Skip to content

Electric, Expensive & Useless–The New Audi e-tron

November 29, 2021

By Paul Homewood

 

The Audi e-tron – electric, expensive, useless, but the “car of the future”

 

 image

https://www.audi.co.uk/uk/web/en/models/e-tron/e-tron.html

You can pick one for £64725, £19K more than the diesel equivalent:

image

image

 

And as for those famed savings on running costs?

Audi reckon you would get consumption of 23.4 KWh/100 km, on an average drive.

Currently household electricity prices are around 20p/KWh, which equates to 7.5p per mile:

 

The diesel gives an average of 44.8 mpg. At the current cost of £6.80 per gallon, this works out at 15.2 per mile.

However, this includes fuel duties of £2.63 per gallon. Excluding this, the diesel comes down to 9.3p per mile.

EV drivers will therefore save just 1.8p per mile. On, say, 10000 miles a year, that adds up to a princely annual saving of £180.

 image

image

 

However, EV running costs will inevitable be higher for many drivers, who rely on using public chargers. Typical prices for these are now 45p per KWh, making the running cost 16.9p per mile.

 

The Audi website also has a useful tool for calculating range. The battery has a useful capacity of 83.6 KWh, apparently typical for this bracket of car.

You can play games with it, altering the various parameters, but motorway driving at a temperature of 5C gives a range of just 162 miles:

image

 https://mobilitycalculators.online/ukmicrosite?selected=range

 

As the website admits, the actual range may well be less, given driving conditions and so on.

In practice then, the realistic range would be no more than 100 miles, given the fact that nobody would run the battery down to the bone. At this level, long distance driving would be painfully slow.

Audi also offer a Charging Time Calculator, which again can be set to different parameters:

Assuming a home wall box of 7.4 KW, charging from empty to 80% capacity would take 11 hours. Obviously it is unlikely the battery will ever be empty, but even a half charge takes 7 hours.

image

 https://mobilitycalculators.online/ukmicrosite?selected=range

The 22 KW charger is obviously faster, but the on board charger in the car is only rated at 11 KW! If you want 22 KW, you have to pay extra for a factory fitted option.

Also many homes will not be able to use 22 KW chargers, as they need 3-phased power.

As for public charging, a 150 KW charger would take 30 minutes to charge to 80%. However, these are not commonplace. Most chargers on the M1, for instance, are 50 KW or less. You will need an hour or more to charge up with one of these:

 

 image

Our nearest M1 Services have just two chargers on each carriageway. I gather this is not untypical; Toddington for instance also only has two. And this situation is unlikely to change much whilst there are still few WVs on the road; businesses simply won’t be able to afford spending hundreds of millions installing chargers, which will stand idle most of the time.

Heaven knows what the queues will be like when we’re all driving electric cars!

94 Comments
  1. It doesn't add up... permalink
    November 29, 2021 12:27 pm

    It’s all π in the sky!

  2. In The Real World permalink
    November 29, 2021 12:31 pm

    It is not only the cost of the whole package which makes it a poor choice , it is the fact that there is not enough generation capacity in this country to enable more than a very small percentage of EVs to charge up at the same time .

    Which is why they insist on a smart meter for a home charging system , and are restricting charging times by about 10 hours per day to the non busy times on the grid .

    So , even if you pay out the huge prices for a car which will not go very far , there will be many times when it will not be possible to go hardly anywhere .

    • In The Real World permalink
      November 29, 2021 12:57 pm

      And not only that , the whole Global Warming scam is about taking money from Western economies ,https://thenewamerican.com/un-agenda-2030-a-recipe-for-global-socialism/.
      So very expensive cars and the price of all types of energy going up by huge amounts .

      All for what ?.
      The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 413 parts per million . Of which about 97% is produced naturally . And of the amount produced by people , only 1% comes from the UK, and about 10% of that is from vehicles .
      So you finish up with just 0.0000012% CO2 from UK vehicles ,or 1 Part in 10,000,000 parts of atmosphere .
      But you will never see these figures in the media as people might then start to realise how they are being lied to .

      • In The Real World permalink
        November 29, 2021 1:09 pm

        Ooops , that should read 1 part in 100,000,000 parts of atmosphere for UK vehicles .

      • November 29, 2021 11:18 pm

        So true Humans are only responsible for 3 % of total annual CO2 input into the climate. See the following for reference . . .

        https://www.academia.edu/49537285/Climate_Change_A_fresh_Perspective

      • November 30, 2021 9:52 am

        And guess what the Earth is using that extra CO2 for? Yes, growing GREEN things. The Earth has visibly greened in recent decades, due in large part to the ‘CO2 fertilization effect’. Why do the ecoloons want to stop that? Are they that anti-green? Anyway. This BIG picture is that Earth itself generates 97%, making man’s 3% insignificant.

    • Chaswarnertoo permalink
      November 30, 2021 9:51 am

      You misunderstand. Very few people will be allowed cars, just the special ones. Plenty of spare power, then.

  3. tokalo permalink
    November 29, 2021 12:41 pm

    I wonder whether these Audis will be so advanced that they will come with working indicators: none of the existing ICM models around here seem to.

    • November 29, 2021 1:45 pm

      Mine do; regularly, especially when moving out of and back into the motorway INSIDE lane.

