You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
What we are objecting to is using this to claim that EVs are 100% fossil fuel powered. It makes no sense to suggest this in practical terms, it’s false accounting.
Mainly fossil fuel - as has been explained to you but you do not want to see this. Its extra electricity consumption which is mainly produced by fossil fuel burning.
Its false accounting to claim anything different.
However, I didn’t spend anywhere near £10k extra on an EV, nor do most people. Thanks to zero BIK, the government is actually funding the extra in what I guess is the majority of cases.
Which is where I have an issue. Instead of funding the purchase of an EV that money should be used for further decarbonising the grid.
Both needs to happen. New cars, for fleets and domestic use, need to be EV... and the grid needs decarbonising (that means both more renewable energy generation, and upgrading distribution and storage). Whatever the nit picking over fueling EVs, using them is better than putting any more ICE vehicles on the roads. Even with the existing energy mix. And that mix needs changing fast... as well.. to further reduce the emissions for new EVs over their life of use. There's no conflict... it all goes together... more of one means we benefit more from more of the other.
Mainly fossil fuel – as has been explained to you but you do not want to see this.
You patronising arse.
Instead of funding the purchase of an EV that money should be used for further decarbonising the grid.
Again I think we need both. And both are happening, to be fair, quite quickly. We need to decarbonise transport as well as electricity generation.
Mainly fossil fuel – as has been explained to you but you do not want to see this. Its extra electricity consumption which is mainly produced by fossil fuel burning.
An EV may or may not run on electricity generated by fossil fuels. It may run on renewables. It may run on nuclear.
An ICE vehicle will always run on fossil fuels.
Any EV running on anything means one less ICE vehicle running on fossil fuels. And if it is running on electricity generated from fossil fuels, it’s more efficient use of them than burning directly in an ICE.
The position is not perfect but it is better.
The grid is decarbonising and will continue to do so, there are different pathways, with different mixtures of solar, wind, biomass and other sources, but it is getting cleaner year on year. That means that EVs will continue to get cleaner year on year.
In the nuclear thread, someone mentioned the book 'sustainable energy without the hot air' by David McKay. It really is a great source of information about this stuff, slightly dated, but still relevant. Carbon brief is also excellent in this area.
I know you're a self appointed expert on anything you read on bit of information about TJ but you're coming across incredibly poorly here. We're all on the same side remember; we all want a better and more equitable future, that doesn't harm the environment. EV's aren't without their problems, but they are a step in the right direction.
tjagain
Mainly fossil fuel – as has been explained to you but you do not want to see this. Its extra electricity consumption which is mainly produced by fossil fuel burning.
Its false accounting to claim anything different.
Meh, I'm with Molgrips on this. The only way of looking at it that makes sense to me is looking at the overall average percentage of renewables across the entire grid.
Looking at it in terms of marginal load throws up some obvious garbage results.
For example, let's say it's 30th December 2022 and the grid is 100% renewable with 1KW to spare. My neighbour switches on his dishwasher and uses that last 1KW. The grid is now 100% renewable, 0% gas. I switch mine on 2 minutes later, therefore the gas turbines get spun up to meet the demand.
Using my preferred methodology, the grid and therefore both dishwashers are now 99.999999% renewable, 0.000001% gas.
Yet according to your methodology, my neighbour's dishwasher is 100% renewable and mine is running on 100% fossil fuels.
An ICE vehicle will always run on fossil fuels.
Unless it's running on renewables 🙂
For example, let’s say it’s 30th December 2022 and the grid is 100% renewable with 1KW to spare. My neighbour switches on his dishwasher and uses that last 1KW. The grid is now 100% renewable, 0% gas. I switch mine on 2 minutes later, therefore the gas turbines get spun up to meet the demand.
Using my preferred methodology, the grid and therefore both dishwashers are now 99.999999% renewable, 0.000001% gas.
But that's an edge case which only occurs for a very rare instant. In that situiation I would agree that smudging together you and your neighbours usage to consider collectively would be sensible. 99.9% of the time, the marginal generation is very clear-cut, either by gas or renewables.
An enormous game changer of EVs is that they are very flexible about when they consume power, so they can wait for times when the marginal power is renewable, and gobble up all the excess. In 2024 this is still extremely rare, but it will become much more common in the future, especially on windy nights.
There is probably a really interesting stat available somewhere. How often is it the case that, if it weren't for EVs being charged, there would be excess renewables. During those periods, I would absolutely agree that the marginal power demand of charging EVs, taken collectively, is partly renewable electricity.
