"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , 3899jk
scribeth thus


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

A local Taxi firm runs its diesel cars up to around 400,000 miles
they
don't do that with Petrol ones don't know why?...



Then find out.

Can't really be arsed, I imagine its because there're cheaper to run
perhaps;...

http://www.whatcar.com/news/petrol-d...rk-costs-less/

Working out whether a diesel- or a petrol-powered car will be cheaper to
run
over three years is a complicated business.

It isn't just about fuel economy. Depreciation is the biggest cost in
car
ownership, so you need check how much the car will be worth after three
years.

Do diesel cars cost more to buy than petrol ones?

Generally, yes. Broadly speaking, the smaller the car you're
considering,
the
bigger the premium you'll be charged for an equivalent diesel model.

Which costs more at the pump - petrol or diesel?

At the moment, diesel costs about 6.6p more per litre than petrol - or
about 30p
more per gallon.

Judging the difference only on fuel economy and fill-up costs makes
diesel
look
especially attractive - but that's why you need to consider the
differences in
purchase price, retained value, servicing costs and even insurance.


Most of them are passenger cars, mainly Skodas's

aren't all cars except perhaps formula 1 or formula E .



Course a lot of those cars are very small engines around 1 litre or so
now someone please tell me why they didn't go up the scale to 4 odd
litre Range rovers

Because that's a lot of weight to cart around.

Best done with a Diseasel then!...


and the like and by the same logic why are larger
engines still mainly diesel rather then Petrol;?....

Because with trucks you care most about running cost.



Indeed you do but heres another one. Over in France Gasoil, as they term
it, is the predominate fuel of choice there least all the froggies i was
involved in had diesel cars, petrol seemed an alien thing to them,
wonder why?.

Most likely because of the price it sells for.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 22:14:32 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 12:36:24 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave scribeth thus
On Wednesday, 20 April 2016 19:06:04 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave scribeth thus
On Wednesday, 20 April 2016 14:25:53 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:

Oddly enough my 2 litre diesel Audi seems to perform much the
same as
the former 2 litre petrol, and round this way diesel is
slightly
cheaper
than petrol at the moment!...

What about the original price of the car as it seems that
model for model diesel cars are more expensive than the pertol
equiv.

Not that much different on the second-hand market it seems.

Then that should give you a clue.
diesel engines are more expensive to repair so less people want
2nd
hand
diesel
cars because of that which is why the price lower.

Think of it this way two identical cars, ones fuel is liquid gold
the
other
is
****, which car would be cheapest to buy ?



A local Taxi firm runs its diesel cars up to around 400,000 miles
they
don't do that with Petrol ones don't know why?...



Then find out.

Can't really be arsed, I imagine its because there're cheaper to run
perhaps;...

http://www.whatcar.com/news/petrol-d...rk-costs-less/

Working out whether a diesel- or a petrol-powered car will
be cheaper to run over three years is a complicated business.

It isn't just about fuel economy. Depreciation is the biggest cost in
car
ownership, so you need check how much the car will be worth after three
years.

Pretty stupid to be changing the car every 3 years
if you care about the cost of running the car.

If you're worried about the cost of running the car you
upgrade as often as needed even if it's once a week.

But the point is that given the massive drop in the
value of a car as you drive it out of the show room,
if you care about the cost of running a car, you
minimise the frequency of upgrades for that reason.

In theory you replace the car once the cost of repairs
starts to increase significantly, but in practice with
modern cars, that never happens even if you keep
them for 20 years now and you actually replace them
because they are starting to look a bit tatty etc.

Companies cars are replaced at those sorts of intervals.

Just because with company cars it's important what they look like.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:08:22 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 22:14:32 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 12:36:24 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave scribeth thus
On Wednesday, 20 April 2016 19:06:04 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave scribeth thus
On Wednesday, 20 April 2016 14:25:53 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:

Oddly enough my 2 litre diesel Audi seems to perform much the
same as
the former 2 litre petrol, and round this way diesel is
slightly
cheaper
than petrol at the moment!...

What about the original price of the car as it seems that
model for model diesel cars are more expensive than the pertol
equiv.

Not that much different on the second-hand market it seems.

Then that should give you a clue.
diesel engines are more expensive to repair so less people want
2nd
hand
diesel
cars because of that which is why the price lower.

Think of it this way two identical cars, ones fuel is liquid gold
the
other
is
****, which car would be cheapest to buy ?



A local Taxi firm runs its diesel cars up to around 400,000 miles
they
don't do that with Petrol ones don't know why?...



Then find out.

Can't really be arsed, I imagine its because there're cheaper to run
perhaps;...

http://www.whatcar.com/news/petrol-d...rk-costs-less/

Working out whether a diesel- or a petrol-powered car will
be cheaper to run over three years is a complicated business.

It isn't just about fuel economy. Depreciation is the biggest cost in
car
ownership, so you need check how much the car will be worth after three
years.

Pretty stupid to be changing the car every 3 years
if you care about the cost of running the car.

If you're worried about the cost of running the car you
upgrade as often as needed even if it's once a week.

But the point is that given the massive drop in the
value of a car as you drive it out of the show room,
if you care about the cost of running a car, you
minimise the frequency of upgrades for that reason.

In theory you replace the car once the cost of repairs
starts to increase significantly, but in practice with
modern cars, that never happens even if you keep
them for 20 years now and you actually replace them
because they are starting to look a bit tatty etc.

I can't think of many 20 year old cars that weren't given up on due to rust. Maybe in drier climates like yours.

Companies cars are replaced at those sorts of intervals.