      • Chaswarnertoo permalink
        November 30, 2021 9:48 am

        No need to signal when moving back into the correct lane, as long as you’re not an Audi cut up git.

    • Peter Barrett permalink
      November 29, 2021 2:31 pm

      They will, however, come with a device which enables them to travel just five feet behind another vehicle. I can’t think why that is included as Audi drivers are, apparently, able to do that without artificial aids.

      • bobn permalink
        November 29, 2021 3:13 pm

        Its the magnet in the back of Volvos that attract the car behind. That and the fact that Volvos have a limiter that keeps them 10mph below the speed limit.

      • devonblueboy permalink
        November 29, 2021 3:40 pm

        🤣🤣🤣

      • Chaswarnertoo permalink
        November 30, 2021 9:49 am

        Thought that was BMWs. And Volvos are the ones without indicators.

  4. Gamecock permalink
    November 29, 2021 12:46 pm

    Good, detailed analysis, Mr Homewood. Except . . .

    Depreciation.

    Don’t know if there is enough of a history with Audi electrics to get an idea. For Teslas, depreciation isn’t bad. For Nissan Leafs, it’s catastrophic.

    Perhaps it doesn’t matter. EVs are a bad idea financially, even before you figure in catastrophic depreciation. Does being really, really bad financially make a difference?

    • November 29, 2021 1:48 pm

      Who would buy a 2nd hand EV when they don’t know what the battery state is. At least in an ICE, a 60 litre tank still holds 60 litres after 100K miles. (The other difference of course is that an EV’s battery still weighs the same when it’s empty as when full, so you’re lugging all that weight around, making the consumption increasingly less efficient.)

      • Ray Sanders permalink
        November 29, 2021 2:02 pm

        ” battery still weighs the same when it’s empty as when full,” Which is batteries for aviation is such an insane idea. Try landing an aircraft at its maximum take off weight!

      • November 29, 2021 2:15 pm

        It was calculated that an electric 320 Neo would require batteries weighing 1640 tons, or 19 times the maximum take-off weight, and with a 1MW charger, would take 11 days to recharge.

      • bobn permalink
        November 29, 2021 3:23 pm

        The work in aviation is on hybrids. Kerosine fuelled engines for takeoff and landing (and battery charging) but electric in cruise. A tri-jet could shut or idle 2 engines and cruise with one only (also generating) plus electric assist. This way they can reduce battery sizes. During cruise a modern jet will usually be running engines at less than 60% of full power fuel flow nowadays. Of course the build cost goes up with the duplication but fuel burn will go down.

      • Curious George permalink
        November 29, 2021 3:57 pm

        “The work in aviation is on hybrids.”
        I hope it is privately financed.

      • Phoenix44 permalink
        November 29, 2021 6:16 pm

        bobn, why use kerosene engines for landing? But hybrids just add to the weight problem. You are carrying even more weight with hybrid engines and taking off with even more weight. It reminds me of nuclear aircraft – no matter what they did, the weight and thus the power required and thus the weight and thus the required power…went up…

      • Duker permalink
        November 30, 2021 10:30 pm

        No way will they use two types on engines on planes. Its either all electric or more likely hydrogen conversion of existing turbo props or turbo fans
        .
        Adding batteries makes for a huge weight gain and in the air weight means higher drag ( even if shape is exactly the same) . Extra weight on a road only matters when climbing hills but the extra ‘induced drag due to lift’ makes a difference for heavier planes as it uses more fuel/battery power. And its not payload to earn money either, and for existing planes displaces cargo or passengers.
        Aviation safety is far more rigorous as well so you cant run near the max discharge either so more reserve batteries needed.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      November 29, 2021 6:11 pm

      There are two problems with depreciation – the battery and the supposed considerable reduction in the price of EVs. The battery could make the value essentially zero for many EVs as a new one apparently costs £10-15,000. The second the wonderful bBC and the rest of the media ignore completely but it say this Audi is going to become the same costs as its ICE version then that’s £19,000 cheaper. So a second-hand one loses that £19,000 straight off.

      But of course who buys an EV now if as the “experts all say” they are going to get 20-30% cheaper in a few years?

  5. November 29, 2021 12:53 pm

    Can any predictive estimate be calculated of any reduction in global temperature rises per, say million, ICE powered vehicles replaced by EVs.

    If not, it is yet another attempt to switch from reliability in transport at any cost, as were wnd turbines.and the like.

    Likely a complete shambles, at enormous cost,.with quite unknown “benefit”..

    That all typifies AGW and the responses to it.

    • November 29, 2021 3:59 pm

      THIS REPLY MAY BE DOUBLE-POSTED

      You pose a very interesting question: How much temperature reduction will be achieved if 1 million EV cars are on the road in the U.K.?

      I did the calculations, with rounding in several instances, and came up with a reduction of 6 one billionths of 1 degree Celsius by the year 2100 (assuming the Earth’s temperature will increase by 3 degrees Celsius if no action is taken).
      My math most definitely needs to be checked.

      My calculations are based upon the facts and assumptions shown below.

      Perhaps someone who is better at math than I will redo the calculations and show the details of their calculations and post them here.

      I believe the calculation can be made with these facts and assumptions:

      1. Ultimate calculation will be the reduction in the world’s temperature, by the year 2100, that will be achieved if 1,000,000 EV cars are on the road in the U.K.

