EV - buy or wait?

On launch the BMW i3 was available as a pure EV or with a motorbike engine up the back to recharge and assuage range anxiety. It didn’t seem to be popular.

1 Like

Peugeot 3008. Interestingly it’s a diesel hybrid, which is fairly uncommon - not that it’s the reason why we bought it.

I had seen how EVs had taken off in the UK, and was intrigued. We rent so can’t install a charger and don’t have solar panels, so getting a full EV car wasn’t really an option. But a hybrid was like a gateway drug, so I could see how driving using the battery bit goes.

Initially I expected the battery to last longer… In terms of KMs, I mean. Back then I didn’t really understand much about EVs, but I felt a bit short-changed by how few KMs I can go before the ICE kicks in, or if I pull off too quickly, or if the AC is on full blast, etc.

However it has served its purpose as I have found the bit where you’re driving under battery power to be very nice. There’s something about driving along without hearing the engine that I really like. I’d happily get a full EV next time, especially as range increases and the number of charging stations has massively grown.

I should probably add that our car is quite old now (2015 iirc), and I’m sure newer cars have better batteries than our one.

Thats interesting, some lile the Outlander vers 1 also had apalling battery range. The later version has a button so you can recharge whilst driving and the cabby said you dont really notice a drop in power doing so hence the ability to keep charging and using, I believe similar in later Prius’s. My Toyota Estima only used the battery up to 20mph so hardly useful until these 20mph speed limits came in. I sold it in favour of petrol as I thought it would be better in battery mode. Thinking I will keep it a year or two more before hopefully switching to full EV.

Significant styling issues too…


1 Like

Found this.

The last paragraph is quite teling.

1 Like

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

"The stupidity of the human being!
Here comes the Tesla battery.
To produce it you need to excavate:
12 tons. of rock for Lithium
5 tons. of cobalt minerals
3 t. of mineral for nickel
12 tons. the mineral for the copper
Need to move 250 tons. of land to obtain:
12 kg of Lithium
13.6 pounds of nickels
22 kg of manganese
6.8 kg of Cobalt
100 Kg of Rams
200 kg of aluminum, steel and plastic.
The Caterpillar 994A used to move this earth consumes 1000 litres of diesel in 12 hours.
Here is the “zero emissions” car.
The biggest scam in history. "

1 Like

And you need to balance that with the same for an ICE car. BTW Tesla use LFP batteries without cobalt.


Helpful to cite your source when providing statistics. Makes it easier to evaluate the plausibility of the info.

Thought that was obvious, mother earth of course!

Why not just cite your actual source?

As @Corona says there are problems on both sides of the equation.

The fact remains that EVs are not as green as they are cracked up to be - they are bit better than fossil fuelled vehicles but I don’t expect them to save the planet.

Unfortunately people have had a flurry of interest which has waned and sales are down.

Some of this is because they are much more expensive than an equivalent petrol vehicle, some doubtless because real world range is still lower than it needs to be, some because of anxiety (real or imagined) about the state of the charging network - though to be fair if the infrastructure to supply diesel and petrol were as unreliable and sparse as for EV charging drivers of those vehicles would have anxiety about getting to the next forecourt as well.

It is clear that fossil fuelled vehicles are on the way out - but there are more problems with our transport infrastructure than will be solved by EVs, which only really fix tailpipe emissions (and then at the expense of additional environmental damage elsewhere in their manufacturing cycle).


Its fact that many raw materials are required to produce both EV and ICE vehicles. Source or opinion, opinion or source, fact or fiction, fiction or fact?
Quoting a source of information may well be simply conveying another persons opinion not fact. The Mona Lisa is one of the most expensive paintings in the world, why? Because we are told it is from peoples opinion which has turned it value to fact.
Digging, mining, drilling for raw materials is fact and this earth hasn’t got an unlimited supply so providing my source will not change that.
I posted for discussion around the dinner table, not for a university lecture room😉

Therefore I assume it’s an opinion - of a retired builder!

If you posted something based on first hand knowledge from the building trade I’d be willing to accept your opinion, but the above is unsubstantiated nonsense. Mining and drilling are facts, but so what? - that’s got nothing to do with a comparative argument.

Opinion or fact :face_with_hand_over_mouth:
Have a good evening

1 Like

But that’s part of the debate, the quality of the source being quoted. Without a source it’s just a list of stuff that you could have made up yourself.


Thank you, and I will…

1 Like

Part of the debate, yes but if every post on any subject needs a source SF would be a pretty boring and statistical place. Many times newspaper clips are posted as a source, some fact but many the authors opinion that has or could have been made up by them but believed as fact by the reader.

Clearly if this were an actual dinner party the attendees would not have sources, data and articles at our fingertips.

But I don’t think it unreasonable to back up a belief or point of view with data (or perhaps reliable opinion**) to support that view.

A huge part of the problem with political debate at present (see: Brexit, Maga, QAnon, anti-vax etc. ad infinitum) is that people hold irrational, “gut feeling” views which are demonstrably 100% fruit loop territory and lack any critical thinking skills to see that they they are off piste.

** - recognising that your “reliable opinion” might be my “fruit loop”.

See also:


First of all most posts on most subjects don’t need a source - that’s completely false.

Secondly providing a source where one cites secondary info is normal grown-up debating as opposed to pub bore sounding off.

It’s easy enough to cite an authoritive source, so what’s the problem? Unless of course you’re just making it up off the top of your head.

1 Like