How often is it the case that, if it weren’t for EVs being charged, there would be excess renewables.
It's an incredibly pointless stat though because you could produce the same stat for anything - what if no-one was watching TV at any given time?
Also, by driving this home you undermining the idea of EVs (even if you don't mean to) whilst acknowledging they are a better technology than ICEs.
EVs are increasing electricity demand.
This increase in demand is mainly met by fossil fuel burning. Thats the difference between this new consumption and existing consumption.
the answer is not EVs - that answer is to stop moving people around individually in two tonne boxes. yes that means lifestyle changes. EVs allow people to pretend those lifestyle changes are not needed
EVs are not a significant part of the solution because they do not address this fundamental issue. Instead they allow folk to pretend they are doing something. Ie greenwash
1.5 degrees global warming has already happened. 2 degrees is inevitable. 3 degrees is more than likely. fiddling around the edges will not do. We need a fundamental shift in how we live or else we are going to see billions die in your or your childrens lifetimes
Correct - but what we need is giant strides. The time for baby steps was decades ago. Baby steps will never get us up the mountain we face
Yeah we all already know this and you've said it a thousand times. However, what we need is social revolution, and that's not easy. I don't know how to do it.
You start within yourself and work outwards from there
Heat Pumps are also going to produce massive electricity demand....the answer however isn't to sit in cold houses. Agreed lifestyles need to change. Social change takes decades though.....outrage and optimism talked about this a few weeks back.
the answer however isn’t to sit in cold houses
Actually a part of it is - and massive drive on insulation. We simply need to use a lot less energy
Social change takes decades though
We do not have decades.
You start within yourself and work outwards from there
Is that not what those who have purchased new EVs are doing? They have made a choice not to buy a new fossil fuelled vehicle, but to buy one that is measurably cleaner. Clean[b]er[/b], not clean.
They in turn will pass those vehicles into the secondhand market, thereby working outwards.
It’s nigh on impossible to persuade people instead of buying a new vehicle, to buy [i]no[/i] vehicle. So, the next best thing is to buy a cleaner one and incentivise that.
IMO - and this becomes a philosophical point we need to accept that there are no technological fixes. the only solution is less people using less energy each worldwide
Once the problem is properly defined and that definition accepted then we can seek solutions. Until we have an accepted realistic definition of the problems then no solutions can be found
Again IMO the technological "fixes" like EVs actually end up delaying the radical action needed as it allows people to believe they have "done their bit"
But I am very pessimistic. Attitudes like these shown on here tell me that folk will not accept the changes needed and thus billions of deaths are inevitable. I'll be dead in 25 years and have no kids. In the meantime I will live my low impact for a westerner lifestyle. I've given up caring what happens after I am dead
We do not have decades.
But we dont need decades anyway.
Everyone knows we do everything important in the last five minutes 😉
You start within yourself and work outwards from there
No, I disagree. If I go as green as is possible to be and slash my carbon footprint, very few people will take a blind bit of notice.
Attitudes like these shown on here tell me that folk will not accept the changes needed
You are confused. When we say change is difficult, we don't mean that we don't want to make changes. We mean that persuading the whole world to make changes is really hard. You seem to think that strongly worded forum posts are enough, but they clearly aren't.
I agree with you 100% that we need to make huge changes. I am simply pointing out how enormously difficult that will be to achieve, on a practical level. You can't just stop people using cars. The global economy would be ruined in days, and we'd be starving in weeks. Any government that tries to ban things that people need will not be voted back in. We need a plan that will move us to a better world without ruining it, and that requires a strong competent and committed government. You coming on here and bellyaching doesn't achieve anything, as I'm sure you know.
I'm not pointing these things out because I don't want major change - I do. I am trying to tell you where the problems lie because you don't seem to realise.
Oh I do realise the problems. Individuals and governments worldwide are burying their heads in the sand. And yes - these threads do show that folk will not make the changes needed. Thus we are fubar as a race.
IMO – and this becomes a philosophical point we need to accept that there are no technological fixes.
In a world of sweeping statements that is fairly bold even for you!! 🤣
Agreed we need to use less energy, resource....I'm an anti capitalist and subscribe to a post growth economic standpoint. Less people.....not even going there. You're a dark green yeah? I find the depopulation arguements just about the most problematic part of green politics. I'm far from being alone on that either.