      2. Each EV will emit 165 grams/kilometer driven.

      3. Each EV will drive 30,000 kilometers per year. That may sound high, but I’m from Texas.

      4. A reduction of 3 parts per million in the atmosphere’s concentration of CO2 will result in a reduction of 6/1000ths of 1 degee Celsius by the year 2100 (assuming there will be a 3 degree Celsius increase in the world’s temperature if no action is taken…See explanation below).

      5. There are currently 720 Billion Tons (GT) in the atmosphere and that relates to approximately 400 parts per million.

      How do I come up with the 6/1000ths of one degree Celsius reduction in the Earth’s temperature by the year 2100 of a reduction of 3 parts per million is achieved?

      That number is based upon the EPA’s calculations as it relates to Obama’s (and Biden’s) Clean Power Plan (CPP) and it is buried deep in their report, as follows:

      ACCORDING TO EPA FIGURES, OBAMA’S (AND NOW BIDEN’S) CLEAN POWER PLAN WOULD COST THE UNITED STATES $78 BILLION PER YEAR. IN RULEMAKING DOCUMENTS FROM APRIL 2010, THE EPA WROTE: “BASED ON THE REANALYSIS, THE RESULTS FOR PROJECTED ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATIONS ARE ESTIMATED TO BE REDUCED BY AN AVERAGE OF 2.9 PPM [PARTS PER MILLION] (PREVIOUSLY 3.0 PPM), GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE WAS ESTIMATED TO BE REDUCED BY 0.006 TO 0.0015 ˚C BY THE YEAR 2100.”

      THIS IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY!!!! THESE ARE THEIR OWN NUMBERS!!!!

      ACCORDING TO THE EPA’S OWN CALCULATIONS, THE “CLEAN POWER PLAN”, BY THE YEAR 2100, WILL COST THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES SIX TRILLION, SIX HUNDRED AND THIRTY BILLION DOLLARS ($6,630,000,000,000) AND WILL SAVE, AT BEST, 6/1000THS OF 10 CELSIUS!!!!!!!

      • Chaswarnertoo permalink
        November 30, 2021 9:53 am

        Which is not measurable on a global scale. Utter insanity.

    • ThinkingScientist permalink
      November 29, 2021 5:01 pm

      John Christy performed a with/without USA emissions from 2012. He was originally asked what the impact of various policies would be, but he pointed out you might as well just show the model difference with and without the USA emissions as anything else would be too small a difference to plot.

      Eliminating the USA in 2012, by 2050 the global temperature difference would be be 0.08 degC, according to the models, about the thickness of his graph line.

      The UK is nearly 14x lower emissions (actually 13.6) so completely removing all UK emissions in 2012 would imply a global temperature reduction in 2050 of about 0.006 degC.

      As I pointed out to my MP, that is about the same as the lapse rate difference between the ground and the smallest child height limit for rides at Alton Towers (0.9 m). The nominal lapse rate is 6.5 degC per km.

      So even if you believe the models (which I don’t) the whole process is entirely pointless. Any differences would not be measurable by any known technology.

      • November 29, 2021 6:48 pm

        Thanks, T.S. Thats representative, then,of the whole decarbonisation scam.
        In fact, CO2 may well be exonerable, the “guilty” party being the Sun, interacting with cosmic rays and water vapour (and clouds), the water vapour being the main variable influencing global temperature though ultimately based on solar activity.
        A Grand Solar Minimum is said to be coming over the next few, years so overcoats would be more logical purchases than swimsuits.

  6. devonblueboy permalink
    November 29, 2021 1:17 pm

    Absolute lunacy. But “Vorsprung durch technik” must be better for the climate and covid? A car for wealthy virtue signallers, with a green strip on the number plate!

  7. Old Grumpus permalink
    November 29, 2021 1:30 pm

    We have to hope that the public will eventually realise that the only practical solution is to compel politicians to repeal the Climate Change Act and its consequent legislation and to return freedom of choice to the consumer.

    • November 29, 2021 2:09 pm

      In whose interest, apart from its corrupted members’, do the Climate Change Acts exist?

  8. Ian PRSY permalink
    November 29, 2021 1:36 pm

    All the comments on here are sensible and logical and a total waste of effort:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/11/29/nissan-puts-sunderland-centre-18bn-electric-drive/

  9. November 29, 2021 1:41 pm

    “Currently household electricity prices are around 20p/KWh, which equates to 7.5p per mile”, Is that without factoring n the charging energy losses?

  10. November 29, 2021 1:42 pm

    Hidden Facts surrounding Electricity and the ‘Embodied Energy’ contained MUST be revealed. Wishful thinking about cleaning up the Air we Breathe is a Very Good plan. However, we are Falsely being led to believe in the ‘Zero Emissions’ Deception about Electric Cars. We never about hear about the Science pointing to the Environmental Damage caused when we Produce, Transmit and Store Electricity. “The Embodied Energy” that leads to Environmental Destruction all over the World. It remains UNSPOKEN . . . yet, it is Very, Very Real.

    Resistance . . . from Uploading, Transmission, distribution and Charging
    https://blog.se.com/energy-management-energy-efficiency/2013/03/25/how-big-are-power-line-losses/

    12% . . . OHM’S law . . .

    Another 16 % Is lost as Heat Charging Lithium-Ion Batteries in Electric Cars.

