electric car and transport, wire news

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

It would be necessary to make a comparison in the time between purchase of new and conservation of the former

For 15000 km / year

For a Zoe we are basically 17000 € (bonus deducted) plus 1400 € battery rental
On 10 years 31000 € plus maintenance plus electricity

With mine (Mercedes 190D) on 10 years
15000 € more fuel let's say 7000 € maintenance / repairs (which has never been the case but good) be 22000 €

The difference is still very significant unless I'm wrong somewhere in the calculation ...

[Did67]

And if you take my last purchase, a Chevrolet Aveo GPLi acquired at 39 km for 000 euros and which runs on LPG at 3 cents per l (count 800 to 0,80% more consumption compared to gasoline at because of a lower calorific value), this is incomparable with an EV. To my chagrin ... [I still dream about it, but still haven't taken action - especially because I make "big raids" to make my confs on the right and on the left; last week near Dijon, next week near St-Dizier; both unattainable at once in electric).

If I do 100 000 km with (my C1 GPL died at 190 000 km almost without having known the garage), it makes me: 3 800 € purchases + 7 000 l of GPL that we will average to 1 € for make it simple, so 10 800 €. Rest of course, maintenance, technical controls (more expensive), insurance ... Unbeatable. Alas.

But it remains a machine that releases CO² of fossil origin! I therefore contribute to global warming.

Even if I emit significantly less particles than Diesel and Petrol, less CO and NOx ...

And even if this is obviously not generalizable: not everyone can run on LPG, of which only a certain quantity can be produced compared to petroleum ... Therefore reserved for the "privileged".

[Christophe]

No "economic" comparison will be valid as long as road kWh will not be taxed as much as fuel kWh, the debate has been made here: Transportation-electric / electric-car-should we-the-tax-kwh-EDF-road-t10007.html

And you can count on our dear policies to put a tax on it (or via GPS tracking, even cheaper to set up) from some penetration of electrical technology on the market ... we can talk about double penetration in sum!

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

No "economic" comparison will be valid as long as road kWh will not be taxed as much as fuel kWh, the debate has been made here: Transportation-electric / electric-car-should we-the-tax-kwh-EDF-road-t10007.html

And you can count on our dear policies to put a tax on it (or via GPS tracking, even cheaper to set up) from some penetration of electrical technology on the market ... we can talk about double penetration in sum!

Well I do not know if what you predict will happen but it is sure that losing the windfall of fuel taxes will get stuck somewhere.

Especially since it is not certain that the manna of radar fines continues ad vitam aeternam either.

Moreover not on the planet can absorb a massive development of electric cars and its components.

I wonder if I had not read somewhere Carlos Goshn who said that the development of the electric car on a large scale was absurd.

Anyway the problem is not so much the car as the charging infrastructure and there radio silence of the public authorities

[Did67]

No "economic" comparison will be valid as long as road kWh will not be taxed as much as fuel kWh, the debate has been made here: Transportation-electric / electric-car-should we-the-tax-kwh-EDF-road-t10007.html

Certainly.

But currently, note that it would play even more against the electric car and would make the EV even more unaffordable if we taxed "road electricity" as we tax petroleum fuels!

No doubt, one day - perhaps not so far away - moving will simply become much more expensive. And will the horse become competitive again (is it not Forhorse?)?

That said, the issue of taxation - more exactly of State resources - remains unresolved. Indeed, it is certain that when the fuel consumption collapses, it will be necessary to tax "something else" to compensate ...

[You know that I do not stick to the incantatory discourse of the "ugly state which thinks only of taxing" but that I think that taxation is a socialization of collective expenditure, with possibilities of redistribution and equalization. I know they will retort that yes, of course, but it's not fair. And in fact. But I avoid throwing babies out with the bath water. I will continue until my death, to defend a system of collective social security, public transport even when it is not always profitable, a secular and free school - even if it is no longer entirely; it is a political choice; opposite, American universities, where you have to pay dearly - or be a competitive footballer. And so yes, something else will have to be taxed. Yesterday it was salt. Today, it is, among other things, fuels. Tomorrow ???? I propose to tax the bullshit. There is a deposit ... We could start with Trump, that would pay big!]

[Did67]

Especially since it is not certain that the manna of radar fines continues ad vitam aeternam either.

I do not understand that nobody has launched the slogan: "Let's drain the state's finances - stop paying a voluntary tax; let's respect the speed limits !!!". That's what I do. But we are not numerous enough!

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

Especially since it is not certain that the manna of radar fines continues ad vitam aeternam either.

I do not understand that no one has launched the slogan: "Let's drain the state finances - stop paying a voluntary tax; let's respect the speed limits !!!". That's what I do. But there aren't enough of us!

I have the same speech everywhere ...

But good French on this one there is really the king of c .... while it is so simple so simple to b ... the system

The only downside that bothers me: the risky behavior that I generate.

[Did67]

The only downside that bothers me: the risky behavior that I generate.

I think you're cheating: you do not generate; you do not oblige anyone to overtake you like a jerk because you are driving at legal speed ... The jerk should roll behind you at a reasonable distance. If he does, it's good that he is a jerk!

I don't create "traffic jams" on purpose; I roll at 82 where it is allowed at 80, etc ...

After that, I think we must respect the right of the cons to kill themselves: it is they who decide to double and who break the law (which is the common rule that has set the company). This responsibility I absolutely do not support! Luckily, to date, I have never been involved in an accident (unwanted dubbing, etc.). I do not think that a regulated collective life is possible if one feels obliged to align oneself with the idiots!

[Another thing is the fact of hanging around voluntarily to "teach others a lesson"! Or to brake suddenly "on purpose". I'm not talking about that]

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

I think you're cheating: you do not generate; you do not oblige anyone to overtake you like a jerk because you are driving at legal speed ... The jerk should roll behind you at a reasonable distance. If he does, it's good that he is a jerk!

I know I know you're right ...

Just a mathematical question: if on a line of 10 cars on a normal road (neither particularly sinuous nor that of the straight line) the number 1 rolls with 80 ... I wonder if the others roll with 80 or rather with a less speed.

Reflection from group rides on a motorbike where for the last one to ride at 90 the first one is obliged to drive to 110

What I say has not been scientifically tested is more a recurring impression

[Gaston]

Just a mathematical question: if on a line of 10 cars on a normal road (neither particularly sinuous nor that of the straight line) the number 1 rolls with 80 ... I wonder if the others roll with 80 or rather with a less speed.

If you have a little time, this simulator is fascinating ...