive one for the first time today and the Mrs really likes it but won't be saving quite as much per years as we first thought. Currently for petrol and road tax the Note costs ish £150 a month. Figure if finance for a Note is similar, it's a no brainer???

I have no idea about Note finance deals, but used Leaf prices are holding pretty firm at the moment and there aren't any good new deals going. If you can wait for end of Q1 2018, end of the financial year is when Nissan push the deals, so around March 2018. 

25 minutes ago, Spatt said:

I think the plan is to hit Switzerland for sure, there are six of us going as i said but our partners aren't going to want to sit in a car for two weeks being thrown around. One idea we had was to 'base' ourselves somewhere nice and let the ladies sit and drink wine while we go for a drive... not sure how this will pan out though haha!

Trust me there is more than enough nice lakes/scenery/wine to keep anyone entertained aside from the roads, this was the view out of one of our hotel rooms....Just be warned Switzerland is not cheap, you can forget about things like all inclusive deals on food/drink deals most holiday resorts offer - its the total opposite end of the spectrum. I have a feeling they keep the prices high on purpose to keep the majority of tourists away, but if you want amazing roads your struggle to beat it. There is also hardly any traffic - Stelveo aside. 

Infact forget south of France, looking at those pictures I rather go back to Interlaken/Switzerland this summer .

Just 'another' amazing Alpine pass. 

Stay overnight near the tunnel crossing and get an early train across. You can smash through north/central France (dull striaght roads) in one day pretty easy. 

We exited the tunnel before 8am and got to Interlaken in Switzerland by afternoon!!

I wouldnt base your self in one place for than one night, the roads around Switzerland are amazing, and your want to travel around. 

There are plenty of nice hotels enroute. Don't try to cover more than 100 miles a day through the Alps, as its much better to take your time enjoy the scenery/roads with stops rather than just cover distance.

If your enjoy driving than there is really no excuse not to experience roads around the alps at least once, so much more enjoyable than a long haul flight to yet another beach/resort....and given how easy it is to get there once you been your want to go back year on year!

Now that our daughter can tolerate longer drives (just did Leicester to Edinburgh round trip) we're planning to do the Alps around SouthFrance this coming summer, and than Norway year after. Cannot wait :).

Glad your alright. I had never been in a bad crash before mine earlier in the year, the intial shock takes a bit time to wear off, and even now I keep an eye out for cars that seem to be approaching junctions a bit quickly.

I found it took me a couple of days to get my head clear, hope it gets sorted quickly.

8 hours ago, AMT said:

....I hate Tesla, good looking saloon but ...wheres the noise? Wheres the fun? (you need more than the feeling of speed for that). I've seen a few interiors on cars in person too and there awfully bland. I don't like the look of the future for cars... 

A P100D accelerates at roughly 1.1g to 60mph, unless you experience it for your self you simply cannot understand the ridiculous amount of power on offer.

If you do the maths thia roadster will be doing 1.4g to 60, and 1.1g all the way to 100. Those are mind boggling numbers. Am also not sure how tolerable that is for most normal people, i felt sick after doing 3 full bore launches in a P85D, and that thing maxs out at just about 1g in acceleration.

Sadly the price is also far beyond what most people can afford, but a whole load of current P100D S/X UK owners seem to have preordered one, which means hopefully a flood of P100D S cars appearing on the used market in 2020/21.

We had preordered a Model 3 for my wife, but if we can get a used P100D S for sensible money in 2020/21 that would be the more attractive option.

Eitherway I've just started another Tesla savings fund, got 3 years to fill up the piggy bank :).

Tesla have just annouced details have of the new roadster. 0-100 in 4.4 seconds, 200kWh battery = 650 miles of range. Production date 2020. Same price as a 911 Turbo S.

Oh those are the 'base' specs....better get saving

They also announced a truck with a 450 mile range at highway speeds, but no one cares about that.

https://jalopnik.com/surprise-theres-a-new-tesla-roadster-and-its-unbelieva-1820532533

19 hours ago, JetSet said:

Interesting. I bought my first house, a semi, for £6,600 in 1973 and sold it for £8,100 in 1978. I then stretched myself to the absolute limit to buy my present property for £16,500 . also in 1978. With interest rates going as high as 17 or even 18% in the early 1980's it was something of a struggle and I dread to think what would happen if interest rates shoot up again even to the 7 or 8% which was the norm right through the 70's and late 80's through to the early 2000's.

 

Pete

There's a whole generation of home owners who have know nothing but <3% rates. 

I cannot complain about low interest rates, we wouldnt find it much harder to justify the house we are in how if interest rates were higher......which is why I got a 20 year term rather than 25 and aiming to overpay 10% a year. So when rates do go up we woudlnt feel the effects as badly.

1 hour ago, Ekona said:

It’s our fault, really. Feeding the troll and all that. We should stop.