Just because with company cars it's important what they look like.

Doesn't always work. I once decided on which double glazing company to use by how much they wasted on such things.

--
Doctor: "Ask the accident victim his name so we can notify his family."
Nurse: "I did! He said his family already knows his name."

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 22 April 2016 11:59:34 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
In article , 3899jk
scribeth thus


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

A local Taxi firm runs its diesel cars up to around 400,000 miles
they
don't do that with Petrol ones don't know why?...



Then find out.

Can't really be arsed, I imagine its because there're cheaper to run
perhaps;...

http://www.whatcar.com/news/petrol-d...rk-costs-less/

Working out whether a diesel- or a petrol-powered car will be cheaper
to
run
over three years is a complicated business.

It isn't just about fuel economy. Depreciation is the biggest cost in
car
ownership, so you need check how much the car will be worth after
three
years.

Do diesel cars cost more to buy than petrol ones?

Generally, yes. Broadly speaking, the smaller the car you're
considering,
the
bigger the premium you'll be charged for an equivalent diesel model.

Which costs more at the pump - petrol or diesel?

At the moment, diesel costs about 6.6p more per litre than petrol - or
about 30p
more per gallon.

Judging the difference only on fuel economy and fill-up costs makes
diesel
look
especially attractive - but that's why you need to consider the
differences in
purchase price, retained value, servicing costs and even insurance.


Most of them are passenger cars, mainly Skodas's

aren't all cars except perhaps formula 1 or formula E .



Course a lot of those cars are very small engines around 1 litre or so
now someone please tell me why they didn't go up the scale to 4 odd
litre Range rovers

Because that's a lot of weight to cart around.

Best done with a Diseasel then!...


and the like and by the same logic why are larger
engines still mainly diesel rather then Petrol;?....

Because with trucks you care most about running cost.



Indeed you do but heres another one. Over in France Gasoil, as they term
it, is the predominate fuel of choice there least all the froggies i was
involved in had diesel cars, petrol seemed an alien thing to them,
wonder why?.

why not try to find out if it's true first.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statist...cars_in_the_EU


Buyers prefer new petrol cars rather than diesel cars in most Member
States, while alternative fuels continue to play a minor role

Now why is it that France buy appear tom buy twice as
many deisel cars as petrol, and why do other contries differ.

Most likely because of what the French car industry chooses to produce.

Coud it be that certainm manufactiuers are lying to the customers
about all sorts of things and those customers have fallen for it.

Unlikely with the frogs who hardly ever buy that sort of ****.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
More ********.

**** off Wodney.
Infest somewhere else.

Mr Macaw wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

No need, diesel cars last a hell of a lot longer than petrol ones.

********.

Fact.

The type of engine makes little difference these days.

Wrong, as always.

Most cars go to the scrapyard with their original engine.

And with no work having been done on the engine
at all, at most maybe a pump or sensor replacement.

But that is because no one wants them anymore.

Which is not relevant at all. All it means is people aren't driving
as far as their car could go before the ****ty bodywork rusts away.

They aren't mostly scrapped because the body has rusted away,
they are mostly scrapped because they are involved in an accident
that is uneconomic to repair.

"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:08:22 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 22:14:32 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 12:36:24 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave scribeth thus
On Wednesday, 20 April 2016 19:06:04 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
In article
,
whisky-dave scribeth thus
On Wednesday, 20 April 2016 14:25:53 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:

Oddly enough my 2 litre diesel Audi seems to perform much
the
same as
the former 2 litre petrol, and round this way diesel is
slightly
cheaper
than petrol at the moment!...

What about the original price of the car as it seems that
model for model diesel cars are more expensive than the
pertol
equiv.

Not that much different on the second-hand market it seems.

Then that should give you a clue.
diesel engines are more expensive to repair so less people want
2nd
hand
diesel
cars because of that which is why the price lower.

Think of it this way two identical cars, ones fuel is liquid
gold
the
other
is
****, which car would be cheapest to buy ?



A local Taxi firm runs its diesel cars up to around 400,000 miles
they
don't do that with Petrol ones don't know why?...



Then find out.

Can't really be arsed, I imagine its because there're cheaper to run
perhaps;...

http://www.whatcar.com/news/petrol-d...rk-costs-less/

Working out whether a diesel- or a petrol-powered car will
be cheaper to run over three years is a complicated business.

It isn't just about fuel economy. Depreciation is the biggest cost in
car
ownership, so you need check how much the car will be worth after
three
years.

Pretty stupid to be changing the car every 3 years
if you care about the cost of running the car.

If you're worried about the cost of running the car you
upgrade as often as needed even if it's once a week.

But the point is that given the massive drop in the
value of a car as you drive it out of the show room,
if you care about the cost of running a car, you
minimise the frequency of upgrades for that reason.

In theory you replace the car once the cost of repairs
starts to increase significantly, but in practice with
modern cars, that never happens even if you keep
them for 20 years now and you actually replace them
because they are starting to look a bit tatty etc.

I can't think of many 20 year old cars that weren't given up on due to
rust.

Then you need to get out more. Plenty in here alone have one.

Maybe in drier climates like yours.

Companies cars are replaced at those sorts of intervals.

Just because with company cars it's important what they look like.

Doesn't always work.

Sure, nothing always works.

I once decided on which double glazing company to use by how much they
wasted on such things.

I do that with operations that advertise on local TV.

Doesn't mean that plenty don't advertise on local TV tho.

Indeed you do but heres another one. Over in France Gasoil, as they term
it, is the predominate fuel of choice there least all the froggies i was
involved in had diesel cars, petrol seemed an alien thing to them,
wonder why?.