    Green Car Reports – Why it takes more Energy than your Battery holds.
    https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098248_charging-an-electric-car-why-it-takes-more-energy-than-your-battery-holds.

    28 % of the Electricity Produced is lost as HEAT on the way to charging the Battery.

    The ‘Consumption Reading’ noted in ALL EV PROPAGANDA is based on the ‘Power Consumption Odometer’ IN the car . . . NOT from the household meter representing what you PAY for !!!

    MAGIC TRICKS . . . PROPAGANDA . . . LIES . . . to an ENABLING MEDIA . . .

    YET . . . Somehow we all BELIEVE . . . Everyone wants to do their part . . . ??

    There are none so blind as those who will not see . . .

    • November 29, 2021 2:41 pm

      I’m sure I read somewhere the battery charge-discharge cycle is 98.1% efficient.
      However that won’t include the charger efficiency.
      Transmission losses shouldn’t be included in the calculation, because you pay for the electricity delivered, not the electricity generated.

      • Ray Sanders permalink
        November 29, 2021 3:24 pm

        “Transmission losses shouldn’t be included in the calculation, because you pay for the electricity delivered, not the electricity generated”
        Incorrect, you pay for the overall costs of generation and distribution (including losses) plus profit simply divided by the measured amount of end use. Obviously “losses” are not “free” in the real world.

      • Phoenix44 permalink
        November 29, 2021 6:18 pm

        No, you get billed based on usage but the price is based on what is generated.

      • November 30, 2021 7:51 am

        KB,

        That is unrealistic.
        The aim is to reduce CO2 from vehicles. Therefore the energy input should be the start of the calculation. Due to how the grid works the electricity for the extra load added to the grid can only come from dispatchable power, gas in the main for the U.K.. Essentially evs are gas powered then add all the losses it amounts to quite a bit of gas and so CO2 emissions.
        The government use a different figure to calculate ev CO2 emissions which is the average of CO2 emitted by generating electricity. This is very flattering to evs but erroneous, and misleading to the public. Nothing new there.

        Exactly the same applies to heat pumps.

        If the grid were first de carbonised then this ev and heat pump makes some sense but it isn’t and unlikely to be. The government claims it will happen by 2035, look out for flying pigs. There is no chance that following the renewables route that this can happen. Nuclear is too far in the future, even if the government started really pushing it now.

    • November 29, 2021 3:43 pm

      Mr. Sanders,
      Transmission loses of 12 % are real . . . They reflect inefficiency and a requirement to INCREASE production to compensate. 27 % of CO2 put into the Environment is for producing Electricity !! IF you lose 12 % of that . . . You MUST increase CO2 to compensate.

      Worst of all however is PROOF that exciting the electrons inside a lithium Battery requires that you pay for 16% More Electricity than your battery holds. You get 100KWH . . . You pay for 116 KWH . . .

      Green car congress 05 September 2018
      Unlike conventionally fueled vehicles, electric vehicles experience a loss of energy during “refueling,” with an energy loss of about 16% from the wall power to the battery during charging. https://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/09/20180905fotw.html#:~:text=Unlike%20conventionally%20fueled%20vehicles%2C%20electric,to%20the%20battery%20during%20charging.

      Give your Head a shake and learn something New . . .

      You have been HAD by the ‘Big Green Propaganda Machine’ . . . .

      • Ray Sanders permalink
        November 29, 2021 4:34 pm

        Jim I think you have responded to the wrong person by mistake. If you look at my post below I am fully aware of and account for the multiple charging and transmission losses.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      November 29, 2021 4:58 pm

      In the UK, losses between the power station and the consumer are about 2-3% on the high voltage transmission network, at least so long as reactive power can be supplied to keep the phase angle between voltage and current small, and a further 4-6% at the lower voltage distribution level. They tend to be higher when demand is high and the grid is congested, e.g. with long distance delivery of wind power. The long run average is about 7.5% over the past 20 years in total. Data for overall loss from Energy Trends, Table 5.2

  11. Ian PRSY permalink
    November 29, 2021 1:46 pm

    Then there’s this:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/11/29/pioneering-british-hydrogen-maker-wins-25m-investment/

    “HiiRoc is pioneering a new approach to methane cracking which creates solid carbon instead of CO2 emissions and therefore does not contribute to global warming.” What?

    • November 29, 2021 1:54 pm

      “Hydrogen is viewed as vital in the fight against global warming as it does not emit carbon when it burns”. That’s (funny) hysterical. It may not emit it when it burns, but 70%+ of the energy required to make it in the first place is wasted.

      It then goes on with the equally (funny) hysterical “if manufacturers are powered by renewable energy”. Haven’t they realised yet that renewables will NEVER have enough spare capacity to generate it. If they say they’ll dedicate renewables to hydrogen manufacture, that’s even more hysterical.

      Complete ROFL.

      • November 29, 2021 2:22 pm

        You might ROFL but what happens when oil runs out? Which is already happening to some extent in that the EROI of oil is reducing.
        Even if you don’t believe in climate change, some solution will have to be found, and hydrogen will likely be a big part of it.