Please do

^ There was so social research I read a while ago that showed the social media groups tended to attract people with similar view points and drove development/deeping of similar view points rather than encourage debate. 

Certainly this forum is a good example of this, likewise the EV forums have very different discussions - as am sure you can imagine.

But life is boring when everyone agrees - even when its about how great EVs are. Having some banter is like having a good old argument with the otherhalf, keeps things fisty :).

1 hour ago, ilogikal1 said:

 

Your understanding of renewables is flawed. Wind turbines, for example, require a large amount of fuel to be "primed" each time and every time they're used. But in a similar way with you and charts, if you can't understand how the things you're advocating work, then there's little point in debating anything.

 

Once again it's not MY chart, its a chart produced by Ofgem. And am not the one who started making multiple posts based on not been able to understand the data showed .

But I do agree there is little point debating anything here, much better just to wait and see how things turn out over the next few years. 

9 minutes ago, Ekona said:

A graph should be a quick and simple way to view complex data. If people are unable to understand the graph en masse, then that’s the fault of the graph not the people. 

 

I too read it incorrectly, because it’s misleading. Not deliberately misleading a la fake news, but it’s the wrong type of graph for that purpose. 

You should tell Ofgem  I actually think its a very good graph as it show both relative and absolute data in one format, but looking at data is my half of my day job. 

3 hours ago, coldel said:

 

Ironically you won't see anything but batteries, which makes you more narrow minded than most people commenting on this thread. 

The most fun I've had on this thread in the last few posts is seeing how hard some people find understanding graphs :).

2 hours ago, Ekona said:

But complicated spelling?

 

Never heard of Bulb. Might well be easier to work on a wind turbine than a gas one, but how many wind ones do you need to generate the same as one gas one? That's where suddenly maintenance can leap up.

Look up prices for Bulb and compare it to your current supplier costs. I switched purely for cost reasons alone, roughly 20% cheaper E7 rates than Eon in our area (Leicester). You need to check your rates for your area to see if prices work out.

Ive switched 3 electricty suppliers in 12 months, so have no brand loyalty. Bulb so far is cheapest and remains so by a decent margin for us.

1 hour ago, Ekona said:

For home & business use, sure. I don’t care where it comes from, as long as it’s cheap.

Which is why Solar/Wind will take over from existing ways to generate electricity.

Nucelar/fossil powerstations require not only intial setup/maintenancecosts, but also constant fuel supply/storage of nuclear waste, all of which have huge associated HR costs.

Compared to a renewables which once setup have no on going fuel costs. For maintenance am no engineer but I suspect repairing a wind turbine is alot easier than working on a gas turbine generator.

Its simple mathemaics and common sense. It might no actually be good for the people employed to run powerstations but no ultimately itll happen, and is already.

I switched my electricity supplier to Bulb this year, no because they are 'green' but because they offer electricty 20% cheaper than the big 5. How much of that is down to Bulb using only renewables I have no idea, but why would you pay more for electricity if you can get it cheaper else where.

1 hour ago, coldel said:

Government regularly puts billions into wind turbines etc but doesn't make the politically motivated press. 

The point is the government puts money into almost everything, the fact is offshore wind is now a cheaper way to generate power than nuclear.

To be quite honest it seems like a few of you will never accept anything but the status quo regardless of a changing world.

I see this as all good banter, watching how the future unfolds is what am most interested in. A future where we as a species can generate electricity using wind/sun in my book is a good thing.

1 hour ago, Ekona said:

Also, I don't fully understand what's meant by energy subsidies. Is that the companies saying that they promise to only charge X amount per unit, but they want it guaranteed before they build?

The world of energy generation is about as clear as a muddy pound. Governments around the world promise to pay private companies X amount for guaranteed amount of energy regardless of actual cost of generation. The fossil industry receives far more subsidies than anyone else, though 

Hinkley C makes everything else looks cheap. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/fossil-fuel-firms-billion-pound-uk-state-subsidies-oil-gas-firms-leak-climate-change-environment-a7690966.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/12/uk-breaks-pledge-to-become-only-g7-country-increase-fossil-fuel-subsidies

https://www.ft.com/content/b8e24306-48e5-11e6-8d68-72e9211e86ab

^ I've just driven up from Leicester to Edinburgh via Liverpool for the first time in 18 months, I was amazed by the number of wind farm, this one was just north of the lake district. 

Ofcourse people object to anything new, just look at crossrail, but ultimately it's cost that will drive things through. It now cheaper to build wind farms to generate electricity than use nuclear, infact half the cost. 