Most likely because of the price it sells for.


Just noticed earlier that petrol at Sainsburys round our way was 1p More
expensive than diesel!...
--
Tony Sayer

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 20:32:21 +0100, tony sayer wrote:



Indeed you do but heres another one. Over in France Gasoil, as they term
it, is the predominate fuel of choice there least all the froggies i was
involved in had diesel cars, petrol seemed an alien thing to them,
wonder why?.

Most likely because of the price it sells for.


Just noticed earlier that petrol at Sainsburys round our way was 1p More
expensive than diesel!...

Same here (in Morrisons). Sainsburys is for snobs :-P

A frog petrol clerk once asked if my Ford Sierra was a Porsche because I accidentally put super unleaded in it.

--
What do you call kinky sex with chocolate?
S&M&M

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 02:48:59 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:08:22 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 22:14:32 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 12:36:24 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave scribeth thus
On Wednesday, 20 April 2016 19:06:04 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
In article
,
whisky-dave scribeth thus
On Wednesday, 20 April 2016 14:25:53 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:

Oddly enough my 2 litre diesel Audi seems to perform much
the
same as
the former 2 litre petrol, and round this way diesel is
slightly
cheaper
than petrol at the moment!...

What about the original price of the car as it seems that
model for model diesel cars are more expensive than the
pertol
equiv.

Not that much different on the second-hand market it seems.

Then that should give you a clue.
diesel engines are more expensive to repair so less people want
2nd
hand
diesel
cars because of that which is why the price lower.

Think of it this way two identical cars, ones fuel is liquid
gold
the
other
is
****, which car would be cheapest to buy ?



A local Taxi firm runs its diesel cars up to around 400,000 miles
they
don't do that with Petrol ones don't know why?...



Then find out.

Can't really be arsed, I imagine its because there're cheaper to run
perhaps;...

http://www.whatcar.com/news/petrol-d...rk-costs-less/

Working out whether a diesel- or a petrol-powered car will
be cheaper to run over three years is a complicated business.

It isn't just about fuel economy. Depreciation is the biggest cost in
car
ownership, so you need check how much the car will be worth after
three
years.

Pretty stupid to be changing the car every 3 years
if you care about the cost of running the car.

If you're worried about the cost of running the car you
upgrade as often as needed even if it's once a week.

But the point is that given the massive drop in the
value of a car as you drive it out of the show room,
if you care about the cost of running a car, you
minimise the frequency of upgrades for that reason.

In theory you replace the car once the cost of repairs
starts to increase significantly, but in practice with
modern cars, that never happens even if you keep
them for 20 years now and you actually replace them
because they are starting to look a bit tatty etc.

I can't think of many 20 year old cars that weren't given up on due to
rust.

Then you need to get out more. Plenty in here alone have one.

Soggy island :-)

Maybe in drier climates like yours.

Companies cars are replaced at those sorts of intervals.

Just because with company cars it's important what they look like.

Doesn't always work.

Sure, nothing always works.

I meant can't that often work.

I once decided on which double glazing company to use by how much they
wasted on such things.

I do that with operations that advertise on local TV.

Doesn't mean that plenty don't advertise on local TV tho.

The big companies are sucked in by the ad agencies. I don't know anyone who buys what they saw on an advert. They go by friend's recommendations mainly.

--
The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn are composed entirely of lost airline Luggage. -- Mark Russell

"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 02:48:59 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:08:22 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 22:14:32 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 12:36:24 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
In article
,
whisky-dave scribeth thus
On Wednesday, 20 April 2016 19:06:04 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
In article
,
whisky-dave scribeth thus
On Wednesday, 20 April 2016 14:25:53 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:

Oddly enough my 2 litre diesel Audi seems to perform much
the
same as
the former 2 litre petrol, and round this way diesel is
slightly
cheaper
than petrol at the moment!...

What about the original price of the car as it seems that
model for model diesel cars are more expensive than the
pertol
equiv.

Not that much different on the second-hand market it seems.

Then that should give you a clue.
diesel engines are more expensive to repair so less people
want
2nd
hand
diesel
cars because of that which is why the price lower.

Think of it this way two identical cars, ones fuel is liquid
gold
the
other
is
****, which car would be cheapest to buy ?



A local Taxi firm runs its diesel cars up to around 400,000
miles
they
don't do that with Petrol ones don't know why?...



Then find out.

Can't really be arsed, I imagine its because there're cheaper to
run
perhaps;...

http://www.whatcar.com/news/petrol-d...rk-costs-less/

Working out whether a diesel- or a petrol-powered car will
be cheaper to run over three years is a complicated business.

It isn't just about fuel economy. Depreciation is the biggest cost
in
car
ownership, so you need check how much the car will be worth after
three
years.

Pretty stupid to be changing the car every 3 years
if you care about the cost of running the car.

If you're worried about the cost of running the car you
upgrade as often as needed even if it's once a week.

But the point is that given the massive drop in the
value of a car as you drive it out of the show room,
if you care about the cost of running a car, you
minimise the frequency of upgrades for that reason.

In theory you replace the car once the cost of repairs
starts to increase significantly, but in practice with
modern cars, that never happens even if you keep
them for 20 years now and you actually replace them
because they are starting to look a bit tatty etc.

I can't think of many 20 year old cars that weren't given up on due to
rust.

Then you need to get out more. Plenty in here alone have one.

Soggy island :-)

Maybe in drier climates like yours.

Companies cars are replaced at those sorts of intervals.

Just because with company cars it's important what they look like.

Doesn't always work.

