I first heard it on the radio while I was in the shower, and then saw it discussed on the TV as I was having breakfast. In fact, it was the BBC who were making a meal of it.
The premise of the story was that electric cars actually cost more to run than petrol-driven vehicles. They chose to illustrate the story by comparing a Mitsubishi i-Miev (£28,990) with a Fiat 500 (£10,160).
You'll see the first bit of bias right there.
They then did the maths, and you can see the calculations here. But they're all predicated on one assumption - that you'll get rid of the car after three years. Keep it longer and the sums start to fall apart.
They then interviewed a motoring journalist in the studio, who snortingly dismissed all electric cars and said it was greener driving an old banger around than buying a new electric car.
Then the presenter chose to read out a couple of emails which were sent in, both of which pointed out that the electricity would come from coal-fired power stations - which is the Jeremy Clarkson defence.
And that was it - there was no right to reply for anyone who was wanting to put the alternative agenda forward. That we need to talk about changing the mix of our electricity generation, that plug-in cars can do this by selling their electricity back to the grid, that once you've bought the car you'll be paying very little for it's upkeep for the rest of it's life especially if you keep it for a fair number of years.
There was no one saying that we're at the start of a revolution in motoring here, taking the first faltering steps so of course electric cars are going to be expensive.
There was no one saying that electric cars are going to become an essential part of our fight against climate change as we try to undo the harm we've caused the planet in our pursuit of oil.
In fact, there was no one wondering just what we're going to be driving in 50 years time, because as sure as hell there won't be any petrol-driven cars to compare our electric ones to by then.
(I've updated this story here)
6 comments:
I totally concur. This report is more than biased, it seems to be part of a carefully orchestrated campaign to try and hold back the tide. The BBC's attitude is nothing short of baffling on this topic.
There's another aspect to it as well, which you highlighted in your video - the BBC bought the story hook, line & sinker.
The report is on a par with those pieces you see in newspapers which blindly repeat a press release from the makers of Anadin saying 80% of left-handed people get a headache on a Tuesday or somesuch nonsense.
Nobody seems to fact-check any more.
I don't understand people who use the "but it's from coal power stations, duh" defence - surely it's better to have the pollution contained in 40-odd power plants than it is to have 50 million mini-polluters out there?
I suppose they ran the story to try and appease BP, who've rightfully taken a kicking lately. Then again, it was the US who authorised the drilling and then they have the cheek to complain, but that's for another day...
Why does no one, not even electric car proponents, ever, ever bring up the amount of electricity it takes to refine one gallon of gasoline. Look at a refinery, the amount of electric transmission lines into it look like the output of a power generating station! Please bring this up in these arguments. People like Clarkson are getting a free pass!
byjimini, I don't think even the most ardent conspiracy theorist would have BP making the BBC do positive stories about it.
Unless, of course, the BBC's pension fund was invested there... ;-)
Anonymous, it's a good point about the electricity used to refine petrol. And power the gas station. And the oil rigs. And...
Odd that they have such a high depreciation for the electric. Yes batteries are expensive and will eventually need replacing.
http://www.greenmotor.co.uk/2009/12/green-car-buyers-guide-depreciation.html has the Prius doing better on depreciation than diesels.
Post a Comment