I understood that the higher (maybe it should be called optimum) charge on these batteries can be maintained over many charge cycles meantime delivering a fairly constant, high amperage (output). The downside of the characteristics is that the output amperage drops off rapidly when it's nearing time to re-energise the battery. Once the battery starts to 'age' not only does the optimum output drop significantly but the decline in it's ability to 'store' any charge is also sharp. I'll have to do a bit of research

You miss the point MSS. The mission is to monopolise the means of production and then sell the depleted entity for a fortune. In this case, that means the enhancement of the core business without the incumbrance of the second streams.

They make billions, the country suffers blackmail in the form of reduced capacity of vital services - even the threat of shutdown which of course is unthinkable.

Ergo, the vultures make a killing while holding the rest of us to ransom. All on the wave of a manufactured phony franchise, in this case the interim supposed 'greening' of the planet even when the cheaper and more effective Hydrogen alternative is being developed. Then millions of us swallow it. But then, it's a free country isn't it.

That has also been going on since the 1980's.

If we wish to stop such free-market practices, there is a perfectly viable model for so doing - renationalise all infrastructure centric businesses! ;)

Now there's a revolutionary solution! I wonder where I've heard that before? Oh yes, I remember, overarching unionism, rule by dictat from the Presidium! Beer and spam sandwiches anyone? Anyone? Then run it in to the ground!

Ah the old EV argument.......again :duh: I wonder how many of these threads we'll see before 2030?

One thing I think is interesting is that the naysayers have never driven a significant distance in one however I have driven 16,000 miles so far in our ZS EV and love it plus everyone I've spoken to with an EV also loves them.

Don't get me wrong there are still issues that need to be resolved such as charging however if you have off road parking then they're actually much more convenient then an ICE car. 90% of our driving is now in the ZS and we've saved a fortune over the last year with the added bonus that the car is always sat there, fully charged and ready to go. EV's are also much nicer to drive with instant power and an almost eerie silence.

I am a petrolhead and my other 4 cars are petrol / diesel and I will be very sad when the internal combustion engine is no more however I do think towns and cities will be much nicer places to be without diesel fumes belching out everywhere.

Electric cars cost less to run pence per mile, thats the overall attraction. Chris S.

Probably best not to confuse ‘naysayers’ with critics of the principal together with the wider implications James! It implies the very worst of comparisons with fanatics of one sort or another! I’ve never driven an electric car, but I have been driven, Southend to Gatwick and Southend to Stanstead by taxi and back. Oh, and Southend to Whitechapel (London) twice and back. Very nice too, quiet and unfussed with no perceivable gear change. Exactly what I expected. But that's not the point.

None of those trips were a patch on my 19 year old 75, either in comfort, performance or overall satisfaction. As for interior quality, well forget it. It’s truer to say inferior quality. The ones I’ve seen are third rate quality at best.

The point is most studied criticisms come from the supposed claims of environmental long term effects taken together with the record of Motor trade publicity and governmental planning. Neither sources have, er, blemish free records of the truth being a requisite content of anything they ever said.

Short term gain in profits for the trade in the form of a brand new concept during a long term drop in sales and convenient off-the-hook responsibility for HMGOV is the main thrust of the objections. It’s not about mixing sheep with cows and pigs in the same field. Oh, satisfying the climate lobby is no minor benefit either!

The fact is that most planned change will have some negative side effects. If the planned changes can deliver greater positives than negatives within some constrained scope of application, e.g. pollution by ICEV vs EV in cities, then it would be irresponsible to fight such change.

The ultimate and only real solution to the rate of degradation being caused by humans and associated activity to our planet is, of course, to cull circa 75% of the human population - birth control measures have been ineffective and will continue to be so. However, I believe such measures would generally be considered socially unjust and unacceptable. So we must implement the small, socially acceptable, measures such as the aforementioned until nature itself achieves the ultimate.

I am off to protest about the introduction of catalyst converters to road vehicles as a form of governmental conspiracy to add complexity and cost to cars and thus deprive us car drivers of our freedoms. :}:D

BUT much more to buy - totally uneconomic. The greenest car is the one you already own.

And walking is even greener and cheaper:D ( but does take longer :getmecoat:)