By bringing the net zero date back to 2030, the UK has set itself up for the rest of the world to realise that the changeover to electrification cannot be achieved by a nation, in such a short period of time, when many UK motorists see this being imposed on them against their wishes

A few years ago, a car which held onto 50% of its list price after 3 years would have been considered to have held its value fairly well.

Back in 2004 I bought an ex-demo Octavia which was less than a year old for about 65% of its list price, and that was the one most local to me, rather than the cheapest in the country.

In 2009 I very nearly replaced that car with a 1 year old Astra which was for sale for 40% of its original list price - but in the end decided I liked the Octavia too much to let it go for the £2500 it was then worth and kept it another 4 years instead.

Son bought a Porsche Taycan 2 years ago.

Sold after 18 months - trailered in at the beginning of the year 3 times.

It had had 2 battery changeses in his ownership as there were problems charging and range.

He loved it when it worked properly but in 18 months it was in the garage 2 months awaiting parts - new AC needed in week 1 and 2 batteries - 3 weeks wait for parts. Ac was replaced with AC from a showroom car as parts were in short supply.

Replaced by petrol Cayenne. He lost $30K in the 18 months

VW seem to have real problems with their EV reliability. A colleague's Q4 E-Tron is forever going back to the dealer.

For ages the argument made on this forum has been EVs will never be affordable by "ordinary" people and will price many out of motoring.

Well, depreciation, as it always has been, is the answer!

No good if the replacement part you are most likely to need costs £7k - £15k! A car can depreciate by 80% a year, but if parts cost a fortune and as it ages, the likelihood of it needing replacements increases exponentially, then no-one will want to buy them.

At least with ICE the likelihood of several major engine components failing within short order is minimal. Besides, you don't need to spend £1k on a home filling point for ICE, unlike EVs, and I certainly wouldn't want to rely on public chargers for a 15yo car that at best gets well under 100 miles (and often considerably less than 60) of range.

This is why Andy never loses an argument - he says the cars cost too much, now they are losing loads of value...ah, but they will be too expensive to fix...I expect if they were fixed cheap there would be something else wrong with them! :-)

For ages the argument made on this forum has been EVs will never be affordable by "ordinary" people and will price many out of motoring.

Well, depreciation, as it always has been, is the answer!

No good if the replacement part you are most likely to need costs £7k - £15k! A car can depreciate by 80% a year, but if parts cost a fortune and as it ages, the likelihood of it needing replacements increases exponentially, then no-one will want to buy them.

At least with ICE the likelihood of several major engine components failing within short order is minimal. Besides, you don't need to spend £1k on a home filling point for ICE, unlike EVs, and I certainly wouldn't want to rely on public chargers for a 15yo car that at best gets well under 100 miles (and often considerably less than 60) of range.

This is why Andy never loses an argument - he says the cars cost too much, now they are losing loads of value...ah, but they will be too expensive to fix...I expect if they were fixed cheap there would be something else wrong with them! :-)

So, nothing worthwhile to say to dismantle my arguments then?

Yes, plenty, but not worth my time replying to you.

The link below is old but little has changed in the mining and production of the batteries which is the main carbon negative

While mining for the precious metals needed for batteries is obviously a bad thing, the anti-EV brigade shouting specifically about this is nothing but hypocrisy.

93.57% of everything mined from the Earth is iron.

6.39% is industrial metals.

The remaining 0.04% is technology and precious metals, that is where EV batteries come in.

Funny how the anti-EV brigade have no problem with all the other stuff mined from the Earth (in vastly more quantities)................

Not hugely relevant, but I always like the little snippet that all of the platinum ever mined would fit comfortably into the average living room.

<< I always like the little snippet that all of the platinum ever mined would fit comfortably into the average living room. >>

A nice statistic, but it says nothing about how many tons of spoil have to be extracted to get a few grams of platinum - or gold, or gallium, or lithium for that matter !

Thousands of tons of waste to get the lithium and other metals for ONE battery and how much energy is involved with the mining and shipping

The killer issue in the EV battery payback period is that many/most of the materials can be recycled at the end of their useful lives (which does consume energy)

Fossil fuels, once burnt, are gone for good.

Basing a judgement on only the first user of the batteries may show a more limited saving in emissions - but still a significant saving. Recycled and embedded in new batteries the overall emissions may be closer to 10-20% than 50%+.

As we all know, you don't need facts and logic if you have a strong enough belief you're right.

Some simple facts I believe you may find it hard to disagree with :

Global population is increasing ; most nations expect, or at least hope, that their standard of living will improve ; it is clear that a century of greater fossil-fuel use has increased atmospheric CO2 levels, causing temperatures to rise.

No-one wants to limit the travelling they enjoy doing, so desperate searches are being made for other ways to continue - by selling the idea of EVs being 'clean', which they are, at least where they are being driven.

All these activities, and the processes associated with them, consume energy in all sorts of ways. Many of those occur somewhere overseas, where we can happily ignore them.