      • November 29, 2021 2:34 pm

        But you need energy to create/separate the hydrogen. Where is that going to come from? Certainly not renewables, so the only realistic solution is to use nuclear. But then, the obvious question is, why not use the original electricity it generates for domestic and industrial use rather than trying to convert it to hydrogen for these and other uses, e.g. transport, when that has a 70%+ wastage, and then leave the oil and gas for transport, dispatchable/backup electricity generation and industry (plastics, chemicals, etc.)? With regard oil reserves, are they really diminishing? The EROI will surely naturally fluctuate as prospecting does. If you have prospected enough for future supply, you stop prospecting; when you need more supply, you prospect more. The origin type of oil and gas is also changing towards shale, but then you have the climate crazies brainwashing politicians and investors with scare stories, which has inevitable (if idiotic) negative impact. The energy crisis that’s emerging is testament to that.

      • November 29, 2021 2:49 pm

        Shale oil is an environmental catastrophe. Look at the pristine Canadian wilderness being turned into the lunar surface for example. The easy oil has all been found, there are only small and difficult reserves left to exploit.
        Yes hydrogen is only an energy store, not an energy source. It’d be far better to use the intermittent solar and wind energy to generate hydrogen for vehicles. Electricity should be nuclear and perhaps tidal.

      • November 29, 2021 2:54 pm

        If you’re referring to the Canadian Oil Sands, that could be considered a ‘clean up’ operation.

        There’s a shale gas well that’s been operating for some years in Dorset I think. Very unobtrusive, and occupies a fraction of the land solar, wind & even coal require.

      • bobn permalink
        November 29, 2021 3:33 pm

        KB, please provide links to this mythical ‘lunar’ surface occurring in Canada due to shale production. Ive not seen or found any evidence for this new fantasy. Oil supply is diminishing because green loonies (and their captive politicians) are inhibiting prospecting and production. The UKs shale gas is still plentiful underground, but UK politicians would rather have people freeze to death than let that gas be pumped.

      • devonblueboy permalink
        November 29, 2021 3:44 pm

        Having a green loon as the Prime Minister’s consort is not helpful either

      • ThinkingScientist permalink
        November 29, 2021 5:12 pm

        KB – oil is not running out and neither is natural gas. In fact historically no natural resource has ever run out, its just been superseded with something better. The Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.

        You also seem to be confused over the difference between shale oil, shale gas and oil (tar) sands.

        Your comment “The easy oil has all been found, there are only small and difficult reserves left to exploit.” is, frankly, both ignorant and laughable (ROFL!). Oil & Gas exploration continues without problem as new plays are discovered and technology progresses. We are only just starting on some of the new deep water margin basins.

        No-one in the oil industry currently worries about running out of hydrocarbons and I doubt they ever will. Every few decades some idiot comes along predicting “peak oil” or points out that there only reserves for 30 years. There are only ever reserves for 30 years, as it happens.

        20 years ago no-one thought the USA could be both self-sufficient in natural gas again and switch from being a net importer to a net exporter. But it happened. Would happen all over the world if stupid enviro and government idiots didn’t try and ban fracking. They’ll learn the hard way – when the price gets so high the populace starts squealing and voting for different parties.

    • Ray Sanders permalink
      November 29, 2021 3:20 pm

      There is actually nothing particularly new about pyrolysis at all.. The (probably deliberate) confusion of CO2 (carbon dioxide) being an odourless, colourless gas with solid carbon as in “Carbon Footprint” is actually absurd. Carbon is really very useful stuff but go out into the street and ask the typical member of the public* what a diamond is made of or what graphite is and you usually get blank looks. More people are likely to think that “Bucky Balls” was a soft porn actor rather than a potentially world changing technology.
      * I hesitate to use the expression “Joe Public” as he is also rather an erudite poster on here and other blogs!

      • Vernon E permalink
        November 29, 2021 4:50 pm

        KB: Re Canada are you sure you are talking about shale and not tar sands from which most, if not all, Cafa’s oil derives? Tar sands are, admittedly not very environmentally friendly. Ilma630 : Are you sure that BP’s Dorset wells are (a) shale and (b) fracked. I have doubts about both. They are famous for their long directionally drilled wells going a long way under the sea.

      • ThinkingScientist permalink
        November 29, 2021 5:26 pm

        Vernon E – BP does not have any wells in Dorset anymore. The largest onshore oil field in Western Europe is Wytch Farm in Poole Harbour and under Brownsea Island. It was sold 10 years ago by BP to Perenco who still operate it and it has approval for field life extension to 2037. They also own the nodding donkey producing above Kimmeridge Bay (which I think produces from the Lias).

        Wytch Farm indeed has very long horizontal reach wells, out to 10 km or so. The wells go right under Sandbanks (some of the most expensive real estate in the world) as well as the nature reserve/beauty spot of Poole Harbour and Brownsea Island. As I recall about 40% of the wells are hydraulically fractured (no-one noticed them doing it) although it is a conventional reservoir not a shale gas reservoir. The fracking will not be as intense as shale gas, but the difference is largely immaterial.

        The Wytch Farm main reservoir is Triassic Sherwood Sandstone (formerly called the Bunter) and it outcrops further along the coast to the West. There is also production form the Bridport Sands (which outcrop at West Bay).

