An interesting spreadsheet has been reported by nico239, it shows the reasons why those who can count do not rush on the offer of VE.
It is here : https://www.automobile-propre.com/dossi ... lectrique/
So contrary to what some opinion leaders believe or consider themselves to be, EV is not the answer to offer to Yellow Vests
Except, if they are subscribers or readers of QUE CHOISIR !!!!
On the cover of the November issue in bold: " Electric is a bonus"and in the article thus brilliantly announced, in terms of cost of use, the EV clearly KOs the smoking car!
Only downside, before the oddity of the result, it was easy for me to see that the zealots of QC had just forgotten to take into account the rental of the battery !!!!
I wrote a letter which had no response. There was no reaction in the December issue and still no response to my reminder ...
So to sum up an over-subsidized vehicle, with a free battery is profitable
The curious can go and see the QC of November and those who are even more so, the copy of the letters sent.
First letter of 29/10/2018:
Hello,
I read THAT CHOOSE regularly (and with interest) since its creation, my parents were subscribed…
In the November 2018 issue, the article entitled "Electricity is a bonus" plunged me into great perplexity.
Discovering that a vehicle whose purchase is super subsidized and zero-rated fuel could be interesting, whether it runs on petrol, electricity or horse dung, did not require a great effort from the "decryptors "! This is only a detail in the discomfort, the comparisons that are made are not very legitimate. A VWe-Up! will never be more than a second car (for wealthy people), while the Suzuki Swift can be the one and only vehicle providing all the travel for a single person or a couple, in and out of town.
We would expect THAT TO CHOOSE a more detailed study of this new offer including an analysis of the global consequences of a mutation of the automobile fleet towards the electric. In other words, does this mutation respond to environmental challenges and thereby serve the general interest?
This question really arises, because the article "LU DANS QUE CHOISIR" (even stronger than Seen on TV) is an incentive to jump on the electric, it is a position that engages you.
Your “decryptors” would have been well advised to immerse themselves in what was said on the subject and not be satisfied with gleaning a few figures and presenting them without it being possible to understand what they cover exactly.
The first thing they should have noticed was the solemn warning from Carlos TABARES, boss of PSA, who you cannot imagine being the enemy of his interests. He did this quite loudly at the Geneva show and put a second coat at the Mondial in Paris. He recalls all the unfortunate consequences and the risks which would be taken if one really operated this transition to the electric. He especially specifies that if it is done, it is very clear that it will be the sole responsibility of the politicians whose role is to make choices for the community ... and therefore not the car manufacturers. At the same time PSA is preparing to sell very expensive EVs to a minority of Happy few…. shareholders don't have to worry.
Even if we are not a king of decryption and that we write for the first time on the subject, that should put the chip in the ear.
If we go back to the figures, it is difficult to find what is announced in the article and which knocks out the smoking cars. If we just take the fuel station for 4 years, this is what makes it possible to establish a simple calculation:
60.000 km with the CLIO at 5,3 l / 100 of petrol at 1,53 Euros / l that makes 4865 Euros
60.000 km with the ZOE at 3 Euros / 100 km, this makes 1800 Euros for electric fuel to which must be added 48 months of battery rental at 99 Euros / month, for a total of 5652 Euros (99 Euros / month, price rental for 15000 km / year).
At this price, the knockout is not certain and it does not look like what is proclaimed!
On the background now, the questioning of a decryptor must allow him to check if the immense advantages of the electric which are seriné us all channels of com confused, are well to go and in line with the objectives of sobriety, d energy efficiency and pollution reduction.
The ZOE consumes 20 kWh / 100 km, a small calculation of the corner of the table makes it possible to approach a comparison of the energy consumption of the "well to the wheel", the only way not to compare cabbage and carrots .
The output of the thermal power plant that produced these kWh, whether nuclear, coal or fuel, is 1/3.
To supply these 20 kWh of electricity, we therefore consumed 60 kWh of heat: they represent approximately 6 liters of petrol (1 liter = 9,68 kWh), that is to say to the approximation, the consumption of the CLIO. For energy savings, something else will have to be found ...
Is there hope for pollution and GHG emissions?
If we look at things globally, we must know that in the world, electricity is massively produced with fossil resources, mainly coal, with an average of 800 g CO2 per kWh produced.
On this basis, with these 20 kWh / 100 km, our ZOE therefore actually spits 160 g CO2 / 100. The lungs of urban residents could be better, but not the climate!
Our decryptors should especially pay close attention to the ZERO EMMISSION announcement justified by the French carbon-free nuclear current. We must try to understand what would happen if France increased its consumption of electricity for this new use. The answer is easy, France will provide less and buy more from our European neighbors. They will produce the equivalent with their “dirty” means, because it is unlikely that they will take advantage of it to get to the candle, the buggers! And CO2 has no nationality or border.
Our hope is disappointed, the ZOE will therefore work on coal… All the reasoning which is based on an “electric mix” more favorable to EVs is only quibbles which do not correspond to the reality of the facts which connects the cause and the result.
And there is no need to charge the boat by evoking the uncertainties on battery technologies, on the rare ingredients essential to date to make these electrical marvels, on "gray energy" and the difficulties of recycling.
And without falling into conspiracy, can we ignore the jubilation of EDF in front of this new consumption, which will allow it to announce all the EPR whose technostructure dreams and which will accompany this "revolution"?
In summary, we are smoked with electric cars, the truth is that it is a penalty and this positioning of WHAT TO CHOOSE is completely incomprehensible.
Sincerely,
So no answer and a reminder on 3/12/2018:
Hello,
I did not receive a return following the sending of my email on October 29, except for the automatic processing requesting my authorization to use my shipment.
I looked in vain for the slightest allusion to this same letter in the December issue ... Make no mistake, my head is not swollen and I do not overestimate the importance of MY shipment.
It's just a question of knowing the answer to this binary question:
---> My analysis of your article is based on a reasoning error (small or big) and your editors are just saying that the electric car is ONLY BONUS. In this case to answer me in a few minutes to indicate it to me seemed to me in the order of possible things.
---> Your editors were seriously mistaken and "forgetting" the amount of the rental of the batteries radically calls into question the proclaimed result and your readers must be informed.
There is no other possibility and your status as an organization for the defense of citizen-consumers requires clarity and transparency.
Thank you therefore to remove the doubt that maintains your lack of reaction.
Sincerely,
And still no answer .....
.