Yup I'm a dark green - tho an imperfect one 🙂 I have always lived within muscle power of work, I have no kids and no pets and no car, I very rarely buy new stuff and have been roundly mocked on here for adhering to that lifestyle - and still my lifestyle is unsustainable
Apart from the time when you commuted by motorbike to Tranent and then bought a Scooter to do the commute.
and have been roundly mocked on here for adhering to that lifestyle
That's not why we mock you!
these threads do show that folk will not make the changes needed
The issue is that people get trapped. We try to point this out, but you mistake it for refusal. Life is a lot more complex than you understand.
Anyway. How much ved will I be paying on my ev in the future?
Oh - I had forgotten that job bikepawl. a few months in 40 odd years. good memory you have 🙂
Molgrips - oh yes I have been mocked for my lifestyle and yes the attitudes here show a refusal to even consider the changes needed.
The issue is that people get trapped. We try to point this out, but you mistake it for refusal.
It is refusal - I could go thru the thread and find many examples - one person stating he would never live in a city so has to have a car to commute. Thats a refusal. another stating he will never give up his car. etc etc
That’s what happens when you try to rewrite your past to make yourself look more green. And I would also count all those times you used your motorbike or the scooter when you where technically within cycling distance.
one person stating he would never live in a city so has to have a car to commute. Thats a refusal.
He sounds like a switched on chap. Living in city's is mentally draining. I've been there. Would rather go by foot for the 10 miles to work than have to live in other people's space and live in constant light and noise pollution.
It's the kids that mean I need a car at the moment. Availability of child care is poor and wide spread. I have two infants at different (private care) across two different villages because there is no capacity to get them into a single facility despite registering the youngest before he was born.
Anyway. How much ved will I be paying on my ev in the future?
You’d get a pretty good idea by clicking the link in the first post on this thread 🙂
Looks like lots of newer sub 10 year old cars will now be paying tax?
If anything the new tax on previously zero rated ice cars will encourage the uptake of EVs? If they can be charged at home or cheaper than the increasing cost of petrol or diesel?
Surely the green thing to do is carry on driving your 10 year old Ice engined vehicle rather than buy a new one. I wonder how many miles it takes to offer the energy and materials of a new car v trundling around in an existing car?
At the moment replacing ice cars with electric ones is very cheap if you get a company car. The result is many companies, mine included, are stopping paying car allowances and giving cars instead. I will end up with an ev that I don’t really want and have an ice car to dispose of for no good reason
one person stating he would never live in a city so has to have a car to commute
Sure, you could just blame that person. Maybe they are to blame. But maybe their workplace is in a crap location and there are no houses available on public transport routes. The solution to that is not just to blame that person, it's making better public transport, or work out another solution that doesn't need travelling if possible. We simply cannot all live next to where we work - that is just not possible. But what we can do is reduce the travelling required, and make that travel more sustainable. There are so many things that a government could do to improve matters. That's why I blame the government, not the individuals.
There's actually a fairly significant amount of time now when wind farms are paid not to generate so the marginal electricity is renewable. This expected to become more of an issue for next decade or so. So if you charge an EV overnight and at lowest cost times if you have a suitable tariff it will most likely be renewable electricity. More tariffs will appear for this. Apps showing live grid generation mix are available too so easy enough to see what is happening.
I wonder how many miles it takes to offer the energy and materials of a new car v trundling around in an existing car?
13,500 miles according to Reuters. Other models give 15000 - 20000 miles. There is one model that predicts 700,000 miles, but it's developed by the oil and gas industry.
Ooh, I just calculated how much CO2 your recent holiday produced TJ 😆
I wonder how many miles it takes to offer the energy and materials of a new car v trundling around in an existing car?
Also bear in mind that sometimes cars do need replacing. We only got an EV because the old Prius got crashed. We'd still be driving that if it hadn't.
We do not have decades.
As a middle aged bloke then as long as we are ok for the next 4 or 5 decades then that ok with me. As we chose not to have kids in 50 years time we will probably be dead and beyond caring
There’s actually a fairly significant amount of time now when wind farms are paid not to generate so the marginal electricity is renewable. This expected to become more of an issue for next decade or so. So if you charge an EV overnight and at lowest cost times if you have a suitable tariff it will most likely be renewable electricity. More tariffs will appear for this. Apps showing live grid generation mix are available too so easy enough to see what is happening.