  12. Ray Sanders permalink
    November 29, 2021 1:53 pm

    First point that comes to mind here is how is the battery charge being measured? Not as odd a statement as it may seem. Are Audi measuring the amount of charge in kWh from the battery to the motor OR the actual total amount of energy registered on your meter to charge the battery? Those figures can be surprisingly very different. Tesla admit in their own literature that up to 14% can be lost in charging a model Y.
    https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a36062942/evs-explained-charging-losses/

    The second thing is that, even ignoring the above, in my own area I arrived at different figures.
    In Canterbury (ASDA) diesel is currently £1.4620 per litre which equates to £6.65 per gallon.
    Diesel attracts a flat rate duty of £0.5795 per litre and then 20% VAT on the total of cost price and fuel duty.
    https://www.racfoundation.org/data/taxation-as-percentage-of-pump-price-data-page
    Completely removing all taxation from the above price comes down to 63.88p cost price, 57.95p fuel duty and add 20%VAT on the sub total of £1.2183 = £1.462.
    63.88p per litre equates to just £2.904 per gallon cost price.

    My Octopus tariff (transferred from AVRO) is 21.37p per kWh which de-vatted is 20.35p.

    Audi claimed a combined cycle EV mileage of 23.4kWh per 100km (which is 62.14 miles)
    I thus make it 62.14miles divide 23.4 = 2.66miles per kWh. 20.35p per kWh divided by 2.66 miles equates to 7.65p per mile.
    However, if I assume a 10% loss from plug to battery as first mentioned
    the calculation is 22.61p divide 2.66 = 8.5p per mile.

    Audi also claim 44.8 mpg for the standard diesel. From above diesel cost price of £2.94 divided by 44.8miles equates to 6.56p per mile.

    So here in Kent if all duty is excluded from both fuel options and allowing for real world charging losses then the diesel is actually almost 2p per mile cheaper.

    p.s. If my maths has gone wrong please break it to me gently – I have a cold (not Covid!)

    • Ray Sanders permalink
      November 29, 2021 2:29 pm

      While I am at it(!) what are the emissions per mile of the electric version? Swapping from diesel to an EV will increase the marginal electricity supply i.e. the additional requirement will (at best) come from a CCGT (but may well come from an OCGT or even coal plant).and will not come from any renewable source. So assuming typical 10% charging losses plug to battery but also adding 2% Transmission losses on the HT grid and 8% distribution losses over the low voltage DNO then 1kWh in the battery is actually 1.23kWh at the generator output.
      CCGT (the main marginal supply) are quoted by the IPCC (no less) as typically 490g CO2 equivalent per kWh.
      The quoted 2.66 miles per kWh from the battery is thus actually 2.66 miles from 1.23kWh at the generator. Thus 490 x 1.23 divide 2.66miles is actually 226.6g CO2e per mile.
      The diesel variant combined cycle emissions are 165g CO2e per mile. .

      So in the real world (with the distortion of different taxation regimes removed) the EV costs much more to buy, much more to fuel, emits much more overall emissions, does not go very far, is crap at towing and likely has higher particulate emissions from brakes and tyres….and we are all being encouraged to buy them! You could not make this up.

      • November 29, 2021 2:57 pm

        Actually regenerative braking is said to give higher mileage for EV brake pads.

      • November 29, 2021 4:12 pm

        Full agreement . . .

        Energy Information Administration – USA

        How much carbon dioxide is produced per kilowatt-hour of U.S. electricity generation?

        In 2019, total U.S. electricity generation by the electric power industry of 4.13 trillion kilowatt-hours (kWh) from all energy sources resulted in the emission of 1.72 billion metric tons—1.90 billion short tons—of carbon dioxide (CO2).

        This equaled about 0.92 pounds of CO2 emissions per kWh . .(PRODUCED) . . . US Energy information. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11

        PLUS 12 % Transmission losses . . .

        PLUS 16 % Charging losses . . . .

        CALCULATION . . .

        0.92 lbs. CO2 X 12 % (line loss) = .11 lbs. CO2 line loss

        0.92 lbs. CO2 + .11 lbs. CO2 (line loss) = 1.03 lbs. CO2 up to charging station

        1.03 lbs. CO2 X 16 % (battery charging loss) = .16 lbs. CO2

        1.03 lbs. CO2 (to charging station) + .16 lbs. CO2 (Charging Loss) =

        1.19 lbs. CO2 per KWH for fully charged battery . . .

        DO NOT BELIEVE . . . ‘The Big Green Propaganda Machine’ . . .

        Science . . .

        Tesla ‘S’ burns 15 % more CO2 than Toyota Camry . . .

        https://www.academia.edu/62574334/Tesla_Versus_Toyota_Camry

      • November 29, 2021 7:01 pm

        CO2 per kWh in the USA is far higher than the UK figure. We in the UK have one of the lowest.
        Also no car “burns CO2” !

      • November 29, 2021 11:46 pm

        Mr. KB,

        Electric Cars . . . Emissions Free ? Read on . . .

        https://www.academia.edu/62574334/Tesla_Versus_Toyota_Camry

      • Ray Sanders permalink
        November 30, 2021 1:22 pm

        KB re emissions ” We in the UK have one of the lowest” Really? Relative to whom? France, Sweden Ontarion?
        .https://app.electricitymap.org/map

  13. Tim Spence permalink
    November 29, 2021 1:57 pm

    The range of the battery is ‘from new’ but that range will deteriorate substantially over time.

