Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Electric cars?

Would you buy an electric car?

  • Already own one

    Votes: 10 5.1%

  • Yes - would definitely buy

    Votes: 43 21.9%

  • Yes - preferred over petrol car if price/power/convenience similar

    Votes: 78 39.8%

  • Maybe - preference for neither, only concerned with costs etc

    Votes: 37 18.9%

  • No - prefer petrol car even if electric car has same price, power and convenience

    Votes: 24 12.2%

  • No - would never buy one

    Votes: 14 7.1%
  • Total voters
    196
Jump to new
There goes the roads that were never built to handle that weight...
NSW hasn't even got back on top of pothole fixing after covid yet. 💩

www.fullyloaded.com.au

NSW announces higher weight limits for electric trucks | News

The increased limits will be implemented over a two-year trial period and it is hoped they will increase uptake of zero emissions heavy vehicles
www.fullyloaded.com.au www.fullyloaded.com.au
 
frugal.rock said:
There goes the roads that were never built to handle that weight...
NSW hasn't even got back on top of pothole fixing after covid yet. 💩

www.fullyloaded.com.au

NSW announces higher weight limits for electric trucks | News

The increased limits will be implemented over a two-year trial period and it is hoped they will increase uptake of zero emissions heavy vehicles
www.fullyloaded.com.au www.fullyloaded.com.au
Click to expand...

Yes, all that weight of all the 4WDs, dual cab monster utes, and large SUBs.

(Base models) -
  • Mercedes C180: 1625 kg.
  • Tesla M3: 1760 kg.
  • Ford Ranger dual cab: 1950kg.
Not many standard Rangers and such, I’d bet that they’re all around the 2500kg.
 
Telamelo said:
Click to expand...


It sounds good if looking for carbon free fuel, but other issues will mean even more complex engines and emissions systems.

Ammonia is expected to be a promising zero-emission fuel because it does not emit CO2 during combustion. However, the exhaust gas from the actual ammonia-fueled engines contains unburned ammonia, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and nitrous oxide (N2O), and there is a need to develop technologies to remove these harmful substances. Unburned ammonia can be removed by a catalytic combustion method using a conventional oxidation catalyst, but NOx and N2O are simultaneously generated as byproducts.​

Another problem with Amonia is that it is an ingredient to making bombs.

If the manufacturers get past all the complexities, and governments allow large scale production and sales to the public, then I can see it as a heavy vehicle fuel and possibly expensive luxury and sports cars.
 
JohnDe said:
That is why I went with a Tesla. I did my homework, as a trained mechanic and coming from an engineering family, I found that Tesla have the best charging infrastructure in the country, and the best technology, engineering and reliability of all other makes. Three years and 44,000km across three states and not an issue with electrics or charging.

Range is a minor factor, if you choose the correct vehicle. And we are spoilt with the current ICE engines and their great technology. My VF SS-V V8 Ute's engine shuts down 4 cylinders when cruising, I can squeeze about a 1000kms out of a tank on the highway. But would I risk driving that long without a stop? No, not since I grew up.

I remember my first interstate trip in a Holden HJ Kingswood 3.3L, I was lucky to get 350km out of a tank. And my first new car, a 2004 Ford Territory could only manage about 750km on the highway. When I drove my VF V8 I was amazed at the excellent fuel consumption.

Electric Vehicles are going through the same thing that ICEV went through, improved technology gives improved consumption. The only difference is that it won't take 100 years.

As for EV owners patting themselves on the back, well why wouldn't you if your able to save $3000+ a year, which can either pay of your loans quicker or invest for a return.

I enjoy both my cars, the Aussie V8 for its style, sound and speed. And the Tesla for its style, speed and quiet drive. The SS-V will be in my garage until I'm too old to drive.

We have a holiday home on the coast, about 200km of country driving, the Tesla is the primary vehicle to get us there. I always use the self-driving feature for safety, and it also allows me to safely take my eyes off the road to look out all windows at the wonderful scenery of this great country. I've always preferred driving holidays, traveled to many regions of the country, the best drives I have had have been in the Tesla because of the self-driving feature. I arrived with greater knowledge having seen more of the country than when I have to have my eyes glued to the road.

EVs aren't just changing the way we re-fuel our cars, they are changing the way we drive with AI.
Click to expand...