That's interesting. Just read that it is caused by the infrastructure not being good enough to get the energy to where it is needed (out of the north sea and into southern England). So excess renewables in Scotland, but they still have to fire up a gas station in England to meet demand.
It’s nigh on impossible to persuade people instead of buying a new vehicle, to buy novehicle.
In Holland it happened. Most people don’t actually want to own cars if there is a viable alternative.
I read the gas power stations that can be spun up quickly are les efficient and it costs a lot to start them up. This means they leave the efficient ones running for longer, which can create the renewable surplus. There may also be contractual obligations to use a certain amount of power from a certain source. Then when the wind picks up there is more power than we need. That's why Octopus can pay you to use it. And what better way to use the surplus than put it in a battery such as the one in an EV?
Most people don’t actually want to own cars if there is a viable alternative.
Most people don't want the expense nor do they want to spend hours a day in traffic. They don't feel they have a choice without giving up something else important. Honestly, better PT is the main way to solve the car problem without seriously limiting people's lives, as it stands today. And better PT is easy to do, it's a proven technology, it just needs some ****ing money spent on it.
Car addiction is like a disease. In the Netherlands they caught it early and were able to control it better. We actually encouraged the disease instead of trying to manage it back then, now it's taken over and will be far harder to cure.
Most people don’t actually want to own cars if there is a viable alternative.
“Most” is quite a claim. There are definitely plenty of people reliant on their car that wish they were not.
A quarter of homes in the UK have no car. Aiming for half having no car is a realistic short term aim. Not enough is being done to move us in that direction.
But we still need new cars to be EV not ICE.
Surely the green thing to do is carry on driving your 10 year old Ice engined vehicle rather than buy a new one. I wonder how many miles it takes to offer the energy and materials of a new car v trundling around in an existing car
Carbon brief did a good article on this. It is very hard to compare like for like. Some of the studies that made out that it was a huge difference, and got a load of traction in mainstream coverage, deliberately misrepresented figures. I can't remember the exact carbon brief article, I think that it was written by Hoekstra.
But isn’t the tax band supposed to be representative of emissions?
Well, there’s all the environmental issues with battery production, the extra materials going into such big, heavy vehicles, the incremental damage to infrastructure, and the huge amount of wear on the tyres of EV’s, causing particulates that people on urban environments are inhaling.
Someone mentioned buying second hand ev’s - there’s no way I’d buy one; buy a second hand IC car, the engine dies, it’s possible to replace it for £1000 or so with a second hand one. The battery dies on an EV, you’re out £14k.
buy an EV if you want, but don't bother pretending it's because of the environment. that requires significant commitment to a different quality of life.
use a car less, ride to work, car pool, don't fly long haul etc.
the huge amount of wear on the tyres of EV’s, causing particulates that people on urban environments are inhaling.
Myth
The battery dies on an EV, you’re out £14k.
Incorrect
buy an EV if you want, but don’t bother pretending it’s because of the environment
If you need a new car anyway it is better to get an EV, because they are overall better for the environment.
The answer is not EVs – that answer is to stop moving people around individually in two tonne boxes. yes that means lifestyle changes. EVs allow people to pretend those lifestyle changes are not needed
That's the kind of pie in the sky thinking that leads to no change and a worse net result. It's been proven time and again society will not make rapid wholesale changes (without some catalyst like war, the impact of climate change is still nowhere near that though as far too many people still ignore it). EVs maybe a very small step on the way to change but at least they're still a step in the right direction, going on about ending car use is just more hot air contributing towards global warming.
I have an EV, I don't think I've single-handedly saved the planet, nor do I think it means I don't need to make any more change to reduce my carbon footprint/impact on the planet. But it's a step I could make so I did. I was going to invest in solar panels and battery storage but right now it's cost prohibitive and there are more cost effective changes I can make in the short-term. Why not advocate for heavily subsidised home solar generation and battery storage so more EVs can move off-grid and use 100% renewable energy? It could be part funded by the EV VED change. But no it's just simpler to spout grandiose notions of ending car use...
Who spends hours a day in traffic? My commute is 15-25 minutes. Doing it by car saves me 2 or 3 hours a day compared to public transport. It is a cycleable distance but long enough to build up a good sweat and without having either lockers or showers at work. In any case when a shift finishes at 2am I just want to get home fast. No public transport at 2am either. Aside for work cars are great. Day trips to the Highlands. Carrying large weights and volumes of stuff. Public transport will never be as good. My free bus pass has been used about 4 times.
