Leasing/Changing an EV every 3 years.
Discussion
I am puzzled to see so many posts, where PHers are looking forward to changing their current workable EV for another/better one.
At the outset, the idea of an EV was 'zero emissions' and 'save the planet'.
Has it now all become a fashion statement, with a desire to show 'green credentials' ?
EVs are quite expensive to obtain, although of course for business use, the tax incentives encourage use, so they tend to be used by the better off.
Changing to another one frequently does not seem very 'save the planet' (another vehicle manufactured), and if you are recharging your car at the moment, 56.6% of the electricity you are using is being generated by burning gas and coal.
There is clearly a benefit by reducing pollution in populated areas and increasing pollution in less populated areas, where the power stations are sited.
All very confusing.
Surely it depends on the reason for having an EV in the first place. Mine was solely because it was the cheapest option in a tick box exercise (work EV scheme vs private lease vs 2nd hand). In a couple of years i'll go through the same comparison and next time a V8 petrol might win the tick box process.
ZiggyNiva said:
... In a couple of years i'll go through the same comparison and next time a V8 petrol might win the tick box process.
Don't forget to consider the 2005 to 2018 Aston Martin V8 Vantage. 420 bhp; top speed 180 mph.
ULEZ Compliant too, so might be 'green'.
The only problem you might face, is that it is a wonderful car, so the owners of the best condition examples are not selling.
It provides an increasing supply of EVs to the used market for those who don't have access to salary sacrifice schemes or cannot afford the cost of a new EV. This will accelerate the number of EVs on the road, which in turn will reduce pollution, especially as the UK moves away from fossil fuel derived electricity and towards renewable sources.
I doubt those getting a new EV lease every 3 years will be doing it for that reason, but it's a positive side effect.
Troll.
I doubt those getting a new EV lease every 3 years will be doing it for that reason, but it's a positive side effect.
Troll.
UrbanAchiever said:
It provides an increasing supply of EVs to the used market for those who don't have access to salary sacrifice schemes or cannot afford the cost of a new EV. This will accelerate the number of EVs on the road, which in turn will reduce pollution, especially as the UK moves away from fossil fuel derived electricity and towards renewable sources.
I doubt those getting a new EV lease every 3 years will be doing it for that reason, but it's a positive side effect.
Troll.
This- people who are serial car swoppers will always be.I doubt those getting a new EV lease every 3 years will be doing it for that reason, but it's a positive side effect.
Troll.
Jon39 said:
I am puzzled to see so many posts, where PHers are looking forward to changing their current workable EV for another/better one.
At the outset, the idea of an EV was 'zero emissions' and 'save the planet'.
Has it now all become a fashion statement, with a desire to show 'green credentials' ?
EVs are quite expensive to obtain, although of course for business use, the tax incentives encourage use, so they tend to be used by the better off.
Changing to another one frequently does not seem very 'save the planet' (another vehicle manufactured), and if you are recharging your car at the moment, 56.6% of the electricity you are using is being generated by burning gas and coal.
There is clearly a benefit by reducing pollution in populated areas and increasing pollution in less populated areas, where the power stations are sited.
All very confusing.
Your person who changes their car every 3yrs would do regardless of power train, but is likely saving money in the process on tax as you note.
Meanwhile their old EV continues to be ZEatT.
Astons are great. So are some EVs. You don't have to love either. But if you're going to troll, try and do a better job of it.
Again, hard to tell if this is trolling but giving you the benefit of the doubt:
It matters not how long you own a specific EV, what matters is how many miles that EV covers in the hands of all of its owners before it is recycled.
In fact the 'break even' point of EV's now is vastly lower than the 42K miles or so that Volvo estimated a few years ago, and while not depends a bit on the energy source for the electricity, where the batteries are manufactured, the efficiency of the EV etc, it can be as low as 14,000 miles now, so pretty easy to reach even within a 2-3 year lease. After that it's all win in the used market.
You have to stop thinking about yourself as being the centre of the calculation, as with global warming, taking a bigger picture allows a clearer view. It's the journey of the various energies that matters most.
If you factor in that the energy used to mine the minerals can be amortised over the many reincarnations of the batteries as they are recycled (which takes much less energy overall), the advantage of an EV over an ICE vehicle become even greater by the way. The minerals in batteries, unlike fossil fuels are almost endlessly recyclable. The sooner we get those minerals out of the ground and into active circulation and reduce the one time burning of fossil fuels, the better.
Financially it's not a great idea to buy a new EV every 3 years, but it's a kind of social good as your depreciation is fuelling (sic) the used market to the benefit of those who cannot afford a new EV.
It matters not how long you own a specific EV, what matters is how many miles that EV covers in the hands of all of its owners before it is recycled.