It's pretty funny to talk about "saving $2,000 per year" by buying a Tesla, especially the ridiculous claim about being able to invest that money, ignoring the initial purchase cost.

You're not saving money in your quest to get from A to B by buying a Tesla. There are far cheaper options. If you want to talk about saving and investing money, you can buy a car for a fraction of the cost, invest the savings, and your $2,000 per year savings on fuel are irrelevant. It's just nonsense and dishonest to talk about the "savings" you get by buying a Tesla compared to a more cost effective car which will get you from A to B. If you love your Tesla and enjoy it, good for you, but it's not the most cost effective option, and electric cars chew up a lot of your valuable time unless you can generally charge at home or equivalent.

Range is not a minor factor to anyone who needs the range. As I said, for those who never travel beyond home charging range it's not an issue, but for those who will need to visit charging stations it is various types of hassle and definitely a lot of wasted time.
 
Last edited:
Sdajii said:
It's pretty funny to talk about "saving $2,000 per year" by buying a Tesla, especially the ridiculous claim about being able to invest that money, ignoring the initial purchase cost.

You're not saving money in your quest to get from A to B by buying a Tesla. There are far cheaper options. If you want to talk about saving and investing money, you can buy a car for a fraction of the cost, invest the savings, and your $2,000 per year savings on fuel are irrelevant. It's just nonsense and dishonest to talk about the "savings" you get by buying a Tesla compared to a more cost effective car which will get you from A to B. If you love your Tesla and enjoy it, good for you, but it's not the most cost effective option, and electric cars chew up a lot of your valuable time unless you can generally charge at home or equivalent.

Range is not a minor factor to anyone who needs the range. As I said, for those who never travel beyond home charging range it's not an issue, but for those who will need to visit charging stations it is various types of hassle and definitely a lot of wasted time.
Click to expand...

Obviously you missed reading a post https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/electric-cars.21658/post-1246836

Comparing the vehicle I was going to purchase to the vehicle I ended up with, I am saving a lot more than the conservative figures I mentioned previously.

Range in the EV that you hired was your issue, range in the vehicle I have has not been an issue for me.

I have traveled across interstate borders with both an ICEV and an EV, same kilometres same destination, the only difference is the EV took little extra time due to charging but we got there within an hour or two depending on distance.

One of the best features of the Tesla is that it works out your charging requirements. Use its navigation system, put in the destination, and it tells you precisely where to charge and for how long. Some stops are a full charge, 20 minutes, and some are partial charge 5 to 10 minutes.

If we’re traveling extremely long distances we stay somewhere overnight and charge it. If it’s an Airbnb I have an extension cord in the car and I plug it into the power point.

There are people traveling to remote parts of Australia in their EV, mainly Tesla’s.

Of course it’s not as easy as a ICEV, but it’s not as difficult as you think. If you have a EV with the capability.

Back to savings; the money I spent on the Tesla is what I budgeted for the purchase of a ICEV. I am saving on the cost that the ULP would have cost me and the maintenance.
 
JohnDe said:
Obviously you missed reading a post https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/electric-cars.21658/post-1246836

Comparing the vehicle I was going to purchase to the vehicle I ended up with, I am saving a lot more than the conservative figures I mentioned previously.

Range in the EV that you hired was your issue, range in the vehicle I have has not been an issue for me.

I have traveled across interstate borders with both an ICEV and an EV, same kilometres same destination, the only difference is the EV took little extra time due to charging but we got there within an hour or two depending on distance.

One of the best features of the Tesla is that it works out your charging requirements. Use its navigation system, put in the destination, and it tells you precisely where to charge and for how long. Some stops are a full charge, 20 minutes, and some are partial charge 5 to 10 minutes.

If we’re traveling extremely long distances we stay somewhere overnight and charge it. If it’s an Airbnb I have an extension cord in the car and I plug it into the power point.

There are people traveling to remote parts of Australia in their EV, mainly Tesla’s.

Of course it’s not as easy as a ICEV, but it’s not as difficult as you think. If you have a EV with the capability.

Back to savings; the money I spent on the Tesla is what I budgeted for the purchase of a ICEV. I am saving on the cost that the ULP would have cost me and the maintenance.
Click to expand...