In Holland it happened. Most people don’t actually want to own cars if there is a viable alternative.
Holland has more cars per population than the UK 😁
don’t fly long haul etc.
It's actually short haul that should be avoided the most, as most fuel is used on take off & landing, plus short haul is more easily substituted for train travel etc
Who spends hours a day in traffic?
Lots of folk - I know several in the south whos commute is / was over an hour each way
Not sure why everyone's equating commuting to car ownership, do you see people counting on public transport to do the school drop off, get them to work, go get the weekly shop, visit family, go and do stuff, etc, etc, public transport doesn't help when you've got to get around town and do stuff, we live in a country that did a huge change with the introduction of commuting towns, allowing people to move more freely than they ever did, that wasn't due to public transport, that was down to road infrastructure and cars.
<quote>The battery dies on an EV, you’re out £14k.</quote>
You know that most electric cars have at least an 8 year/100000 mile warranty on the battery? and even if you're out of the warranty period a lot of EV's have a modular battery, so you dont have to buy the whole thing, you just replace the individual module with the faulty cell(s).
Why not advocate for heavily subsidised home solar generation and battery storage so more EVs can move off-grid and use 100% renewable energy?
Because not every home has a roof, not all roofs point in the right direction, some are shaded, etc.
Oh and they don't produce much power over a chunk of the year.
Pretty sure all batteries are modular. You can already get older car batteries refurbished, or replaced with ones from scrapped cars. These are pretty much the same options you have with ICEs if you have a major engine mechanical problem.
It's not even that hard to refurbish batteries. I did it on my Prius battery. Of course an EV one would be a lot harder to DIY because you'd need a proper ramp and lifting gear but we will find refurbishment places in every city eventually. I reckon it's easier than fixing an engine. Just follow the procedure to remove it, unbolt the offending cell and replace. The OBD already gives you a breakdown of every cell performance so you know which ones are bad.
Oh and they don’t produce much power over a chunk of the year.
Seems like a non fact checked afterthought comment to me.
November December and January are the only months I don't cover my net usage with a bog standard 3.6kw inverter system. - but even on the worst month I cover 1/3rd of the day-day use use.
Granted you'll need more meat for an ev. But removing your day to day helps leave headroom on the grid for EVs and heat pumps.
Hell knows if the SSE presentations we went to for the new superpylons to draw the Scottish renewables down to England are right then the national grid are feeding the public crap about the grid being ready to cope with evs and heatpump demand.......
You know that most electric cars have at least an 8 year/100000 mile warranty on the battery?
That is the point at which I can afford to buy a vehicle.
Surely the green thing to do is carry on driving your 10 year old Ice engined vehicle rather than buy a new one. I wonder how many miles it takes to offer the energy and materials of a new car v trundling around in an existing car
I tried working out the numbers on this a few months back and it's very hard to get a clear answer. My car is 6.5 years old and has done 130,000 miles, which is the point where I have traded in my last two cars for new (ICE) ones. I'm convinced that it's better environmentally for me to keep my existing car for, say, another 5 years than it is to trade it in for a new ICE car. I also assumed that it would be better to keep it than trade it in a for a new EV, but that turns out to be much less clear.
I do around 20,000 miles a year, which is a lot of tailpipe emissions. I had a look on the MOT database at the last two cars I traded in (both at around 140,000 miles). One is still running and the other managed another 11 years, but both were averaging less than 5,000 miles a year since I sold them. Makes sense I guess. A relatively new but high mileage car is probably most attractive to somebody who doesn't do many miles.
So, if I keep the car for 5 years I'd expect to drive another 100,000 miles. If I sell it that car will probably only do 25,000 miles over those five years. The difference in emissions seems to be more than the production and 100,000 miles emissions of an EV. So, actually buying a new EV looks like the environmentally friendly option. Although it's based on things like assuming the average renewables rate for electricity production, which we've seen can lead to pages of heated debate 🙂
It probably is the case that me getting rid of my ICE car and buying a second hand EV (where the production emissions have already happened) is a better option though. But can I actually ignore the production emissions for a second hand EV or does me buying that enable somebody else to buy a new one?
Just read that it is caused by the infrastructure not being good enough to get the energy to where it is needed (out of the north sea and into southern England). So excess renewables in Scotland, but they still have to fire up a gas station in England to meet demand.
