Electric vehicles with Nicolas Raimo

The Owl Hoot
The Owl Hoot
Electric vehicles with Nicolas Raimo

Nick Raimo is a specialist in electric vehicles and the host of the YouTube channel EV Nick.

Nick Raimo, specialist in electric vehicles

In this episode, Nick covers:

  • How he came to be interested in electric vehicles (EVs). [Starts at 1:40]
  • Owning his first EV and his wife’s perspective on it. [Starts at 5:54]
  • The driving experience of an EV compared to a diesel/petrol. [Starts at 7:36]
  • Development of the charging network. [Starts at 9:13]
  • Home-charging and charging tech. [Starts at 13:30]
  • Buying considerations – the realities of the range required. [Starts at 17:12]
  • Public charging and use of apps. [Starts at 19:01]
  • How to manage easily without a home charger. [Starts at 21:20]
  • Grants and why they are no longer essential to incentivise purchasing. [Starts at 25:01]
  • The current EV market – new and second-hand. [Starts at 26:15]
  • Green energy tariffs specifically to support your EV. [Starts at 29:18]
  • Cars in 2050 – more car-sharing. [Starts at 35:09]
  • Personal lifestyle changes – plastic mindfulness. [Starts at 37:19]

Useful links


YouTube Channel


Zap Map – Route planning UK

Plug Share – Route planning worldwide

car, electric car, charging station-6943451.jpg

How to connect





Please rate and review this episode and why not share it with someone you think might enjoy it. To hear more stories from people positively impacting our environment, such as Euan McTurk from Plug Life Television, click subscribe/follow in your podcast app. 

3 thoughts on “Electric vehicles with Nicolas Raimo”

  1. I think it is a little odd to have an environmental discussion about cars and leave out 9 of the 10 major causes of environmental damage caused by cars.
    Perhaps this is because neither of you have ever considered them?
    • 1.1 Traffic congestion and scarcity
    • 1.2 Accidents
    • 1.3 Air pollution
    • 1.4 Noise
    • 1.5 Climate change <<<
    • 1.6 Costs for nature and landscape
    • 1.7 Costs for water pollution
    • 1.8 Costs for soil pollution
    • 1.9 Costs of energy dependency
    • 1.10 Obesity
    Of which EV cars only partially address one. Namely Climate Change. Although credit to you and your guest for correctly stating at the end that lots of people don’t need a car.
    I’d have liked to have seen you push back on the idea that we should only take action if that action is easy. Climate change will cause multiple bread basket failures and depending on how old you are, this will mean watching your kids starve to death. So if effort is required this should be done. The idea that we should only act if it is easy is repugnant. Especially as it is not something far off in the future but happening already.
    Are we to understand that as a result of buying an EV he moved from a relatively urban location near amenities he could have walked to, to a rural location away from amenities? What was the net effect of that on his emissions, and what does that process mean at a population level?
    Given that cars kill 1800 people in the uk and mutilate 22k It was disappointing to see the comment about him ‘deliberately putting his foot down’ and them being ‘more powerful’ as a positive. The car owner may like this but it physically intimidates those on bikes which are using 1% of the electricity of an EV car if any at all.
    There was much discussion about extremely high milage that went unchallenged? He also mentioned several long drives he had taken presumably to advertise the range of the cars. Does the fact that they are cheaper to run cause people to drive further and counteract the improved efficiency ? This is a concept in economics called the Jevons paradox.
    I do think it is good that he encourages people to buy a car with a smaller battery, and charge on route for longer trips. I don’t understand why he doesn’t take this to its logical conclusion and suggest we get a very light, and cheep vehicle and take the train for long infrequent trips or just rent an ICE car on those occations ?
    The idea of public chargers was discussed. But no mention of he environmental damage that has already been cause by free parking. Should we also give public space away for free for car fuelling ? Is that a good idea ?
    Eco tariffs were discussed and wind power, but not the opportunity cost of using that energy to charge cars the least efficient form of land transport. Could that wind power be put to better use e.g. smelting steal?
    It also would have been nice if any of the alternatives had been touched on namely ebikes, electric motorbikes, trains and escooters.