That's all fine for you, but you're ignoring what I said.

EVs are not a cost effective way to get around. You can spend as much as you like on an ICEV, but you can't cheaply buy an EV. You can't save money by buying an EV. If you want to get around as cheaply as possible, an ICEV is going to be your best bet. There's a myth that EVs are a cost effective way to save money on getting around. This simply is not true. That's what I was saying, your attempt to dispute it is invalid.

The fact that you would even mention that you've had to stay somewhere overnight to charge your vehicle demonstrates how extreme the recharging time is. The reality is that it chews up a lot of your time. You can play around with words and excuses all day long, but it's a time waster. The fact that you even talk about having a computer in your car which plans where to go to charge your car and for how long (as opposed to just quickly filling up anywhere you feel like right on your actual route) again shows what an issue it is. And, as in the video in California, or my own experience in Thailand, or as people have found all over the place, as soon as you have any sort of glitch or issue at one of those charging locations, you're facing significant hassle and potentially huge hassle, as opposed to just going to the next servo.

I'm well aware that people are driving through remote locations in their EVs. I mentioned earlier in this thread that early this year (I turned up on new year's day) I spent a few months at Sandfire Roadhouse in WA, about 300km to the nearest town and currently about 300km from the nearest place to fill up or charge up. Over the last few years I travelled around Australia multiple times, and over the last 20 something years I've extensively road tripped in multiple countries, etc. I've spent the last few years keeping an eye out for EVs. While at Sandfire I took note of how many were coming through (not many, but some) and was astounded that the owner allowed them to charge up for free. No need to inform me that people are managing to get around in EVs, or tell me that it's more difficult than in an ICEV, I do know.

Saying you are saving money on fuel because you would otherwise have spent the same amount on an ICEV is like me saying I saved money buying edible drugs as opposed to drugs which needed pipes or syringes, or, heck, I'm saving money by buying weed rather than cocaine. At the end of the day, EVs are not a cheap option, that's the bottom line. The fact that you say you could have spent just as much money on an ICEV is irrelevant. There are two relevant things here:

1) You can not spent less money getting around in an EV than you can in an ICEV

2) You can not spend less time getting around in an EV than you can in an ICEV (assuming you will be charging your car away from home or equivalent and more than very rarely)

The bottom line is that purely from a pragmatic point of view (getting from A to B cheaply and quickly), EVs are not the best option. You can love them for other reasons, you can personally prefer luxury car A to luxury car B out of personal preference, I am not telling anyone not to get an EV or that if you love EVs and want to promote them there's a problem with that, but that doesn't change the actual tangible metrics which clearly show they are not actually the pragmatic option, and you need to lie to pretend otherwise.
 
Sdajii said:
That's all fine for you, but you're ignoring what I said.

EVs are not a cost effective way to get around. You can spend as much as you like on an ICEV, but you can't cheaply buy an EV. You can't save money by buying an EV. If you want to get around as cheaply as possible, an ICEV is going to be your best bet. There's a myth that EVs are a cost effective way to save money on getting around. This simply is not true. That's what I was saying, your attempt to dispute it is invalid.

The fact that you would even mention that you've had to stay somewhere overnight to charge your vehicle demonstrates how extreme the recharging time is. The reality is that it chews up a lot of your time. You can play around with words and excuses all day long, but it's a time waster. The fact that you even talk about having a computer in your car which plans where to go to charge your car and for how long (as opposed to just quickly filling up anywhere you feel like right on your actual route) again shows what an issue it is. And, as in the video in California, or my own experience in Thailand, or as people have found all over the place, as soon as you have any sort of glitch or issue at one of those charging locations, you're facing significant hassle and potentially huge hassle, as opposed to just going to the next servo.

I'm well aware that people are driving through remote locations in their EVs. I mentioned earlier in this thread that early this year (I turned up on new year's day) I spent a few months at Sandfire Roadhouse in WA, about 300km to the nearest town and currently about 300km from the nearest place to fill up or charge up. Over the last few years I travelled around Australia multiple times, and over the last 20 something years I've extensively road tripped in multiple countries, etc. I've spent the last few years keeping an eye out for EVs. While at Sandfire I took note of how many were coming through (not many, but some) and was astounded that the owner allowed them to charge up for free. No need to inform me that people are managing to get around in EVs, or tell me that it's more difficult than in an ICEV, I do know.