It would help if more renewable generating capacity was built closer to the demand. It might not be as windy nearer our southern urban centres but the that just means more turbines, solar farms etc are required. Ringing every leafy village with some 175 metre turbines might make some folk a bit more careful with their energy usage.
I can get 600 miles on a tank with my 1.2l engine and achieve over 50mpg. The car is shaped like a box too. When EV's can achieve the same I'll consider switching. The tax is not a factor for me. Still cheaper to keep my current car.
If you were granted one wave of a magic wand to improve the drivetrain in your ICE car, what would you wish for?
More speed? More power? More efficiency? Much cheaper to run? More mechanically reliable? Quieter? Smoother? Less emissions? Needs virtually no servicing?
That’s an EV, that is.
I’ll happily pay the additional tax to own an EV. I’ve found the experience to be superior to any ICE car I’ve ever owned and any environmental benefit is just gravy on top.
If you’ve tried it for yourself and hated it then that’s fine but I’ve found that almost all the people who constantly tell me how shite EVs are have never driven one, much less owned one. They just seem to parrot myths that they’ve heard.
More speed? More power? More efficiency? Much cheaper to run? More mechanically reliable? Quieter? Smoother? Less emissions? Needs virtually no servicing?
And impossible for us to insure for an 18, 20 and 22 year old. We were *this* close to buying an Ionic - but the insurance was black box, £900 excess and cheapest quote was north of £7.5k annually, nearly the value of the car.
So we have a Fabia of similar value and performance - and it is £1k to insure
Kramer
It’s nigh on impossible to persuade people instead of buying a new vehicle, to buy novehicle.
In Holland it happened. Most people don’t actually want to own cars if there is a viable alternative.
In the Netherlands, 74% of households own at least one car.
More speed? More power? More efficiency? Much cheaper to run? More mechanically reliable? Quieter? Smoother? Less emissions? Needs virtually no servicing?
...you forgot sound and visceral experience. 🙂
I'm surprised (gob smacked even) that a decent spec Fabia is so much cheaper to insure than a single motor Ioniq.
…you forgot sound and visceral experience.
You mean noise?
Ours is highest power, SEL estate, 2017 - 110bhp.
We were comparing with a slightly more expensive Ionic.
The performance is very similar.
I would like an electric car, and I had hoped we would have one.
But there are still complex barriers to ownership for many.
big, heavy vehicles, the incremental damage to infrastructure,
the huge amount of wear on the tyres of EV’s, causing particulates that people on urban environments are inhaling.
buy a second hand IC car, the engine dies, it’s possible to replace it for £1000 or so with a second hand one. The battery dies on an EV, you’re out £14k.
EV buIIshit bingo card almost completed
You mean noise?
There's noise and nice noise.
Well, I suppose that at least insurance costs might push people to smaller EVs then, even if the tax bands don't do that yet.
…you forgot sound and visceral experience.
I didn’t. My car will provide me with a suite of fake engine sounds (just like a petrol BMW M3 does) to suit every mood including a Starship Enterprise warp drive effect which makes me giggle every single time. Mostly I turn them off though because the silence is better. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve wished I could make a diesel engine silent with the push of a button
As for visceral experience, most EV’s are pant-shittingly, organ rearrangingly quick. It’s plenty visceral if you want it to be and instantly at that. Crucially though you also have the default option of serenity which I much prefer.
The technology gives you a suite of choices that ICE cars just don’t.
As for visceral experience, most EV’s are pant-shittingly, organ rearrangingly quick.
It's not all about speed though. Speed is easy nowadays in any modern ICE car, you can easily sit at 90 cocooned in smooth efficiency. Not what I want in a car.
And fake is just that - you switch it off because you know it's fake.
And I don't want choices - I know I'm a luddite on this but banks of screens with every option under the sun does nothing for me.
But it's personal and I can see why people like them.
I’m surprised (gob smacked even) that a decent spec Fabia is so much cheaper to insure than a single motor Ioniq
Why's that ? Head in the sand. It's very very widely reported that EVs are being scrapped for notional damage regularly due to fear of damage to batteries or battery replacement is part of the repair and it's written off.
Even for me a driver of 20 years with full NCB in a quiet area ev insurance is ludicrous even considering ice car costs have nearly doubled in the last 18 months - if I bought the same vehicle in EV mode which I've come close to but the sums didn't add up - I was going to be doubling my insurance costs again.
The kids have no chance.