In fact the 'break even' point of EV's now is vastly lower than the 42K miles or so that Volvo estimated a few years ago, and while not depends a bit on the energy source for the electricity, where the batteries are manufactured, the efficiency of the EV etc, it can be as low as 14,000 miles now, so pretty easy to reach even within a 2-3 year lease. After that it's all win in the used market.
You have to stop thinking about yourself as being the centre of the calculation, as with global warming, taking a bigger picture allows a clearer view. It's the journey of the various energies that matters most.
If you factor in that the energy used to mine the minerals can be amortised over the many reincarnations of the batteries as they are recycled (which takes much less energy overall), the advantage of an EV over an ICE vehicle become even greater by the way. The minerals in batteries, unlike fossil fuels are almost endlessly recyclable. The sooner we get those minerals out of the ground and into active circulation and reduce the one time burning of fossil fuels, the better.
Financially it's not a great idea to buy a new EV every 3 years, but it's a kind of social good as your depreciation is fuelling (sic) the used market to the benefit of those who cannot afford a new EV.
I'm not sure I understand your confusion. Going purely by the numbers in your post, it seems to me that someone who wished to be more green, but (like most) needed a car, and couldn't afford to buy outright (also fairly common), would in fact be achieving that goal wouldn't they? Electric motors are more efficient than the alternative, and as you say charging is currently roughly half fossil fuel based, which seems better than entirely fossil fuel based.
Or are you saying that the full life cycle of EV car plus electricity generation plus that whole supply chain is worse, fossil fuel-wise, than the equivalent petrol or diesel plus the oil supply chain, if one were to change cars as regularly as a typical lease term?
If so, do know how much longer someone needs to keep their EV relative to their petrol/diesel car to "break even"?
In the absence of that, what would you suggest someone (as described above) do if they want to make their car journeys more "green"?
Edit to add - looks like arkitan has answered my question about break even - thanks!
Or are you saying that the full life cycle of EV car plus electricity generation plus that whole supply chain is worse, fossil fuel-wise, than the equivalent petrol or diesel plus the oil supply chain, if one were to change cars as regularly as a typical lease term?
If so, do know how much longer someone needs to keep their EV relative to their petrol/diesel car to "break even"?
In the absence of that, what would you suggest someone (as described above) do if they want to make their car journeys more "green"?
Edit to add - looks like arkitan has answered my question about break even - thanks!
Edited by aizvara on Tuesday 9th January 19:18
Not sure if the OG post is serious 
Anyway….
People with company / business cars have been changing them every 1-3 years for decades.
It’s the reason why there are so many used cars 1-3 years old on the market !
Once the car is moved on, it doesn’t self combust
In 2023 UK electricity fossil generation was just 34.6%
Anyway….
People with company / business cars have been changing them every 1-3 years for decades.
It’s the reason why there are so many used cars 1-3 years old on the market !
Once the car is moved on, it doesn’t self combust
Jon39 said:
and if you are recharging your car at the moment, 56.6% of the electricity you are using is being generated by burning gas and coal.
Your post is either a deliberate troll, or, you didn’t research the number correctly. In 2023 UK electricity fossil generation was just 34.6%
Edited by SDK on Tuesday 9th January 19:30
UrbanAchiever said:
It provides an increasing supply of EVs to the used market for those who don't have access to salary sacrifice schemes or cannot afford the cost of a new EV. This will accelerate the number of EVs on the road, which in turn will reduce pollution, especially as the UK moves away from fossil fuel derived electricity and towards renewable sources.
I doubt those getting a new EV lease every 3 years will be doing it for that reason, but it's a positive side effect.
Troll.
In fairness we don't know he's a troll. He may just not be bright enough to understand, anything.I doubt those getting a new EV lease every 3 years will be doing it for that reason, but it's a positive side effect.
Troll.
Who said anything about saving the planet?!
Costs me 25% of what it used to cost me to run a diesel. Means more money for fuel to put in the V8!
Plus side being, give me an EV to drive over a rattly diesel any day of the week. Far nicer to drive day to day.
Most of them are on lease anyway and 9 times out of 10 it doesn’t cost any more money to have a new one every 3 years.
Costs me 25% of what it used to cost me to run a diesel. Means more money for fuel to put in the V8!
Plus side being, give me an EV to drive over a rattly diesel any day of the week. Far nicer to drive day to day.
Most of them are on lease anyway and 9 times out of 10 it doesn’t cost any more money to have a new one every 3 years.
stevemcs said:
Isn’t it a valid point though, if it’s about saving the trees or something shouldn’t it be about getting more from a car ? Encouraging people to keep them longer and cutting down on waste.
Isn't it better that someone switches from leasing a diesel or petrol car for three years to an EV for three years?The alternative appears to be that people shouldn't do anything at all about "saving the trees" if they aren't willing to reach some predefined level of commitment that you decide upon.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff