Petrol Head?

[bluebruce]

On 27/05/2025 at 16:15, only2garners said:

The Polestar's list price is a lot more than the MG5. Two years ago the MG5 was a shade under £31K and the Polestar that I'm ordering now is c£48K. But the monthly lease cost for the Polestar is less. It's £96 a month less, although the majority of that is because I am paying a bigger deposit than I did for the MG5.

I don't know but guess that lease costs in general have come down and there may be incentives for electric cars to encourage sales. Although I don't know how that works with a company like Polestar which only makes EVs - maybe there are cross costs with Volvo?

That deposit has to be carrying a lot of the weight there, surely. Lease costs might have come down too, I dunno, but that's a huge difference in vehicle value for you to be paying a smaller monthly. Either way I expect you'll really like your new car.

One thing Polestar and Volvo will do together is help Volvo avoid the fines for not producing enough EVs as a percent of their sales in the UK. Any petrol/diesel car sold above the allowance means a hefty fine, and companies who sell more than enough EVs can sell their credits to other companies to avoid those fines. Or in the case of Volvo and Polestar, probably just give them to Volvo. If Volvo are already selling enough EVs as a proportion (I've no idea if they are), then the credits can just be sold to other companies like Ford who probably aren't meeting the requirements.

Other countries have similar schemes.

[bluebruce]

CATL, the world's biggest battery maker, with nearly 40% global share of the industry, have announced a new sodium battery.

It's over 50% cheaper at present, and they expect it to roughly halve in price again in the next few years as they scale up. So that should result in a drop of thousands in EV costs.

Crucially, it's also rated for a 3.6 million mile lifespan! And by that they mean they expect it to still have 85% of its original capacity after 3.6 million miles. So it's a battery that will outlast the car itself, probably a few times over, so can probably have a second life in energy storage or swapped to another car with a failed battery (if we really have failing batteries anymore by then).

Sodium is also a far more abundant and more environmentally friendly material to extract than the lithium that most batteries are currently made of. Additionally, it's less flammable so it's safer. This battery can charge better at lower temperatures, and at higher temperatures. It can still work at up to minus 40 degrees celsius, and up to 70 degrees celsius. So realistically, anywhere on Earth. And apparently it charges at almost normal speed at around minus 20.

The main problem with sodium batteries has always been the low energy density. Because they couldn't store as much per kg they were heavier for the same energy, which of course reduces range. But this battery has a 175 Wh per kg density, which is actually higher than one of BYD's new blade batteries (the short form, at 160 Wh, which is designed for faster charging - the long form has 210 Wh but charges slower) which were only released this year and improved on the prior generation which maxed at 150 Wh per kg. So cars with these batteries would also have more range than the majority of BYD cars on the road these days.

Ahh maybe the charging speed sucks? Nope, 0% to 80% in 15 minutes at room temperature. Which is better than most EVs on the road now can do (30 mins is typical), albeit not as fast as some of the latest LFPs which can charge in 5.

This seems to be a game changer, and coming from a massive company who don't bullshit about what their batteries can do. It also could have huge implication for renewables in general, as a battery that lasts 5 times longer and costs half as much could help revolutionise storage of renewable energy to reduce the relevance of intermittency.

[only2garners]

Given that EVs are now already considerably cheaper than ICE cars for anyone who has access to charging either at home and/or work, if this development comes off it's pretty much a death knell for ICE vehicles.

[bluebruce]

3 hours ago, only2garners said:

Given that EVs are now already considerably cheaper than ICE cars for anyone who has access to charging either at home and/or work, if this development comes off it's pretty much a death knell for ICE vehicles.

Labour continuing their incompetence by seemingly trying to throw a spanner in there though. I'm sure you heard about the stupid new pay-per-mile road tax they want to implement from April 2028.

Not to take this into the realm of politics of course, which we can't discuss in this forum. But it certainly won't be helpful for the efforts to electrify our vehicles. Which is strange because they allegedly want us to electrify.

EVs will still be cheaper for overall ownership over the long term though, especially when these newer, cheaper batteries come in.

[K-Hod]

2 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

 

Not to take this into the realm of politics of course, which we can't discuss in this forum. 

Yes you can!

[bluebruce]

3 hours ago, only2garners said:

 if this development comes off it's pretty much a death knell for ICE vehicles.

Although to be clear, this isn't a research concept that 'may' come off. It's ready, they're making them now. It is already the first battery to meet China's new enhanced battery safety regulations. It will just take time to scale up, and of course car makers need time to design cars that use them.

[bluebruce]

2 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

Yes you can!

Thought it had to go in don't say we didn't warn you or whatever it's called.

[K-Hod]

6 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Thought it had to go in don't say we didn't warn you or whatever it's called.

Most of the discussion is in WDWY, you're right- but no issue at all with it going on in here, it always did before WDWY was invented, tbf.

[bluebruce]

6 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

Most of the discussion is in WDWY, you're right- but no issue at all with it going on in here, it always did before WDWY was invented, tbf.

Has that been relaxed then? Because there is this slightly draconian statement in the pinned WDWY thread in ICBINF which might need a bit of editing (unless it's intentionally there as a deterrent but not really how it works):

'Therefore any discussion on any of these points in ICBINF or the main football board are now banned. No ifs, no buts. If you post even hinting on any of these subjects your post will be hidden and - after a short period of goodwill time - your account will be face a warning.'

Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread.

[only2garners]

6 hours ago, bluebruce said:

Labour continuing their incompetence by seemingly trying to throw a spanner in there though. I'm sure you heard about the stupid new pay-per-mile road tax they want to implement from April 2028.

Not to take this into the realm of politics of course, which we can't discuss in this forum. But it certainly won't be helpful for the efforts to electrify our vehicles. Which is strange because they allegedly want us to electrify.

EVs will still be cheaper for overall ownership over the long term though, especially when these newer, cheaper batteries come in.

I have no problem with the EV pay per mile plans. From the outset I knew that there would have to be some sort of tax to replace the money raised on fuel taxes as EVs became more popular. Right now there is no real way of knowing what the final plans will look like and there are still more than 2 years to go until implementation. EVs will still be way cheaper to run than ICE vehicles.

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, only2garners said:

I have no problem with the EV pay per mile plans. From the outset I knew that there would have to be some sort of tax to replace the money raised on fuel taxes as EVs became more popular. Right now there is no real way of knowing what the final plans will look like and there are still more than 2 years to go until implementation. EVs will still be way cheaper to run than ICE vehicles.

Wide scale adoption has numerous obstacles to overcome in terms of perception, as some of the discussions in this thread have shown. Governments should be doing nothing to disincentivise the transition. Yes they will still be cheaper to run, but it will be harder to persuade certain stubborn and in some cases easily misled parts of the population that it's the case with things like this. Plus frankly I don't want the hassle of it.

Any changes to try to compensate for fuel duty dimishing should wait until over 50% of the population are driving EVs. Until then (and frankly, after) the money should come from the super rich. But that's a whole other debate.