Saying you are saving money on fuel because you would otherwise have spent the same amount on an ICEV is like me saying I saved money buying edible drugs as opposed to drugs which needed pipes or syringes, or, heck, I'm saving money by buying weed rather than cocaine. At the end of the day, EVs are not a cheap option, that's the bottom line. The fact that you say you could have spent just as much money on an ICEV is irrelevant. There are two relevant things here:

1) You can not spent less money getting around in an EV than you can in an ICEV

2) You can not spend less time getting around in an EV than you can in an ICEV (assuming you will be charging your car away from home or equivalent and more than very rarely)

The bottom line is that purely from a pragmatic point of view (getting from A to B cheaply and quickly), EVs are not the best option. You can love them for other reasons, you can personally prefer luxury car A to luxury car B out of personal preference, I am not telling anyone not to get an EV or that if you love EVs and want to promote them there's a problem with that, but that doesn't change the actual tangible metrics which clearly show they are not actually the pragmatic option, and you need to lie to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

Now your being obsessive and silly.

What is the percentage of new car buyers that purchase with only "cost effectiveness"? I can tell you that it is extremely low, otherwise the majority of vehicles on the road would be 3-cylinder Daihatsu's & Yaris's.

Remember LPG, back in the day people paid $3000+ to have an LPG system installed on their vehicle. Break even took 3 to 5 years or longer depending on the kilometers traveled. Those buyers did not care, they were just happy to be paying 50% less for fuel every time they filled up.

The majority of people look for a vehicle that will suit their real and perceived needs. If they are looking at a BMW or Mercedes, the Tesla M3 and MY pricing gets it into that category. For the same price the Tesla has no yearly maintenance and depending on how you re-charge a fuel savings of 25% to 50%. And with its advanced navigation system all the recharging calculations for travel is worked out in seconds.

BYD and MG are two other manufacturers offering competitively priced EVs for their market segment.

EVs are not the answer for all vehicle needs, but neither are ULP and Diesel vehicles. Each has its own purpose suited for different needs. Saying that EVs "are not a cost effective way to get around" is disingenuous. Is a vehicle with a petrol engine less cost effective than one with a diesel engine? It depends on what purpose the vehicle will be used.

As for your number statements -
  1. Yes, I can. My screen shot shows the savings I have made. Yes, I am in the fortunate position that I am able to get cheap electricity at my holiday apartment, but even without that there is still a savings compared to diesel or petrol and maintenance. There is no spark plugs, fuel and air filters, timing belt, engine oil and transmission fluid changes, and brake pads and rotors replacement are at 250,000km. that's a saving in my book.
  2. Strange statement. You also don't spend less time in a Ferrari traveling to the same destination as a Camry, there are speed restrictions and road rules. When I travel to my holiday home I get there just as fast in my EV as I do in my V8 SS-V, and same goes for when I drive home.
I regularly go on driving holidays, the longest was 3000+km. I am going to stay somewhere overnight, to rest and refresh, and that is why the EV gets a free overnight re-charge.

When I was younger, I would regularly drive nonstop for 8+ hours. I was in a hurry, speed and final destination was the priority. I changed that habit, I now plan my trip so that I can have a stop every 3 or 4 hours for a break, it could be 10, 30 minutes or longer depending on what the town has to offer. I started that habit when I was driving my ICEV and continue to do that with my EV and use the time for a quick charge. I am in no hurry to get to my final destination. Half the fun is getting their and seeing things, talking to people.

The bottom line is I am saving money owning an EV. Originally, I was looking for a ICEV in the same price category as the Tesla M3LRLR. I decided to on the Tesla. In 3 years and 44,000km of ownership I have spent $0.00 on maintenance, and a significant savings on using electricity over ULP.

IMG_1949.jpg
Last 31 Days
 
Last edited:
Telamelo said:

Stockholm to ban diesel, petrol cars from city centre starting 2025 (suggests other European cities to follow)​

Click to expand...
just as well , it will help them control the rioters/criminals ( and less opportunistic fuels to turn into missiles )
but good new Sweden has a tight grip on what is important ( clear air over the trash-heap formerly known as Stockholm )
will the other cities follow Stockholm into the trend to self-destruction
 
Telamelo said:

Stockholm to ban diesel, petrol cars from city centre starting 2025 (suggests other European cities to follow)​

Click to expand...