    Apologies. there is more!
    There is discussion of plastic waist at the end, but no mention that the largest source of aquatic micro plastics is wear from car tires and that one of the main things you can do to reduce your plastic waist is drive less or dispose of a car.
    As everyone agrees that it is better for the environment if you don’t own a car, and the contributor says car sharing is the future, it would be great to link to https://www.enterprisecarclub.co.uk/ the largest car share in the UK and https://uk.getaround.com/ the largest peer to peer car sharing app.

    1. Thanks Alexander for taking the time to listen to this podcast episode and for providing a comprehensive critique. The points you raise are certainly worthy of discussion and the whole idea of having podcast conversations is to stimulate dialogue. I certainly endorse active travel where possible and you maybe interested in the podcast conversation I had with Melissa Bruntlett where we discuss urban transport design to facilitate this. With our current limited transport infrastructure, the car still has a place, so a move to electric for these journeys seems like progress. As you rightly indicate, this doesn’t provide a perfect solution or address other issues (you raise) such as pollution from tyre degradation. I will come back to addressing transport in the near future and will reflect on the points you raise.

      1. Hi Caroline,

        Thanks for getting back to me. I will check out that other podcast of yours. Once again I apologise for the long posts.

        You are correct that the car does have a place. And I do use cars.

        So i’m not fundamentalist. But it is important to ad some numbers to this.

        Cars are great if 4 people are all traveling together from one distal location, to another distal location not served by transit.

        Most cars currently carry less than 2 people. 1.6 average for the UK.

        Single occupants should from an environmental perspective take a motorbike or combine cycles with transit.

        In the uk 60% of trips are under 5 miles and could easily be cycled or e-cycled.

        Long range trips are both faster and more comfortable by train, but the sunk cost of car ownership leeds many to endure the arduous labour of driving.

        There are people that live a long way from work and feel they ‘need’ to drive. These people should be encouraged to switch to a motor bike, transit or to relocate to be nearer the things they need to sustain themselves.

        It’s also worth noting that the price structure of private car ownership leeds most* people on low and middle incomes to drive more than they can afford, forcing them into transport poverty and the negative consequence of car use are felt mostly by people on low incomes while most of the benifits accrue to the wealthiest quartile.

        There was much in your podcast to agree with, but I feel the call to action at the end was wrong. I think you ask people to locate their nearest charger. but every person who disposes of a private car in favour of a bike is worth 100 people who switch from an ICE car to an EV.

        Car sharing existing cars is far more important than buying an new car. In your reply and in the podcast there is an implication that anything other than car use is a minority persuit but there are cities in the Netherlands with a cycling modal share of 51% and the trips where the car is actually the best tool for the job are in fact marginal.

        Cars could be made to be within our ecological limits e.g. https://www.northernlightmotors.com but non of the models mentioned in the podcast fall into that category. The models discussed are just ‘less terrible cars’. Rather than something that could for example be charged year round from a domestic roof top solar system. The major car companies have no interest in building the type of super light cars we need. They are only interested in maintaining the current transport paradigm and their profits. We should not trust the people that got us into this mess.

        There is quite a western centric assumption in this that most people drive. Most people in the world in fact still don’t own a car and most people in the history of the world have conducted themselves perfectly well without owning a private motor vehicle. Including myself. We transport our two children using an electric cargo bike which is 100% powered by on sit solar 365 days a year. A transport system entirely comprised of off the shelf products anyone could by tonight online.

        I really do feel the the premise of this discussion is incorrect, and at the very least EV should be weighed as a tool for reducing emissions against competitor technologies. For instance over 90% of the emissions that have already been saved from EV have in fact come from small 2 wheeled EVs and e-bikes are vastly outselling Cars. In addition there a coms technologies such as Zoom which could also render regular car use obsolete and easy consumption that cars facilitate which should be consider in an discussion of cars ecological merits.

        Basically cars are an absolute plague, a product of war and the military industrial complex which has infested our political system and made 50% of the UK population unwell. Untill there is wide spread acceptance of this fact they will not be tamed and we won’t be able to maximise the benefit we get from them without crushing innocent people to death.

        I know that might seem a bit intense but there is no easy way to honestly discuss a product that kills 1.35 million people and mutilates 20x that every single year. I hope at least some of that was helpful. I can provide references if you require and I look forward to seeing this topic develop in future episodes.

Comments are closed.