The UK is actually perfectly positioned to become world leaders in off shore wind, a lot of the experience in the North sea oil rigs can easily be transferred to off shore wind, and anyone who's been to Scotland will now how much wind resource there is. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41220948

http://www.renewableuk.com/news/348633/New-report-highlights-UKs-massive-offshore-wind-energy-potential-.htm

41 minutes ago, SuperStu said:

There’s no room for shades of grey @Keyser, its either the panacea or you hate the planet

Ofcourse there is, hence the graph I posted showing how much progress is been made generating power without using fossle fules. There is a long way to go but without even trying and just giving up it seems a bit defeatist.

I can see wind/solar contributing at least 50% of UK electic grid supply by the end of next decade. Which surely is better than relying on coal.

11 hours ago, SuperStu said:

You're so blinded by EV devotion, that you can't even concede when you're own numbers don't stack up.

Not sure what else there is to say, hitting head against brick wall comes to mind.

10 hours ago, Ekona said:

 

That link has a proper data table to call the numbers out on. That graph with pretty colours on is f*cking useless.

It still shows the same thing, fossile fuels role in UK electricty generation is falling, both in terms of absolute and relative amounts, which you can tell from the graph in about 5 seconds...which is the point of graphs presenting lots of number in a easy to understand form, though for some it seems graphs are quite hard to understand;).

6 hours ago, SuperStu said:

 

I can't tell if you're serious or not. You think the mix % is more important than the absolute values?

 

The graph contains values in TWh for energy production via Coal, Oil & Gas - not percentages. If you take the total fossil values from 11 years ago and then compare them to now, we're using more energy from fossil fuels than before - assuming your numbers are accurate.

 

Whether this represents 50% or 20% of the energy "mix" of production does not change the fact that more energy is being made from fossil fuels than before.

 

If you're going to put up stats to prove your point, you should really understand them first.

Your interpretation of the Ofgem chart is coal is still the biggest source of electricty generation? Maybe everyone else is wrong and your right on the about the role coal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/08/25/uk-coal-power-peters-lowest-135-years/

Am not here to tell people how to read histograms. If you cannot understand what the Ofgem produced graph shows there is little point in debating anything.

15 hours ago, SuperStu said:

The graph shows Coal, Oil & Gas in 2006 at 105, 59 and 58 TWh, which adds up to 222 TWh total produced by fossil fuels.

 

Then in 2017 it shows Coal, Oil & Gas at 78, 77 and 77 TWh, which adds up to 232 TWh total produced by fossil fuels.

 

 

So we' re producing 10 TWh more electricity by fossil fuels than 11 years ago, which proves that Electric Cars are clean? What am I missing?

All I can present is factual information as produced by the national grid. How you want to read the data is upto you. But here is the text from Ofgem explaining the trends.

"Electricity generation mix: At-a-glance summary

The GB electricity system is undergoing a period of significant change as we transition from a large-scale conventional fossil fuel dominated generation mix to intermittent renewable generation. Over the past few years we have seen a marked increase in output from wind and solar farms. Over 2015 and 2016, the share of electricity generated from gas increased, while the share generated from coal decreased. This was partly due to improved economics for gas-fired generators."

^Seriously?

Here is the offical UK data provided by the national gird, depsite a lack of investment from central goverment and a cut in solar FiT traffifs, renewables now provide the same contribution to the grid as nuclear.

Also notice how overal UK energy demand has FALLEN over last 10 years by nearly 10 TWhrs.

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-generation-mix-quarter-and-fuel-source-gb

Q2/Q3 2017 data is looking even more impresssive, apparently 1/3 of electricity now generated via wind/solar.

https://futurism.com/a-record-breaking-29-of-the-u-k-s-electricity-is-now-generated-by-renewables/

UK energy compaines are now building massive battery storage solutions to smooth out variable supply that is associated with wind/solar generation.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/09/uk-first-mega-battery-plant-come-online-sheffield-eon-renewable-energy

Germany now have days when the net cost of electricity generation is ZERO, due to their investment in renewable generation.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/germany-grids-paying-electricity-customers-renewable-energy-power-surplus-wind-solar-generation-a8022576.html

I've said this before but the impact of using batteris combined with solar/wind will have a much bigger impact than EVs replace combustion cars. The potential of 'free' electricty is going to benefit vast swades of the developing countries. Building a powerstation and than supply lines in rural India/Africa/China is expensive/hard work. Building a solar farm/wind mill + battery system for a village is so much easier.

What Tesla have done in Puerto Rico is partly a publicity stunt, but it does demonstrate just how viable renewable energy generation is now as the main player in keeping the lights on. The fact solar PV panels/battery packs are falling so quickly in price IKEA is now selling them shows just how quickly things are changing.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/puerto-rico-crisis/bright-idea-why-some-puerto-rico-are-banking-solar-solution-n817746

http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/ikea/solar-panels/

23 hours ago, TT350 said:

I got caught speeding.

By what, a camera or actual human? I thought for a human they have to stop you and fine you on the spot, and the camera will take 2 weeks or so to know via the post?