Exhaust emissions are dangerous. In open areas it is not a problem, minimal traffic and space dilutes the harmful exhaust. But in built up areas with traffic congestion, it takes time for the fumes to dissipate, they just hang in the air for quite a while.

Diesel is the worst.

Every time I drive past a school or Day Care Centre on a main road, I wonder what damage is happening to those young lungs breathing in fumes that they can't see or smell.

My father passed away in July this year of a pulmonary fibrosis, main contributing factor was put down as working in the car industry since he was 18. He was 4 days short of his 77th birthday, always active, his fishing boat was his love, besides his family and grandchildren. The last 4 weeks he slowly suffocated :-(

Effect of automobile exhaust on pulmonary function tests among traffic police personnel

Background:
Automobile exhaust is an important cause of air pollution, which is a leading health menace and is growing perpetually. Traffic police personnel are exposed to automobile exhaust more than anyone else, and the resulting lung involvement may be asymptomatic.

Materials and Methods:
This observational cross-sectional study was conducted among 136 traffic police personnel, aged 18–59 years, working for more than 6 months in the traffic police of Kashmir valley. In addition, 140 age- and sex-matched, healthy unexposed Kashmiri’s served as controls. Pulmonary functions were measured by RMS Helios 401 PC based spirometer.

Results:
Sixteen (11.2%) out of 136 traffic police personnel had abnormal pulmonary function test (PFT) as compared to 5 (3.6%) out of 140 controls. Traffic police personnel’s had significantly declined forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1) and forced vital capacity. Eight (5.8%) had obstructive, 7 (5.1%) had restrictive, and 1 (0.7%) traffic police personnel had mixed pattern on PFT. Duration of exposure to automobile exhaust of more than 10 years was significantly associated with pulmonary function abnormality (P = 0.038).

Conclusion:
Air pollution due to automobile exhaust may be the factor responsible for pulmonary function abnormalities in traffic police personnel. Besides protective measures during duty hours, traffic police personnel should be subjected to periodic assessment of their lung functions.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yeah so true diesel fumes are the worst.
JohnDe said:
Exhaust emissions are dangerous. In open areas it is not a problem, minimal traffic and space dilutes the harmful exhaust. But in built up areas with traffic congestion, it takes time for the fumes to dissipate, they just hang in the air for quite a while.

Diesel is the worst.

Every time I drive past a school or Day Care Centre on a main road, I wonder what damage is happening to those young lungs breathing in fumes that they can't see or smell.

My father passed away in July this year of a pulmonary fibrosis, main contributing factor was put down as working in the car industry since he was 18. He was 4 days short of his 77th birthday, always active, his fishing boat was his love, besides his family and grandchildren. The last 4 weeks he slowly suffocated :-(
Click to expand...
 
JohnDe said:
Now your being obsessive and silly.

What is the percentage of new car buyers that purchase with only "cost effectiveness"? I can tell you that it is extremely low, otherwise the majority of vehicles on the road would be 3-cylinder Daihatsu's & Yaris's.

Remember LPG, back in the day people paid $3000+ to have an LPG system installed on their vehicle. Break even took 3 to 5 years or longer depending on the kilometers traveled. Those buyers did not care, they were just happy to be paying 50% less for fuel every time they filled up.

The majority of people look for a vehicle that will suit their real and perceived needs. If they are looking at a BMW or Mercedes, the Tesla M3 and MY pricing gets it into that category. For the same price the Tesla has no yearly maintenance and depending on how you re-charge a fuel savings of 25% to 50%. And with its advanced navigation system all the recharging calculations for travel is worked out in seconds.

BYD and MG are two other manufacturers offering competitively priced EVs for their market segment.

EVs are not the answer for all vehicle needs, but neither are ULP and Diesel vehicles. Each has its own purpose suited for different needs. Saying that EVs "are not a cost effective way to get around" is disingenuous. Is a vehicle with a petrol engine less cost effective than one with a diesel engine? It depends on what purpose the vehicle will be used.

As for your number statements -
  1. Yes, I can. My screen shot shows the savings I have made. Yes, I am in the fortunate position that I am able to get cheap electricity at my holiday apartment, but even without that there is still a savings compared to diesel or petrol and maintenance. There is no spark plugs, fuel and air filters, timing belt, engine oil and transmission fluid changes, and brake pads and rotors replacement are at 250,000km. that's a saving in my book.
  2. Strange statement. You also don't spend less time in a Ferrari traveling to the same destination as a Camry, there are speed restrictions and road rules. When I travel to my holiday home I get there just as fast in my EV as I do in my V8 SS-V, and same goes for when I drive home.
I regularly go on driving holidays, the longest was 3000+km. I am going to stay somewhere overnight, to rest and refresh, and that is why the EV gets a free overnight re-charge.

When I was younger, I would regularly drive nonstop for 8+ hours. I was in a hurry, speed and final destination was the priority. I changed that habit, I now plan my trip so that I can have a stop every 3 or 4 hours for a break, it could be 10, 30 minutes or longer depending on what the town has to offer. I started that habit when I was driving my ICEV and continue to do that with my EV and use the time for a quick charge. I am in no hurry to get to my final destination. Half the fun is getting their and seeing things, talking to people.

The bottom line is I am saving money owning an EV. Originally, I was looking for a ICEV in the same price category as the Tesla M3LRLR. I decided to on the Tesla. In 3 years and 44,000km of ownership I have spent $0.00 on maintenance, and a significant savings on using electricity over ULP.

View attachment 163842
Last 31 Days
Click to expand...

I literally said there are cheaper options. You literally argued on the basis that you are spending less on petrol. I pointed out that I was saying there are cheaper options if you consider car purchase price. You seem obsessed with moving the goal posts to prove me wrong using irrelevant nonsense.

It's very simple. Here it is again.

If you want to get around in a car as cheaply as possible there are much cheaper options than EVs. Even if you don't go for the cheapest ICEVs on the market, there are cheaper options than EVs.

Unless you only drive within charge distance of home or equivalent, an EV is a costly choice in terms of time wastage.

Also, even ignoring the amount of time taken to charge, charging locations are much more limited and prone to glitches and issues than refuelling an ICEV.

You can make irrelevant arguments if you like, but the claims I made are water tight and your attempts to shoot them down are incorrect and outright dishonest.

Again, if you like EVs and want one for whatever reason that appeals to you, good for you, go for it, power to you, I'm not for a moment telling anyone not to, I simply shared my experience and a few specific ways in which ICEVS are still objectively superior to EVs.
 

Study: EV ownership costs now on par with ICE vehicles​

New study says the average household could save thousands in running costs by switching to an electric vehicle​

Lifecycle ownership costs of electric vehicles are now competitive with equivalent internal combustion-engined (ICE) vehicles, according to new research by Plenti and Accenture.

The Solar-charged EVs in Australia study found there is now only a three per cent difference between the lifetime (15 years) cost of a mid-range ICE vehicle and a comparable EV, with most of latter’s cost accounted for the battery-powered vehicle’s typically higher asking price.

That said, the base price of the Polestar 2 ($59,900) and Australia’s most popular EV, the Tesla Model 3 (now $63,900) already undercuts those of equivalent mid-size luxury sedans like the BMW 3 Series ($69,900).

ev-ownership-study-06-380x.jpg
Polestar 2

However, exclusively comparing running costs between ICE and EV models yields a major advantage to the latter, with the study finding that most households will save around $1000 per year in running costs by switching to an EV. Yes, you will pay more for electricity, but you won’t have any fuel bills.

The EV running cost savings are substantially more when electric vehicles are charged at home in conjunction with a home solar-battery system, with the data suggesting such a set-up will save around $12,000 in power bills over a 15-year period and potentially reduce their carbon emissions by more than 80 per cent.

Of course, this excludes the up-front cost of a home solar-battery system, but also the ability for some EVs to deliver further savings via vehicle-to-load (VTL) and vehicle-to-home (V2H) functionality.

ev-ownership-study-01-a8zq.jpg

Broken down further, the study claims that an EV powered by a home solar-battery arrangement could reduce the average household’s $1892 annual electricity bill (without an EV or solar) down to around $230.

“This is a game-changer for Australian households and our economy at large,” Plenti CEO Daniel Foggo said.

“As both petrol and energy costs continue to rise, the benefits of solar-charged EVs are now clearer than ever.

“According to our study, most people believe EVs are more expensive over their lifecycle than internal combustion vehicles – especially if they’ll be charging their EV from the grid.

“This perception remains a key reason why many people are yet to make the switch to electric.”

The other key barriers identified by the study were logistical issues like access to charging infrastructure and slim pickings in terms of affordable electric models.

According to Accenture managing director Shaun Chau, many of these logistical challenges will be mitigated by the end of the year as more EVs come to market and more chargers are installed around the country.

ev-ownership-study-03-av42.jpg
Nissan Leaf

“With petrol and diesel prices soaring across Australia, EVs offer an increasingly competitive value proposition when compared to combustion engine vehicles,” he said.

“Pent-up demand for EVs is high in Australia. However, the biggest barrier to EV adoption is upfront affordability.

“Australians are paying premium prices for EVs. This is due to a lack of subsidies, supply and range of available models when compared to countries with high EV uptake.”
Click to expand...
 
So to put it to the extreme, hey buy a byd EV and it ends up cheaper than a merx.😂
Putting Tesla vs BMW seriously?
Anyone with half a brain and a calculator knows that comparing apple to apple,an EV purchased in Australia..low subsidies, is still way more expensive than an equivalent ice AND even with free electricity: existing home solar and batteries in my cases
There is a minimal $30k difference upfront, installation of a charger at home added if you are honest.
That's already $1600 TD returns a year paying your extra maintenance..and more petrol costs on a small car.
So you need to save 30k on petrol in the next 10 15y before your car is a paperweight with half or third of the initial range.
Nope sorry. Number do not match..
But yes a Tesla is cheaper than a Ferrari so you are saving ......
EVs are what the beemers were 30y ago for the aspiring wannabes: an ego massaging with a veneer of I save the world added, and a small group of tech mechanical enthousiasts
You buy a Tesla, you buy a RAM monster same same.
People have bought apple systems since the 90s vs MS systems.
Apple have always been much more expensive on tech comparison but more trendy , same for iPhone vs android phones.
There is a market for a "branded" slickness but please no more fake argument about money saving with EV in 2023 in Australia.
I would have bought an EV 2 weeks ago if this was the case, not a brand new ICE..
That number based decision could have been different in other parts of the world due to fuel taxes and subsidies..
 
qldfrog said:
So to put it to the extreme, hey buy a byd EV and it ends up cheaper than a merx.😂
Putting Tesla vs BMW seriously?
Anyone with half a brain and a calculator knows that comparing apple to apple,an EV purchased in Australia..low subsidies, is still way more expensive than an equivalent ice AND even with free electricity: existing home solar and batteries in my cases
There is a minimal $30k difference upfront, installation of a charger at home added if you are honest.
That's already $1600 TD returns a year paying your extra maintenance..and more petrol costs on a small car.
So you need to save 30k on petrol in the next 10 15y before your car is a paperweight with half or third of the initial range.
Nope sorry. Number do not match..
But yes a Tesla is cheaper than a Ferrari so you are saving ......
EVs are what the beemers were 30y ago for the aspiring wannabes: an ego massaging with a veneer of I save the world added, and a small group of tech mechanical enthousiasts
You buy a Tesla, you buy a RAM monster same same.
People have bought apple systems since the 90s vs MS systems.
Apple have always been much more expensive on tech comparison but more trendy , same for iPhone vs android phones.
There is a market for a "branded" slickness but please no more fake argument about money saving with EV in 2023 in Australia.
I would have bought an EV 2 weeks ago if this was the case, not a brand new ICE..
That number based decision could have been different in other parts of the world due to fuel taxes and subsidies..
Click to expand...

Why wouldn’t you compare an equivalent spec Tesla M3 with a BMW 3 series?

I’m not sure about your BYD but there is no need to purchase and install a charging unit for a Tesla. For the past 3 years I have used the charging cable that comes with the car, and plug it into a standard 10A outlet, though it does also have a 15 adapter.

Tesla is the No.1 EV on the market because they are the only one that can supply enough stock. And that’s before you take into account Tesla’s advanced technology, manufacturing, charging stations, reliability.
 
Top