I don’t know if this has.come up before but from.a USA research body
In an ICE car for dollar of gasoline you get 20.cents of forward motion.
An EV gets between 83 to 90cents of forward motion for each dollar spent.
It goes on (among things) to point out that if you use fossil fuels such as oil in a power station to produce electricity it produces a great deal more useful power and less unwanted emissions such as CO2 than gasoline or diesel used in a vehicle.
This is because power stations are optimised to produce electricity and to reduce harmful gases.
Sorry if it’s a bit confused I couldn’t cut and paste fro the report and it is a large one.
And then I’ve sort of translated it to French and then back.to English.
I believe the originator of the report is a think tank possibly paid for by the electricity or oil industry. So its veracity might be open to question.
gallois wrote:
According to motor industry research new Evs lose 40% to 49% to depreciation in the first 3 years after purchase.
ICEs lose 60% in the same time. Would that suggest that a 4 year old ICE is better value when buying a used car? At least as long as used ICEs remain on the market.:)
Heavy depreciation on new cars in the first few years (and roughly linear after that) has always been an essential feature of the market. It is what allows someone on the median income who desires the most cost-effective personal transport to spend approximately one month’s income on a used car with plenty of life left in it.
EVs are not following this model, and that (along with the feasibility or otherwise of home charging) is problematic for mass uptake.
The figure I’ve heard (which relates to depreciation without being the same) is that electric cars have about 800 000km of lifespan above 80% battery capacity (compared with ~160-200 000km life span for ICE cars). Since people don’t necessarily want to keep cars with old tech and presumably change every 10 years max, this heavily favors renting and sharing compared to ICE.
It goes on (among things) to point out that if you use fossil fuels such as oil in a power station to produce electricity it produces a great deal more useful power and less unwanted emissions such as CO2 than gasoline or diesel used in a vehicle.
As pointed out in my earlier post on increasing thermal efficiency of car engines, they are in the best cases of the engine and its (e.g. hybrid) application matching that of typical gas-fired power stations. The comparative data for EVs always assumes the best case (for them) while making comparison with gasoline powered cars like my 1980s V12 powered coupe that makes mostly heat 
and gets driven about 70 miles a month.
There’s also a 10% loss in getting electric power from the power station to point of delivery that is lower for delivering liquid fuel.
Hertz’s stated reasons for selling off a portion of their EV cars are relatively high depreciation cost and high repair cost. They self insure and doubtless have good data on what they’re spending.
Ahh, nothing like enjoying (diesel) fumes directly caressing your nostrils! Safe journey and enjoy your rides Silvaire!
Thanks – it’s going to be a good trip with a fairly large mixed group this time. The Euro-diesel phenomenon is worst in places like Milano – which I will be avoiding on this trip. You get a bit too on the autobahnen and passes but not so much.
that electric cars have about 800 000km of lifespan above 80% battery capacity
I’d like to see how they worked that out, since there is obviously almost no supporting data 
It totally defies any engineering common sense, especially given everyday experience with LIPO batteries, and especially when one considers how many years it takes to run up that sort of mileage.
maxbc wrote:
The figure I’ve heard (which relates to depreciation without being the same) is that electric cars have about 800 000km of lifespan above 80% battery capacity
No way. No way on earth can they cover 800,000 km and retain 80% of their battery capacity. That is promotional puff, derived from marketing logic where every calculation is done with the PROB<1% absolute best-case assumption.
As I’ve pointed out before, battery degradation is disguised in software. The battery is bigger that the software initially lets you use, and over time more and more of it is opened up to keep the apparent degradation rate looking acceptable.
One is not likely to be renting a car in the area where one owns one.
Not round here. Airport locations exempted, people rent cars when their own is in service, has some work done, relatives in town, etc. There are loads of downtown locations that are busy with locals.