Sure, nothing always works.

I meant can't that often work.

It does work most of the time.

I once decided on which double glazing company to use by how much they
wasted on such things.

I do that with operations that advertise on local TV.

Doesn't mean that plenty don't advertise on local TV tho.

The big companies are sucked in by the ad agencies.

It isnt just the big companys that are.

I don't know anyone who buys what they saw on an advert.

Then you need to get out more, particularly with special offers price wise.

They go by friend's recommendations mainly.

Not with special offers price wise they don't.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 14 April 2016 22:50:23 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 21:53:50 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 21:45:01 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:23:54 +0100, whisky-dave

wrote:

On Monday, 11 April 2016 22:23:02 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:49:36 +0100, whisky-dave

wrote:

Then don't plug in 1 million mp3 players at the same time
then.
As this would be how a smartmeter could detect and know what
you
are
plugging in.
I do know someone that was writing an app for use with
smartmeters.

Easy enough to make your car charge unevenly to simulate other
things.

No it would't be in reality.
Sure you could just charge your car at 100ma the same as a torch,
for
a
few weeks, but no one would care would they.

But we use things like kettles, tumble driers, etc. So you just
make
the
car charge then stop then charge then stop, preferably at a
different
level each time.

Problem with that approach is that a normal 13A charger isnt
anything
like good enough for an electric car used to go to work and back
every
day, and playing silly buggers like that will only make that problem
worse.

Then use more than 13A. I can take 80A into my house right now (I
don't
have an electric car) without them asking me why.

IMO most wouldn't bother and would just pay the tax.

Then they're idiots, as a diesel would then cost the same (in fact
less
as there's no huge battery replacement cost).

Why do people have diesel driven cars as it;'s mnore expenive than
pertol
and has more harmful polutants

Because they get significantly better mpg and it ends up
cheaper to run and the engine is a lot more reliable too.

Right so all you have to do is find ways to make peolpe want electric cars

Not even possible, they have so many downsides.

and I don;t think teh govenemtn puttiung a huge tax
on them to replace teh tax they lose on pertol will work.

Corse it would work. Whether it makes sense
to do that is an entirely different issue.

Mr Macaw wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Mr Macaw wrote
whisky-dave wrote

What is it going to cost to fill up with electricity ?
Simple question.
Or how much per kw

**** all compared to overly taxed petrol.

So why tax it, if it's that cheap it'd cost mor eto collect the tax that
you get.

Because they're stupid. We should abolish all taxes and just put it in
one single place - income tax.

Not a viable approach, essentially because it is trivially
easy for some to show no income at all and so pay no tax.

With the consumption taxes they can't avoid those.

Its much easier for the stinking rich to avoid
showing any income and so politically impossible
to sell just taxing income and nothing else.

WAY less paperwork.

That is very arguable when you want to
make it hard to claim you have no income.

so, what will a car be called a non dometisc applience whicvh gets free
electricity paid for by the govenrment ?

It's paid for by me, at the same rate as my household electricity, just
not overly taxed like petrol. Petrol has 400% tax!

Well if it's paid by you someone has to work out how much you owe them.
Now if the company that supplies you with the electricity doesn't know
how much you're taking from them.... and if they do which is what I
suspect then the govenment will ask them.

They already do, everybody has an electric meter and pays 4% tax on what
they use.

Doesn't allow you to charge a different tax rate for some types of
electricity use.

What you havent explained is why the govenrment will choose to tax
electricity differntly for cars. They dont tax it differntly for kettle
TV, washing machine and storage raidators.

I don't think they will try,

They might if they lose most of the petrol and diesel tax revenue.

and they certainly won't manage to with me.

Trivial to ensure that you can't avoid it, just like
they do to ensure you don't get free electricity.

can you tell me who's going to pay for the elecicity used to drive UK
cars.

Their owners.

exactly so why all, this woryy about how will the govenment tax these
owners.

People are concerned that the tax on car electricity will shoot up so we
pay just as much as we do now for petrol. And changing to electric cars
will all have been for nothing.

Not if you can charge them with your own solar panels etc.

On Saturday, 23 April 2016 21:37:39 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:


The big companies are sucked in by the ad agencies. I don't know anyone who buys what they saw on an advert. They go by friend's recommendations mainly.

And where do their friends get their info from as it's difficult buying stuff that isnlt advertised.
Which washing powerders sell the most, who sells the most headphones.

I remmebr when my dad 20+ years ago worked for Marks And Spenser who proudly at that time refused to advertise.

Can you explain why they now put some much into advertising ....
those sexy food adds.
The only thing that kept them solvant was that maggie thathcer brought their knickers from them.

On Sunday, 24 April 2016 05:26:24 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message


Right so all you have to do is find ways to make peolpe want electric cars

Not even possible, they have so many downsides.

So you reduce or eliminate the downsides that's the point isn't it.
Such things as less tax, cheap charging, no congestion charge.



and I don;t think teh govenemtn puttiung a huge tax
on them to replace teh tax they lose on pertol will work.

Corse it would work. Whether it makes sense
to do that is an entirely different issue.

Making electric cars cost more per mile than pertol or desiel to run
is not currently the aim.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

Right so all you have to do is find ways
to make peolpe want electric cars

Not even possible, they have so many downsides.

So you reduce or eliminate the downsides

Not even possible with electric cars.

that's the point isn't it. Such things as less
tax, cheap charging, no congestion charge.

Nothing like enough to get everyone to use electric cars.

and I don;t think teh govenemtn puttiung a huge tax
on them to replace teh tax they lose on pertol will work.

Corse it would work. Whether it makes sense
to do that is an entirely different issue.

Making electric cars cost more per mile than
pertol or desiel to run is not currently the aim.

But we were discussing what the govt might
do if the bulk of people have electric cars so
the govt no longer has the immense revenue
from the tax on petrol and diesel. IMO they
are very unlikely to just yawn and do nothing.

whisky-dave wrote
Mr Macaw wrote

The big companies are sucked in by the ad agencies.
I don't know anyone who buys what they saw on an
advert. They go by friend's recommendations mainly.

And where do their friends get their info from

From someone who has bought it quite often.

as it's difficult buying stuff that isnlt advertised.

Easy enough to come across it in the supermarket
etc and decide to try it even if it isnt advertised.

Which washing powerders sell the most,
who sells the most headphones.

Irrelevant to whether the stuff that isnt advertised
does still sell, often by word of mouth if its different.

You don't see much advertising of the sort of stuff sold
in the polish shops etc and quite a bit of it is sold anyway,

We see lots of stuff asked about in here with
people suggesting various products, more
word of mouth, or word of keyboard anyway.

Hell of a lot more of that in places like facebook.

Just in the last couple of days someone has asked
who is the best butcher locally, and where is the
best place to get our equivalent of your MOT done.

Most of those recommended don't advertise at all
and with one of the butchers, I heard about them
from a mate of mine because he found them good.

I remmebr when my dad 20+ years ago worked for Marks
And Spenser who proudly at that time refused to advertise.

Plenty of the small business operations
I deal with all the time still don't.

Can you explain why they now put some much into advertising ....
those sexy food adds.

Because they have obviously changed their mind on that.

The only thing that kept them solvant was that
maggie thathcer brought their knickers from them.

On Sunday, 24 April 2016 05:26:24 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message

Because they get significantly better mpg and it ends up
cheaper to run and the engine is a lot more reliable too.

Right so all you have to do is find ways to make peolpe want electric cars

Not even possible, they have so many downsides.

It's quite possible because its happened electric cars are getting sold.
you'd have to be really stupid not to know that oh well yeah...




and I don;t think teh govenemtn puttiung a huge tax
on them to replace teh tax they lose on pertol will work.

Corse it would work.

How ?
How does charging £1 for 1 ampere hour of electric encourage people to buy electric cars ?
if it costs less to drive X distance using petrol or desiel peolpe will buy pertol or desiel cars like they have been doing since the car was invented..



Whether it makes sense
to do that is an entirely different issue.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 15:34:13 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 24 April 2016 05:26:24 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message

Because they get significantly better mpg and it ends up
cheaper to run and the engine is a lot more reliable too.

Right so all you have to do is find ways to make peolpe want electric cars

Not even possible, they have so many downsides.

It's quite possible because its happened electric cars are getting sold.
you'd have to be really stupid not to know that oh well yeah...

I have seen ONE all electric car in four towns here. Quite a few hybrids, but that doesn't count, they still run on petrol, just slightly less of it.

and I don;t think teh govenemtn puttiung a huge tax
on them to replace teh tax they lose on pertol will work.

Corse it would work.

How ?
How does charging £1 for 1 ampere hour of electric encourage people to buy electric cars ?
if it costs less to drive X distance using petrol or desiel peolpe will buy pertol or desiel cars like they have been doing since the car was invented.

Once 99% of cars are electric, petrol cars would be as difficult to fill up as electric cars are now. There wouldn't be petrol stations everywhere.

--
A midget fortune-teller who escapes from prison is a small medium at large.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 12:20:22 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 24 April 2016 05:26:24 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message

Right so all you have to do is find ways to make peolpe want electric cars

Not even possible, they have so many downsides.

So you reduce or eliminate the downsides that's the point isn't it.
Such things as less tax, cheap charging, no congestion charge.

The problem is their ****ty range, and the cost of replacing the battery.

--
Coffee (n.), the person upon whom one coughs.

On 26/04/2016 16:25, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 12:20:22 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Sunday, 24 April 2016 05:26:24 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message

Right so all you have to do is find ways to make peolpe want
electric cars

Not even possible, they have so many downsides.

So you reduce or eliminate the downsides that's the point isn't it.
Such things as less tax, cheap charging, no congestion charge.

The problem is their ****ty range, and the cost of replacing the battery.


But they are cheap at about £11k for one with AC/BT, sat nav, etc.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 20:45:28 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 26/04/2016 16:25, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 12:20:22 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Sunday, 24 April 2016 05:26:24 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message

Right so all you have to do is find ways to make peolpe want
electric cars

Not even possible, they have so many downsides.

So you reduce or eliminate the downsides that's the point isn't it.
Such things as less tax, cheap charging, no congestion charge.

The problem is their ****ty range, and the cost of replacing the battery.

But they are cheap at about £11k for one with AC/BT, sat nav, etc.

And another 4K every 5 years for a battery. Nevermind the cost of the car, you pay £4K every 5 years in "fuel" replacing the batteries, before you even buy the electricity.

--
Kindly consume faeces and expire.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 24 April 2016 05:26:24 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message

Because they get significantly better mpg and it ends up
cheaper to run and the engine is a lot more reliable too.

Right so all you have to do is find ways to make peolpe want electric
cars

Not even possible, they have so many downsides.

It's quite possible because its happened electric cars are getting sold.

**** all are and only to terminal ****wits like harry.

and I don;t think teh govenemtn puttiung a huge tax
on them to replace teh tax they lose on pertol will work.

Corse it would work.

How ?

All of ANPR cameras, GPS tracking of electric cars, the charger in the car
telling the smart meter in the house that its an electric car, etc etc etc.

How does charging £1 for 1 ampere hour of
electric encourage people to buy electric cars ?

We aren't discussing encouraging people to buy electric
cars, we are discussing what the govt could do if almost
everyone has electric cars and they are now getting ****
all tax revenue from the sale of petrol and diesel and are
looking to get that tax revenue back by taxing the
electricity used in electric cars instead.

Whether it makes sense to do that is an entirely different issue.

"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 12:20:22 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Sunday, 24 April 2016 05:26:24 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message

Right so all you have to do is find ways to make peolpe want electric
cars

Not even possible, they have so many downsides.

So you reduce or eliminate the downsides that's the point isn't it.
Such things as less tax, cheap charging, no congestion charge.

The problem is their ****ty range, and the cost of replacing the battery.

And their even ****tier range in the depths of winter
when anyone but a fool in an electric car has the heater on.

"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 21:38:58 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 12:20:22 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Sunday, 24 April 2016 05:26:24 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message

Right so all you have to do is find ways to make peolpe want
electric
cars

Not even possible, they have so many downsides.

So you reduce or eliminate the downsides that's the point isn't it.
Such things as less tax, cheap charging, no congestion charge.

The problem is their ****ty range, and the cost of replacing the
battery.

And their even ****tier range in the depths of winter
when anyone but a fool in an electric car has the heater on.

Moving the vehicle uses way more than the heater.

Sure, but using the heater really ****s the already ****ed range in winter.

Think of a car engine, how many horsepower? Now convert that into kW and
compare it with say a 3kW heater for the interior.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/04/2016 16:47, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 18 April 2016 14:38:15 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:21:42 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:


Then why do the majority have petrol cars. Could it be that
diesel cars cost more because that's what I was told.

Petrol cars are more common for stupid reasons, like "diesels
smells nasty" (to me they both smell equally), "they won't start in
cold weather" (at -20C perhaps, which doesn't happen in the UK a
lot), "they make more noise than a petrol engine" (not really),
"the fuel costs more" (don't these people understand mpg or
longevity of the engine?)

what about the fact that petrol cars accelerate faster so anyone
wanting a sporty car would be stupid to by diesel. Diesel vehicals
are also more expensive generally speaking. If you do a lot of mile
sthen the mpg starts to make a differnce but for most it won't when
you factor in that diesel costs more per litre.



Petrol cars cost less to buy so you need to drive a lot of miles before
the mpg of a diesel saves you anything.

Not very many miles at all in fact because of the much better mpg.

Petrol doesn't make your hands stink for hours after you fill up.

Never had that problem with diesel, but then I wasn’t
stupid enough to get it all over my hands either.

New modern 3 cyl turbo 1 litre engines will give better mpg than an
equivalent diesel.

BULL**** they do when compared with the best of the diesel turbos.

"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:05:02 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 18/04/2016 20:28, dennis@home wrote:
New modern 3 cyl turbo 1 litre engines will give better mpg than an
equivalent diesel.

I'm hearing rumours that the engines may not last that long.

One particular case was of a guy with a company car who got through two
engines at ~30,000 miles each.

I thought company cars always had 3 litre engines?

Nope.

Not really a perk to be given a silly little car like that is it?

Any free car is a better perk than no free car.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 07:46:19 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:05:02 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 18/04/2016 20:28, dennis@home wrote:
New modern 3 cyl turbo 1 litre engines will give better mpg than an
equivalent diesel.

I'm hearing rumours that the engines may not last that long.

One particular case was of a guy with a company car who got through two
engines at ~30,000 miles each.

I thought company cars always had 3 litre engines?

Nope.

Not really a perk to be given a silly little car like that is it?

Any free car is a better perk than no free car.

I'd prefer the cash.

--
Steve Ryder covering the US Masters: "Ballesteros felt much better today after a 69 yesterday."

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 07:10:05 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/04/2016 16:47, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 18 April 2016 14:38:15 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:21:42 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:


Then why do the majority have petrol cars. Could it be that
diesel cars cost more because that's what I was told.

Petrol cars are more common for stupid reasons, like "diesels
smells nasty" (to me they both smell equally), "they won't start in
cold weather" (at -20C perhaps, which doesn't happen in the UK a
lot), "they make more noise than a petrol engine" (not really),
"the fuel costs more" (don't these people understand mpg or
longevity of the engine?)

what about the fact that petrol cars accelerate faster so anyone
wanting a sporty car would be stupid to by diesel. Diesel vehicals
are also more expensive generally speaking. If you do a lot of mile
sthen the mpg starts to make a differnce but for most it won't when
you factor in that diesel costs more per litre.

Petrol cars cost less to buy so you need to drive a lot of miles before
the mpg of a diesel saves you anything.

Not very many miles at all in fact because of the much better mpg.

Petrol doesn't make your hands stink for hours after you fill up.

Never had that problem with diesel, but then I wasnt
stupid enough to get it all over my hands either.

I've never got diesel on my hands either, so this excuse is pitiful. Petrol car owners must be very clumsy.

But if you're going to spill something on your hands, why would you choose the much more flammable one?

--
Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now.

"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 07:46:19 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:05:02 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 18/04/2016 20:28, dennis@home wrote:
New modern 3 cyl turbo 1 litre engines will give better mpg than an
equivalent diesel.

I'm hearing rumours that the engines may not last that long.

One particular case was of a guy with a company car who got through two
engines at ~30,000 miles each.

I thought company cars always had 3 litre engines?

Nope.

Not really a perk to be given a silly little car like that is it?

Any free car is a better perk than no free car.

I'd prefer the cash.

That varys with the jurisdiction. With most the cash is
taxed, but the car isnt necessarily taxed in all of them.

"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 07:46:19 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:05:02 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 18/04/2016 20:28, dennis@home wrote:
New modern 3 cyl turbo 1 litre engines will give better mpg than an
equivalent diesel.

I'm hearing rumours that the engines may not last that long.

One particular case was of a guy with a company car who got through two
engines at ~30,000 miles each.

I thought company cars always had 3 litre engines?

Nope.

Not really a perk to be given a silly little car like that is it?

Any free car is a better perk than no free car.

Company cars used to be a sort of status symbol.

And any company car is that to some extent
particularly when most don't qualify for one.

You get a Merc because you're high up the ladder. I've never heard of a
Lada company car.

I bet some of those who worked for Lada got them.

"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 07:10:05 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/04/2016 16:47, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 18 April 2016 14:38:15 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:21:42 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:


Then why do the majority have petrol cars. Could it be that
diesel cars cost more because that's what I was told.

Petrol cars are more common for stupid reasons, like "diesels
smells nasty" (to me they both smell equally), "they won't start in
cold weather" (at -20C perhaps, which doesn't happen in the UK a
lot), "they make more noise than a petrol engine" (not really),
"the fuel costs more" (don't these people understand mpg or
longevity of the engine?)

what about the fact that petrol cars accelerate faster so anyone
wanting a sporty car would be stupid to by diesel. Diesel vehicals
are also more expensive generally speaking. If you do a lot of mile
sthen the mpg starts to make a differnce but for most it won't when
you factor in that diesel costs more per litre.

Petrol cars cost less to buy so you need to drive a lot of miles before
the mpg of a diesel saves you anything.

Not very many miles at all in fact because of the much better mpg.

Petrol doesn't make your hands stink for hours after you fill up.

Never had that problem with diesel, but then I wasnt
stupid enough to get it all over my hands either.

I've never got diesel on my hands either, so this excuse is pitiful.
Petrol car owners must be very clumsy.

But if you're going to spill something on your hands, why would you choose
the much more flammable one?

Because it evaporates away very quickly and your hands dont stink after
that.

On Sun, 01 May 2016 20:33:48 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 07:10:05 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/04/2016 16:47, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 18 April 2016 14:38:15 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:21:42 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:


Then why do the majority have petrol cars. Could it be that
diesel cars cost more because that's what I was told.

Petrol cars are more common for stupid reasons, like "diesels
smells nasty" (to me they both smell equally), "they won't start in
cold weather" (at -20C perhaps, which doesn't happen in the UK a
lot), "they make more noise than a petrol engine" (not really),
"the fuel costs more" (don't these people understand mpg or
longevity of the engine?)

what about the fact that petrol cars accelerate faster so anyone
wanting a sporty car would be stupid to by diesel. Diesel vehicals
are also more expensive generally speaking. If you do a lot of mile
sthen the mpg starts to make a differnce but for most it won't when
you factor in that diesel costs more per litre.

Petrol cars cost less to buy so you need to drive a lot of miles before
the mpg of a diesel saves you anything.

Not very many miles at all in fact because of the much better mpg.

Petrol doesn't make your hands stink for hours after you fill up.

Never had that problem with diesel, but then I wasnt
stupid enough to get it all over my hands either.

I've never got diesel on my hands either, so this excuse is pitiful.
Petrol car owners must be very clumsy.

But if you're going to spill something on your hands, why would you choose
the much more flammable one?

Because it evaporates away very quickly and your hands dont stink after
that.

Diesel smells nicer than petrol.

--
A young girl had not been feeling well and went to her family doctor. "Young lady," the doctor began, "you're pregnant."
"But that can't be. The only men I've been with are nudists, and in our colony we practice sex only with our eyes."
"Well my dear," said the doctor, "someone in that colony is cockeyed."

On Sun, 01 May 2016 20:32:27 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 07:46:19 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:05:02 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 18/04/2016 20:28, dennis@home wrote:
New modern 3 cyl turbo 1 litre engines will give better mpg than an
equivalent diesel.

I'm hearing rumours that the engines may not last that long.

One particular case was of a guy with a company car who got through two
engines at ~30,000 miles each.

I thought company cars always had 3 litre engines?

Nope.

Not really a perk to be given a silly little car like that is it?

Any free car is a better perk than no free car.

Company cars used to be a sort of status symbol.

And any company car is that to some extent
particularly when most don't qualify for one.

Not if it's poorer quality than the average privately owned car.

You get a Merc because you're high up the ladder. I've never heard of a
Lada company car.

I bet some of those who worked for Lada got them.

I doubt Russia does company cars.

--
Two cowboys are talking over a beer, discussing various sex positions.
The first cowboy says his favorite position is "the rodeo".
The other cowboy asks what the position is, and how to do it. The first cowboy says, "You tell your wife to get on the bed on all fours and then do it doggy style. Once things start to get under way and she's really enjoying it, lean forward, grab her by her hair and whisper in her ear, 'Your sister likes this position too.' Then try to hang on for 8 seconds".

On Sun, 01 May 2016 20:30:44 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 07:46:19 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:05:02 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 18/04/2016 20:28, dennis@home wrote:
New modern 3 cyl turbo 1 litre engines will give better mpg than an
equivalent diesel.

I'm hearing rumours that the engines may not last that long.

One particular case was of a guy with a company car who got through two
engines at ~30,000 miles each.

I thought company cars always had 3 litre engines?

Nope.

Not really a perk to be given a silly little car like that is it?

Any free car is a better perk than no free car.

I'd prefer the cash.

That varys with the jurisdiction. With most the cash is
taxed, but the car isnt necessarily taxed in all of them.

Stupid tax office.

--
One frigid morning in North Dakota a man turned up at work much the worse for wear.
"I didn't sleep a wink," he told a coworker. "I was up all night trying to keep my wife's begonia covered against the freezing cold."
"I should be so lucky," his coworker replied. "When it's this cold my wife wears so damn many clothes to bed, I can never get anywhere near her begonia."

"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Sun, 01 May 2016 20:33:48 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 07:10:05 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/04/2016 16:47, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 18 April 2016 14:38:15 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:21:42 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:


Then why do the majority have petrol cars. Could it be that
diesel cars cost more because that's what I was told.

Petrol cars are more common for stupid reasons, like "diesels
smells nasty" (to me they both smell equally), "they won't start in
cold weather" (at -20C perhaps, which doesn't happen in the UK a
lot), "they make more noise than a petrol engine" (not really),
"the fuel costs more" (don't these people understand mpg or
longevity of the engine?)

what about the fact that petrol cars accelerate faster so anyone
wanting a sporty car would be stupid to by diesel. Diesel vehicals
are also more expensive generally speaking. If you do a lot of mile
sthen the mpg starts to make a differnce but for most it won't when
you factor in that diesel costs more per litre.

Petrol cars cost less to buy so you need to drive a lot of miles
before
the mpg of a diesel saves you anything.

Not very many miles at all in fact because of the much better mpg.

Petrol doesn't make your hands stink for hours after you fill up.

Never had that problem with diesel, but then I wasnt
stupid enough to get it all over my hands either.

I've never got diesel on my hands either, so this excuse is pitiful.
Petrol car owners must be very clumsy.

But if you're going to spill something on your hands, why would you
choose
the much more flammable one?

Because it evaporates away very quickly and your hands dont stink after
that.

Diesel smells nicer than petrol.

Most dont agree with you about that.

I certainly dont and used both diesel and petrol generators.

The diesel generators were much more reliable and longer lived.

Big things on a trailer.

"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Sun, 01 May 2016 20:32:27 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 07:46:19 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:05:02 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 18/04/2016 20:28, dennis@home wrote:
New modern 3 cyl turbo 1 litre engines will give better mpg than an
equivalent diesel.

I'm hearing rumours that the engines may not last that long.

One particular case was of a guy with a company car who got through
two
engines at ~30,000 miles each.

I thought company cars always had 3 litre engines?

Nope.

Not really a perk to be given a silly little car like that is it?

Any free car is a better perk than no free car.

Company cars used to be a sort of status symbol.

And any company car is that to some extent
particularly when most don't qualify for one.

Not if it's poorer quality than the average privately owned car.

But they aren't, just not as flash as the MD's Merc etc.

You get a Merc because you're high up the ladder. I've never heard of a
Lada company car.

I bet some of those who worked for Lada got them.

I doubt Russia does company cars.

Corse they did for the fella running the place.

On Friday, 1 April 2016 13:33:59 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JoeJoe wrote:
Just saw the launch of the new Tesla car, and at a claimed 215m to a
charge, I can see myself perhaps being persuaded to consider the
technology at some stage in the not near or medium future.

I have seen quite a few charging points (or whatever they are called) -
in most large European cities. I assume that the cost of a charge is set
so that it would be marginally lower to run such cars compared to
petrol/diesel cars.

But what would be a rough estimate for the true cost of a charge (i.e.
when done at home)?

You need to factor in the price of the batteries too as these are service
items. Some makers actually hire them to you for a monthly rental - so
that is part of the fuel costs that so many choose to ignore when talking
about running costs.

What you can't factor into is that supplying lectricity one day will be a lot easier than supplying petrol. Petrol is a very dangerous commodity that requires a capital outlay that is way beyond the abilities of the momand pop garages of the 1930's.

They all died in the 1960's when petrol comapnies started supplying petrol at discounted rates to fuel stations that could sell by the millions of gallons per annum.

A big problem for Big Oil is that electricity generators will run on thorium a cheap as dirt system that never runs out. I believe they are already moving the planet to prevent investment. But even so power stations can run on coal and do run on bunker oil.

When the Chinese start supplying Nuclear power-station construction crews Big Oil will wither on the vine; it has to, as electric cars can be filled up at any shed that wants the business.

Elon Musk has already considered the idea of replacement batteries for people who can afford them. The idea of slipping them out of one of his cars to be replaced by spare cells is a good one -for when the batteries can be made at silly throw away prices. But sadly, we will have thorium reactors by then (Not that I think it is sad that we will have such fail-safe nuclear reactors. I think it is a pity that the Republicans only kill Democrats. We all would have benefited by the assassination of tricky dicky.)

Elon Musk's name will fill history books the way Henry Ford's still does.

On Friday, 1 April 2016 15:10:41 UTC+1, Another Dave wrote:
On 01/04/16 15:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Another Dave wrote:
But what would be a rough estimate for the true cost of a charge (i.e.
when done at home)?

For a "true" cost (i.e. one that you could compare to a conventional
car) you would need to take into account the tax levied on petrol and
diesel but not on electricity.

Hardly. Unless you had a supply of tax free petrol, etc.


No. The point is that if this took off in a big way (and I hope it does)
the government would have to tax electricity used to charge cars to
maintain its revenue. I don't know how this would work but I'm certain
that it would happen.

Especially when the Irish start exporting their chemically treated pirate versions.