PDQ Mobile wrote:^^both above^^
So many points to attempt to answer!
Firstly I feel perfectly entitled to compare my motoring costs with anyone's vehicle.
It is a simple and totally valid comparison of what motoring actually costs.
Absolutely - but let's be fair about it. Let's not compare the purchase price of a car that is already ten years old with a car that is new.
And let's add in servicing costs (including your time at an appropriate rate) as well as just your "mature market" second (more likely fourth) hand cost.
My car - an MG ZS EV isn't the best EV on the market by a long stretch, but it does 4m/kWh around town, and ~3.3 sat at 70mph.
I did a lot of number crunching before I entered into the lease agreement, and over the three year lease I am going to spend ~£210 *more* than I did by running older second hand vehicles. That includes all of my outgoings, including depreciation, on running cars around 100k miles old.
I compromised on space, so I have to take the wheels off my wheelchair to put it in the boot - but given that the driver assistance features have massively extended the time I can drive (from two hours to three, maybe even more) I'm more than happy with the marginal extra cost and the increased driving range I have, and the security of knowing that there is no way of getting any surprise bills.
This is a slightly unfair comparison, partly because I am talking about the cost of running an old vehicle against the cost of leasing a new one - but mostly because the Motability scheme isn't open to anyone.
The low purchase price gives loads of room for the other stuff mentioned including fuel.
Of course there are considerable running and servicing costs, though I do my own "everything".
That is why the thing lasts so long.
So you assume that your time has no value when determining how much the car costs you - which is fine if tinkering is a hobby, but realise that that doesn't translate to the vast majority of people, so you need to factor in those hours at sensible labour rates.
I used to do a fair amount of work on my vehicles, but I gradually did less and less as time became more limited than money.
VED is a sore point. Perfectly good older cars have practically disappeared from our roads because without a CO2 rating tax is levied at high rates.
And it is a lot of money, even if emissions are good.
Who is subsidizing who here?
Erm - have you looked at the subsidy figures?
Motorists are subsidised by about ten billion pounds a year.
Neither of you have stated the purchase (or lease) price of your vehicles so meaningful comparison is impossible.
But I have my suspicions that it represents either a big wodge or a hefty monthly outgoing.
I haven't - because it's a lease... fairly easy to work out how much I pay, but I have broken it down above... over three years it will cost me ~£210 more than my old car(s), but is much more pleasant in the meantime.
On the leccy pricing point I do feel out of my depth.
Sounds a bit like negative interest rates, where one has to pay the bank for deposited money- a legalized robbery and a turning on it's head of all I was brought up to expect.
My leccy costs it's 17 odd p a kwh (plus 5%Vat).
I use it wisely and I think it probably represents reasonable value.
And Scot Power make a small profit though sometimes I wonder how!!
I have to say watching all those tariffs looks like a bit of a nightmare to a simple soul like me. I have rather more interesting ways to spend my time. Like cycling!
17p/kWh is above average, significantly so.
The concept of time based energy pricing isn't new, that's what E7 and E10 were all about, but the recent advances in communications has meant that even domestic customers can now benefit from using power when the market has a predicted excess of supply/demand.
Not sure about the switching (powering down) of power stations argument.
Gas turbine (a huge proportion of UK leccy) and hydro (both normal and pumped storage) are quickly reduced. A day with an eye on Grid Watch will confirm that to anyone.
Hydro can - yes, and they do, but there are costs and timescales associated with spinning down a gas turbine, and with a grid that needs to balance power on an ongoing basis... it's often cheaper to sell electricity at negative cost.
So sure there's surplus power (sometimes) in windy times, but to PAY someone to use it rather than just GIVE it for free is beyond me, in spite of you trying patiently to explain, Kwackers.
That's how capitalism works.
If I have something that can only be used a specific time, and it must be used then it might be necessary to pay people to use it. You could argue that "free" should be incentive enough - but that's not the way the market works.
Let's try a roundabout analogy...
If you have 10 apples in your shop, and they will all go off tonight, and it costs £1/apple for proper disposal then would you pay someone 50p to take an apple in the last few minutes before the shop closes? Of course you would - that's just saved you 50p per apple.