  14. Lorde Late permalink
    November 29, 2021 2:07 pm

    People will be able to spend their £180 saving on public transport for when they need to go further than the newsagent!

  15. Lorde Late permalink
    November 29, 2021 2:28 pm

    I have two aquaintances with the Jaguar E pace, both have reported deteriorating range months after the vehicles were new.
    while climbing in Snowdonia recently one of my good freinds (who apart from being a fine chap has had a career in recent years being involved in EV power train development for Britains premier maker of SUV and 4×4’s and has also worked at a Russian owned EV manufacturer based in the UK).Anyway he has seen fit to buy the VW e3 I think its called and by the time he got to north wales from the midlands was down to 30 miles of range, it then transpired then that the nearest public charger was some 40 miles distant and was not working leaving us with the only option to sneak a long extention cable from one of the farms buildings to his car. By the morning I recall he had amassed around 100 mile or so so that at least got hin back to the midlands. my old Kangoo van had at around 66mpg made the whole trip from kent on just over 1/2 a tank of the black stuff.having been in the motor trade since 1976 I am not of the opinion that EV’s are the way forwards.🤷🏻‍♂️.

    • Captain Flint permalink
      November 29, 2021 3:04 pm

      Brilliant story!

    • Carbon500 permalink
      November 29, 2021 4:04 pm

      Long gone are the days when the name Jaguar meant an exciting car, something distinctive and out of the ordinary – the pre-WWII SS 100, the racing LeMans winning D-type of the 1950s, the E-type, and the Mk2 saloon for example.

      • November 29, 2021 4:50 pm

        And my Welsh, God fearing, chapel going Grandmother always said “You can never trust a man wearing suede shoes or driving a Jaguar”

      • Brian Jackson permalink
        November 29, 2021 4:50 pm

        I had a 1959 Mk 2, straight six, twin overhead cam 3.8 litre XK engine, triple SU carbs, in Cotswold blue. Fabulous car. I was in my mid 20’s and felt like a king when on the road. Genuine 130mph car – Autocar official test. Great days…….

      • ThinkingScientist permalink
        November 29, 2021 5:30 pm

        Brian Jackson – I bet trying to balance that triple SU carb setup was…..fun?!

  16. MrGrimNasty permalink
    November 29, 2021 3:15 pm

    On Top Gear a few weeks back they went for a jaunt with 3 of the best top range electric cars with mini pod type caravans attached – yes it showed using an EV to caravan anywhere remotely remote – even with light weight tows – was fraught with stress and nigh on futile.

  17. November 29, 2021 3:25 pm

    Bear in mind you can charge up at Tesco for free.

    So if you are willing to spend your leisure time at Tesco you could drive for free.

    Also Octopus offer a very cheap tariff from 12.30 to 04.30 a.m. for EV charging.

    • Ray Sanders permalink
      November 29, 2021 4:51 pm

      I have the serious misfortune to have been transferred to Octopus. As soon as the issue is resolved I will leave them as fast as possible. Any company that tries to tell me how well charged my laptop is when I log in and advise me to unplug it deserves to be left.

      • November 29, 2021 6:48 pm

        At least you still have the choice. The next generation of Smart meters will turn off your laptop for you !

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        November 29, 2021 8:11 pm

        Ray, I really do think, that in KB, Paul has acquired his very own Gruff. 🤔

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        November 29, 2021 8:12 pm

        Darn it….Griff!

    • roger permalink
      November 29, 2021 10:25 pm

      That is so stupid on so many levels on analysis I won’t waste my time with a detailed refutation. You will comprehend so much more if you do the analysis yourself.

  18. Phoenix44 permalink
    November 29, 2021 6:22 pm

    Those figures are truly dreadful. And all for £65k!

  19. SimonfromAshby permalink
    November 29, 2021 6:52 pm

    Lots of people have pointed out the lack of charging points and article mentions that it is not financially viable to install more whilst there are so few EVs.
    What interests me is what would be the infrastructure required for a motorway service station to install say 10 chargers. If they are all charging at once that’s 500KW. It might be that electrical supply infrastructure is not sufficient to allow for more than 2 at the moment. An upgrade could be monumentally expensive.

    • November 29, 2021 7:16 pm

      What if you have 10 x 250kW superchargers all going at once?
      That would be 2.5MW.
      I don’t know why you think ten chargers will be sufficient. In reality you would need the majority of the parking spaces to have a charger, say 300 x 11kW for both carriageways, which would be roughly another 3MW.
      Circa 5.5MW total for a motorway services as a ballpark figure !?
      I don’t think this estimate would be badly wrong. I’d expect the majority of the people who stop to eat would want a top-up at least, and a fair proportion of those on a longer journey will want a supercharge.

    • In The Real World permalink
      November 29, 2021 8:55 pm

      A standard substation transformer is rated at a max of about 250KW at end user voltage .
      It is possible to make higher current capacity ones , but they do require special manufacturing , and cost something like a million pounds each .

      So it will be very unlikely for , even motorway service areas , to have the capability of high rate charging for many vehicles at the same time .
      And the grid infrastructure and generation capacity is not there to make it possible .

  20. Mikehig permalink
    November 29, 2021 7:41 pm

    There’s a major factor that has not been mentioned (apologies if I missed a comment): tax for a business user.
    BiK for a 40% taxpayer on the Q5 is nearly £7000 per year. On the e-Tron it’s under £700. If your company is buying the car, or paying the lease, it’s a no-brainer.
    In addition the company can offset 100% of the purchase costs against tax in year 1.

    Other EV benefits include:
    No congestion charge.
    Free parking in many towns – and often free charging – useful for commuters.
    Zero road tax vs £1345 first year and £490 per year thereafter for the Q5.
    Very low fuel costs if you charge at home on one of the EV-friendly tariffs: some folk are only paying 5p per kWh overnight.

    Cards on the table…..an EV would not suit me. However, if it did, I wouldn’t hesitate. They suit a lot of people.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      November 29, 2021 8:19 pm

      Only at present, Mike. Once the EV world is more mature and the Gov starts to find ways to recover lost tax revenue the costs on EVs will grow and maybe some of the freebies you mention will cease.

      • Mikehig permalink
        November 30, 2021 12:49 pm

        Quite agree Harry but it’s going to be some time before we get to that stage. There are something like 300,000 EVs on the roads today – about 1% of the vehicle population – so there’s a way to go.
        That’s way over the horizon for someone looking at their options for the next company car.

        As others have said, depreciation certainly is a minefield. Who has any idea of the likely value in, say, 2025 of a car bought today?
        ICE values could be hammered by more cities going low-emission with tighter standards. The price of fuels could be stratospheric or in the basement.
        However EVs are more vulnerable, imho, because of their higher initial cost and the obsolescence risk. Huge effort is going into battery tech. Any sort of breakthrough would pull the rug from under the value of today’s cars.
        Against that, if demand stays high, used values may hold up well.

        If I was in the market for a new car, I would probably lease it for the reasons above.

  21. Nicholas Lewis permalink
    November 29, 2021 8:12 pm

    Local distribution networks rely upon a high level of diversity to minimise cost of construction but they will be swamped if every household is trying to charge there car between 1800 and 0600 the following day. So there is big push to have chargers that are only used at times of low demand so owners will have that stress to worry about as well.

  22. Cheshire Red permalink
    November 29, 2021 8:23 pm

    Don’t forget gov’t will have to replace fuel duty, so current charging costs will be cheap compared to when they have to rise to recover all that lost tax revenue.

    Expect in-car digital systems to register and charge pay-as-you-drive mileage charges. It’ll all be done automatically. They’ll take your money and if you don’t play ball you’ll lose your mileage allowance.

    There’s obvious scope for limiting monthly miles driven, too. Expect ‘mileage packs’ where you’ll be given the ‘choice’ (!) of how many miles you want to pay for per month.

    They’ll be expecting to price many motorists off the roads and onto cycle paths or public transport. That’s definitely going to happen.

    We’re entering the age of total gov’t control.

    • Lorde Late permalink
      November 29, 2021 9:12 pm

      Mr Orwell was on the money back in 1948/9.

    • November 29, 2021 9:43 pm

      Exactly. Pay per mile is tied on as EVs become more common. They have to do it to recover the lost fuel taxes. It will be more expensive at peak commuting times.
      This means the workers will pay more because they have to use the roads at peak times.

    • Ray Sanders permalink
      November 29, 2021 9:44 pm

      Hey, joking apart, I am thinking of knocking up a home made wood alcohol (Methanol) still and modding my motors to run on it. Should go like an Indy 500 car!
      https://sciencing.com/make-wood-alcohol-through-distillation-7762993.html
      Do you reckon I’ll get away with it?

      • ThinkingScientist permalink
        November 30, 2021 8:58 am

        Ray – just don’t forget to pay the fuel duty. HMRC don’t take prisoners where fuel duty is concerned.

      • Gamecock permalink
        November 30, 2021 12:46 pm

        I considered modding a car to run on methanol about 40 years ago. It was an interesting study.

        Energy content of methanol is well below petrol, like 70:120. But you can burn twice as much meth as gas, so you get more power. Fuel mileage is awful, but what fun you can have burning that candle at both ends!

        One big problem: compression ratio needs to be bumped up to 15:1. No such pistons were available. Probably not available now, either.

        Other thing is getting fuel system to provide vastly more fuel. I had a Weber carburetor that I figured I could re-jet to work.

        Also, methanol eats gaskets. Fittings and gaskets throughout the fuel system would have to be upgraded.

        On the methanol still, you’ll need to find a way to break the azeotrope.

        Good luck!

  23. November 29, 2021 11:02 pm

    At the other end of the price scale this Citroen shopping cart is a giveaway by comparison.

    https://www.itv.com/news/2021-09-22/citroen-to-sell-tiny-28mph-electric-car-in-uk-for-around-5000

    • November 30, 2021 8:05 am

      Ideal for politicians’ and SAGE members’ mistresses to travel between their assignations

  24. Hayden permalink
    November 30, 2021 9:40 pm

    It’s also a thirsty EV. My Outlander PHEV is rated at 16.9Kwh/100km. This beast uses 23.4kWh/100km. That’s nearly 40% more!

  25. Mikehig permalink
    December 1, 2021 10:03 pm

    Gamecock: you mention a compression ratio of 15:1 saying that it’s a problem for pistons. That’s a bit puzzling because diesel engines run at higher compressions than that. Also, as you probably know, methanol has long been used in various racing engines, for example Indycars, iirc.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: