What confuses me about the Acura 350h is that it does not seem to be a PHEV, but up to a certain speed it will operate only from the battery and if you drive slowly and not accelerate too much it will stay on battery only? I guess they didn't bother giving a range spec as it doesn't apply in this case, as it is not truly a PHEV. I don't know what kind of algorithms they are using so I was hoping someone in here can shed some more light on this.
The NX 350h is a Lexus, not an Acura, and it is a regular hybrid. The NX 450h is a PHEV.
When coasting or going downhill at above 40 mph, the engine still must rotate but will do complete cylinder deactivation. The exhaust and intake valves are closed and fuel delivery is shut off. This eliminates pumping losses and overall the drag is pretty low.
The Toyota hybrid architecture has changed over the years but the majority of these are based on some kind of power-split device. This allows the electric motors and engine to run simultaneously with the pairing of motors and planetary gearset acting as a variable-ratio transmission, and it gives these cars the "e-CVT" gearbox marketing name, but crucially these cars do not really have a CVT with all of its associated problems. The hybrid synergy drive is actually a rather clever architecture and it deserves praise for its simplicity and performance (as much as I think hybrids are becoming obsoleted by pure electric vehicles for most users.)
So the ICE is still mechanically coupled to the wheels via the transmission via some gear ratio, so it is actually still rotating the crank shaft and cylinders are pumping but empty (no fuel/spark), or does the ICE get disconnected from the wheels completely (like when the transmission is put into "Neutral" or like when a clutch is pressed down?).
There is also "parallel" and "series" hybrid configurations, where in parallel mode both ICE and electric motor can drive the wheels (coupled to transmission).... i.e. "electric motor assist", whereas in the series mode the ICE is used to primarily produce electricity for the electric motor system and not coupled directly to the drivetrain (essentially it is an EV with a small efficient ICE that runs only to charge the battery when needed). I'm assuming the second type (series) would be more likely to be in the PHEV type of vehicle.
However, many times they seem to be sold to people who do a lot of driving on the highway, and this might be where the 60km/h claim also comes into it. These people would be better with diesel or pure EV, but Toyota doesn't like marketing either.No. Diesel is expensive to run & repair (been there, done that) and emits a lot of pollution. An EV takes long to charge (with expensive electricity from fast chargers on top of that). I already ran the numbers and a Toyota hybrid offers the best economy for doing long highway journeys plus having very low emissions.
That depends on the type of hybrid; the only hybrids to consider need to have a true Atkinson cycle engine. Such engines are much more efficient so even on highways, you'll get a much better mileage compared to a conventional ICE based car. Unfortunately there are only a few manufacturers that make such hybrids (typically with a drive train from Toyota).
Just for completeness, there's one category missing, the mild hybrid.
These have thrown away the alternator and starter motor, and replaced them with a motor capable of moving the vehicle and being used as a generator. This is combined with a relatively small lithium chemistry battery - 1 kWh or less.
As for mild hybrids: they are more like an improved stop-start system with a 48 volt electrical system so they can use an electric AC compressor. They hardly count as a hybrid -- while the motor can technically move the car it is a negligible fraction of overall traction power.They might be stretching the term "hybrid" but a battery of roughly 1kWh is close to the optimum overall energy efficiency for interurban driving (not carting around more weight than required, it is unusual to have conditions where a car can use more than that from regenerative braking.
Yes, you have extremely strong and blinkered opinions about what works for you, but dont mention all the constraints/conditions which make that true.However, many times they seem to be sold to people who do a lot of driving on the highway, and this might be where the 60km/h claim also comes into it. These people would be better with diesel or pure EV, but Toyota doesn't like marketing either.No. Diesel is expensive to run & repair (been there, done that) and emits a lot of pollution. An EV takes long to charge (with expensive electricity from fast chargers on top of that). I already ran the numbers and a Toyota hybrid offers the best economy for doing long highway journeys plus having very low emissions.
(as much as I think hybrids are becoming obsoleted by pure electric vehicles for most users.)
Where these 'running costs analysis' go wrong is by looking at the first few years only. Spending over 500 euro per month on a car? You've got to be friggin' kidding me. If you are going to look at craddle to the grave, you'll see an entirely different picture. It takes a very careful selection to find that car that has really low costs. The first step is to buy a used one which is 6 to 8 years old with around 125k km 'on the clock'; that way most of the devaluation has been eaten by the previous owner(s). The second step is to figure out whether the typical problems are simple (and thus cheap) to fix. Ofcourse it helps that I'm in a country where you can buy cars that are produced in Germany and are of decent quality to begin with.Yes, you have extremely strong and blinkered opinions about what works for you, but dont mention all the constraints/conditions which make that true.However, many times they seem to be sold to people who do a lot of driving on the highway, and this might be where the 60km/h claim also comes into it. These people would be better with diesel or pure EV, but Toyota doesn't like marketing either.No. Diesel is expensive to run & repair (been there, done that) and emits a lot of pollution. An EV takes long to charge (with expensive electricity from fast chargers on top of that). I already ran the numbers and a Toyota hybrid offers the best economy for doing long highway journeys plus having very low emissions.
Here in Australia (where diesel and petrol are almost identically taxed, no incentive either way there) a diesel car is cheaper on running costs as the maintainence has been shown to be no higher than petrol engines, either type of engine wears out well past the other drive train parts which are common to both. That's comparing identical models available in both engines, slightly higher upfront cost, lower operating costs. Which applies to hybrids, higher upfront cost for promise of lower operating costs.
One of the auto associations here puts out a broad (but somewhat shallow) analysis:
https://rac.com.au/car-motoring/info/buying-a-car/running-costs
For the typical 15,000km/year and mixed city/highway driving that normal people do, the life-cycle cost of any engine choice petrol/diesel/hybrid ends up lost in the noise. People need to be heavily biased toward/away from long distance highway driving, or much higher/lower km use for any difference to appear.
So now you start to build out the picture of your throwaway unsubstantiated comment.... But sticking to claiming you know better than everyone else and your experience is 100% applicable to everyone else, which is isn't. Diesels are not more expensive to maintain, you found some outliers with your limited/narrow experience, that's not a universal truth and you're unable to fid any industry data to back it up. Oh and complaining about pollution while admitting you blanked an EGR? lol.Where these 'running costs analysis' go wrong is by looking at the first few years only. Spending over 500 euro per month on a car? You've got to be friggin' kidding me. If you are going to look at craddle to the grave, you'll see an entirely different picture. It takes a very careful selection to find that car that has really low costs. The first step is to buy a used one which is 6 to 8 years old with around 125k km 'on the clock'; that way most of the devaluation has been eaten by the previous owner(s). The second step is to figure out whether the typical problems are simple (and thus cheap) to fix. Ofcourse it helps that I'm in a country where you can buy cars that are produced in Germany and are of decent quality to begin with.Yes, you have extremely strong and blinkered opinions about what works for you, but dont mention all the constraints/conditions which make that true.However, many times they seem to be sold to people who do a lot of driving on the highway, and this might be where the 60km/h claim also comes into it. These people would be better with diesel or pure EV, but Toyota doesn't like marketing either.No. Diesel is expensive to run & repair (been there, done that) and emits a lot of pollution. An EV takes long to charge (with expensive electricity from fast chargers on top of that). I already ran the numbers and a Toyota hybrid offers the best economy for doing long highway journeys plus having very low emissions.
Here in Australia (where diesel and petrol are almost identically taxed, no incentive either way there) a diesel car is cheaper on running costs as the maintainence has been shown to be no higher than petrol engines, either type of engine wears out well past the other drive train parts which are common to both. That's comparing identical models available in both engines, slightly higher upfront cost, lower operating costs. Which applies to hybrids, higher upfront cost for promise of lower operating costs.
One of the auto associations here puts out a broad (but somewhat shallow) analysis:
https://rac.com.au/car-motoring/info/buying-a-car/running-costs
For the typical 15,000km/year and mixed city/highway driving that normal people do, the life-cycle cost of any engine choice petrol/diesel/hybrid ends up lost in the noise. People need to be heavily biased toward/away from long distance highway driving, or much higher/lower km use for any difference to appear.
And diesel is just dead. Just because of the pollution associated with diesel it is not a good choice. In addition to that diesel engines have become extremely fragile and expensive to repair/maintain. Look at prices for replacing the particle filter for example and problems due to internal pollution of a diesel engine. My previous car was a turbo diesel from 1999 with exhaust recirculation (EGR). The latter caused a buildup of 1cm of oil and sooth inside the air intake manifold. It was difficult to get that cleaned out. Fortunately it was possible to close the EGR to stop sooth getting into the intake but you can't do that on modern diesels. At the end the fuel injection pump (Denso, not some kind of crappy brand) started to have issues. Currently I'm driving a car on gasoline which has far exceeded the mileage of my previous 3 diesel cars and is still going strong while being very cheap to run (around 21 eurocents per km). Again: careful selection. When looking for my current car I started with looking at diesels but quickly found out that these are prone to very expensive repairs and most cars for sale needed such expensive repairs.
Currently I'm looking into a new (used ofcourse) car and I keep getting back to the hybrid Toyotas for the lowest cost per km. Downsized engines do offer a much better fuel economy compared to my current car but these are also prone to expensive failures or are just expensive to maintain (like 1200 euro for changing a timing belt which is buried deep inside the engine and needing special oil). Many cars just aren't designed to last more than 5 years and/or being maintenance friendly nowadays.
That depends on the type of hybrid; the only hybrids to consider need to have a true Atkinson cycle engine. Such engines are much more efficient so even on highways, you'll get a much better mileage compared to a conventional ICE based car. Unfortunately there are only a few manufacturers that make such hybrids (typically with a drive train from Toyota).
That depends on the type of hybrid; the only hybrids to consider need to have a true Atkinson cycle engine. Such engines are much more efficient so even on highways, you'll get a much better mileage compared to a conventional ICE based car. Unfortunately there are only a few manufacturers that make such hybrids (typically with a drive train from Toyota).
A 'true Atkinson cycle engine' is an entirely different animal and not something you will see in any modern car. Modern "Atkinson' and 'Miller' cycle engines are simply marketing designations for regular Otto-cycle engines with modified valve timing and higher compression ratios (as calculated from swept volume and combustion chamber size). Yes, these setups can be significantly more efficient at the cost of reduced power (for a given engine size) and limited operating range, but the name is just that and nothing more. Many modern engines, including non-hybrids, use variable valve timing and lift along with mechanical compression ratios higher than would be otherwise workable to achieve similar results under the right conditions.
If you think modified valve timing does not produce a "true" Atkinson cycle, you aren't grasping the nature of the Atkinson cycle.
If you think modified valve timing does not produce a "true" Atkinson cycle, you aren't grasping the nature of the Atkinson cycle.
I fully grasp the concept of the Atkinson cycle and I don't want to debate the details with you and I don't know what you mean by 'power ratio' anyway. The actual result is simply that the exhaust temperature is lower, meaning more energy has been extracted than would be otherwise. However, none of that is my point--what I was pointing out is that many engines today use this general method of increasing efficiency but only a select few market it as an 'Atkinson cycle' or 'Miller cycle'. Therefore, IMO, making your purchasing decision based on whether the marketeers have attached this particular name to the product is not helpful.
If you look closely at the animation in this video from Toyota, you'll notice that the length of the strokes is different:
https://sherbrooketoyota.ca/en/videos/atkinson-cycle-engine (https://sherbrooketoyota.ca/en/videos/atkinson-cycle-engine) So it looks like Toyota is doing more than just having different valve timing.
If you look closely at the animation in this video from Toyota, you'll notice that the length of the strokes is different:
https://sherbrooketoyota.ca/en/videos/atkinson-cycle-engine (https://sherbrooketoyota.ca/en/videos/atkinson-cycle-engine) So it looks like Toyota is doing more than just having different valve timing.
What I saw in that Toyota video is that the cylinder heads move exactly in the same fashion and amplitude in all 4 phases of action (fuel/air intake, compression stroke, power/explosion/expansion, exhaust stroke). However, what I see happening is that in the early part of the compression stroke the intake valves remain open so that the cylinder is not being pressurized from the start... instead as the cylinder head moves up, because the valves are still open, it lets some of the air/fuel mixture push back out into the intake chamber area. Finally when the intake valves do close, the cylinder starts to pressurize, compressing but against a smaller volume of fuel/air. This reduces the effective "size" of the cylinder, as if a smaller cylinder is being compressed.
I assume that part of the fuel savings is simply because it burns less volume on each stroke, you are taking say a 2.8 L engine and effectively only using it as a 2.4 or 2.2 L engine (for example). Perhaps the efficiency is also improved as there is more complete combustion of the contents of the cylinder since there is less fuel trying to completely burn up in the time that the power/expansion stroke occurs. Somewhere there must be a trade-off in power/torque and at what RPM, but perhaps a computer can figure out based on the speed of the car and what is required of it this is a worthwhile trade-off to milk a bit more efficiency out of the engine with nuanced valve timing.
The energy needed to move a car depends primarily on:
- front area
- Cx
- speed
- mass
I put the mouse pointer at the lowest point and at some point the piston doesn't reach it. But this could be an animation effect / artefact. Bottom line is that I have not been able to find whether Toyota Atkinson engines do or do not have different stroke lengths. I don't want to get into the mechnanical details; if Toyota uses it they probably found a clever way of doing this.If you look closely at the animation in this video from Toyota, you'll notice that the length of the strokes is different:
https://sherbrooketoyota.ca/en/videos/atkinson-cycle-engine (https://sherbrooketoyota.ca/en/videos/atkinson-cycle-engine) So it looks like Toyota is doing more than just having different valve timing.
Sorry, I don't see that and they don't talk about it.
Yes. And a lot of this is down to the relatively new obsession with SUVs. They have a place for people with large families, but the majority of people would be absolutely fine with a small to medium hatchback car, or an estate, which all have better aerodynamic profiles due to the small frontal profile and lower road position, and usually they weigh less.Big cars don't have to be inefficient. The new Sienna gets 36 MPG - better than some sedans!
The energy needed to move a car depends primarily on:
- front area
- Cx
- speed
- mass
I see car manufacturers selling progressively bigger, faster and heavier vehicles, but trying to convince us that they are doing all technically possible to enhance fuel economy by 1 % putting into it more and more technology, but not touching, in fact worsening, any of the main factors.
The previous Toyota video is interesting. One of the cars appearing on it has a front area well above 2 m2, a Cx ~ 0.4, a mass above 2 ton and a top speed ~170 kph, but they are showing us the benefits of its Atkinson capable engine to get a fuel economy of 8.8 l/100 km. It is plainly obscene, the last car I owned with such a poor fuel economy was build/bought in the early 80's.
Car manufacturers deserve heavy regulations limiting the amount of energy their cars can use, or banish.
There have always been plenty of small cars to buy, and this will always continue. If you can't find a small car, that's on you.
It is not on me at all. Even Smarts and Fiat 500 do weight a ton. Smaller cars like Microcar or Ligier are not even legal here to be driven thru a freeway. Maybe you know of any machine allowing one to commute using, say, one fourth of the energy needed by a Prius. Or maybe our concepts of a small car are different. Or maybe I must use a different expression to "car" to noun a machine allowing one to commute.
I see car manufacturers selling progressively bigger, faster and heavier vehicles
Car makers have to sell the vehicles people want to buy. Otherwise they become another Hudson or Studebaker.
We no longer can afford to buy anything we want.
A fuel tax gets right to the heart of the matter. To make it less regressive, we can offer a income tax credit for the first 280 gal (14,000 miles at 50 mpg). So buying a car with worse mileage than 50 mpg or driving more than 14,000 miles, incurs the tax. It also equates to a credit to drive less than 14,000 miles or getting better than 50 mpg.
Fuel taxes exist now and are useless, as they tax equally small and big cars, if I can afford a Hummer, I can afford its petrol. A tax on cars, taxing energy consumed, will be more appropriate, supposed that the tax on monster cars is so high that manufacturers need to think twice.
@gnuarm:
The EU already has limits for the average CO2 emissions for all cars sold per manufacturer. Toyota is the only manufacturer meeting the requirement without needing to sell BEVs to compensate because they are the only manufacturer that actually foresaw the future right (and develop hybrid cars). The rest of the manufacturers just screems 'jobs get lost if you add more regulations!' and hope the politicians will swing their way. In the end that isn't going to hold up.
And no, you can't leave it to consumers! People say they like to take action but the reality is that they would like to see other people take action. The government needs to be the driving force behind making cars more efficient and more clean while keeping mobility affordable.
Small cars get more rare as well (at least in the EU). Manufacturers are pulling out of this market because the margins are too thin. 10 years ago you could buy a car for 8000 euro. Nowadays the same car costs twice as much due to stricter safety regulations and emission requirements. For example: Citroen and Renault used to have a tiny car but they don't sell it any longer.
Fuel taxes aren't the answer either. This has been tried in the NL and it doesn't work. Only drives up inflation. So the NL government is taxing purchase prices of cars based on fuel consumption. For some cars that tax is several times the price of the car (a Lada Niva with a list price of 12k euro ends up costing 47k euro including taxes).
The EU regs seem pretty effective if the goal is electrification of vehicle fleets. We wouldn't have the ID.3 without dieselgate fines and EU regulations. So I think it's still a good thing that they're there.
And hybrids are a technology that is going to rapidly die out as larger capacity EV batteries become more common. 58kWh is standard in the ID.3, prior to the chip shortage that was a 26,000 GBP car, not much more than a standard Golf of similar trim. That battery will do over 200 miles. I doubt that most people will pay a lot extra to avoid one charging stop, but we'll see.
Again, you are not counting in public charging costs which make BEVs an uneconomic choice for many. Hybrids will be here to stay for the next several decades in larger numbers compared to BEVs simply because hybrids are more economic to drive in.
Rest assured that public charging prices will go up when the investors in charging infrastructure (none of them is making a profit at this moment!) start wanting to see return on their investment. After that governments will step in to regulate prices. [...]
Again, you are not counting in public charging costs which make BEVs an uneconomic choice for many. Hybrids will be here to stay for the next several decades in larger numbers compared to BEVs simply because hybrids are more economic to drive in.
Rest assured that public charging prices will go up when the investors in charging infrastructure (none of them is making a profit at this moment!) start wanting to see return on their investment. After that governments will step in to regulate prices. Just look at how mobile phone operators used to charge an arm & leg for certain services and now got clamped down by governments to charge fair amounts for their services.
Even today a FCEV would be more economic to drive compared to a BEV when needing to rely on public charging.
If it can be charged at home
What we need is more 'slow charging' infrastructure for people parking on streets, it's just as vital as rapid chargers to enable mass EV adoption. And these chargers would incentiviseovernightcharging at times of low demand or of cheap production for those who don't need priority charging.
You don't seem to understand fuel taxes.
Arguing with you always ends the same way: "you do not understand", "it is on you", "it's is your fault" (this last is mine, as an example)...
At least I do understand this, so this ends here.
@gnuarm: the situation in the EU is different compared to the US. Prices are very much regulated. With today's high oil prices, governments across Europe are cutting taxes on fuel in order to maintain low price levels so people can afford to go to their work and keep their homes warm.
And please don't move the goal posts by bringing in 'charging at home' when I explicity state 'public charging'. Just do the math for people that have to rely on public charging exclusively and you'll see a hybrid wins hands down on 'fuel' costs.
Fuel from oil isn't going away overnight so franticly going after electric cars and trying to shoehorn BEVs as a universal solution isn't going to work.
There is a market segment for which BEVs work well at this point in time. For the remaining market, hybrids are currently the best solution.
Looking at the trends, hydrogen looks to become the new oil so who knows what the future will bring. It might as well be that BEVs go away and cars will move towards FCEVs (fuel cell -typically hydrogen powered- electric vehicle). Even today a FCEV would be more economic to drive compared to a BEV when needing to rely on public charging.
If it can be charged at home
I think that is one of the two real questions for most people, the other being the cost of a car. Even in todays inflated market, you can find (here at least) a decent used car for $10-12K that will go 500 miles between trips to Costco for gas. A BEV with home charging eliminates those trips, which is really nice, but a reasonable range BEV (it doesn't have to be 500 miles, 150-200 is good enough) will be at least 3-4X that new and there aren't many used. Without home charging, its hard to see the point.
What we need is more 'slow charging' infrastructure for people parking on streets, it's just as vital as rapid chargers to enable mass EV adoption. And these chargers would incentiviseovernightcharging at times of low demand or of cheap production for those who don't need priority charging.
FTFY.
In some cases it's the same thing, but with the amount of PV on the grid nowadays it's not the case that overnight now always represents the cheapest or 'greenest' electricity.
And the reason very few people do it is because it makes a BEV too expensive compared to a hybrid. That is the simple reason; no need to dream up all kinds of future scenarios that don't take away the primary issue: charging infrastructure is too expensive. Do you really think charging at work stays for free forever?@gnuarm: the situation in the EU is different compared to the US. Prices are very much regulated. With today's high oil prices, governments across Europe are cutting taxes on fuel in order to maintain low price levels so people can afford to go to their work and keep their homes warm.
And please don't move the goal posts by bringing in 'charging at home' when I explicity state 'public charging'. Just do the math for people that have to rely on public charging exclusively and you'll see a hybrid wins hands down on 'fuel' costs.
Ok, then it costs a lot to have your car transported to other countries overseas. That's about as relevant as talking about paying for "public charging", because very few people do it.
Hybrids and BEVs are completely different animals. Hybrids reduce fuel consumption, but do little for carbon emissions, because "reducing" emissions are pointless when we need to get to zero! Hybrids have never been about anything other than saving money spent on fuel.That's so wrong on so many levels. The toyota prius has 200x less NOX emissions than those Diesel VW. And in many countries it is greener to drive a hybrid than an ICE just because where that electricity is coming from.
The most I have ever paid for AC electricity was 35p/kWh. When I had an i3 for a few weeks, I paid max 38p/kWh once, to charge up off a motorway. All other times, I charged at home or on street charging at half that or even less. Still, I can get overnight electricity for 1/4 daytime rates.
Unfortunately for me the utility here has convinced regulators to do away with reasonably priced nighttime power so my lowest cost at home is 31 cents/kWh. My BEV averages 239Wh/mile, so 7.5 cents per mile. At $5/gal for gasoline, a hybrid would have to get 67mpg to match that. It is getting to be a close call with our high rates, and if electricity was any more expensive a less-efficient BEV wouldn't be looking so good.The difference is that one could easily generate their own electricity using solar panels or wind turbines. Making gasoline at home is not anywhere as easy or practical.
The most I have ever paid for AC electricity was 35p/kWh. When I had an i3 for a few weeks, I paid max 38p/kWh once, to charge up off a motorway. All other times, I charged at home or on street charging at half that or even less. Still, I can get overnight electricity for 1/4 daytime rates.Good for you. Over here prices for charging are much higher -according to the websites of companies that provide public street and highway charging services-.
And the reason very few people do it is because it makes a BEV too expensive compared to a hybrid. That is the simple reason; no need to dream up all kinds of future scenarios that don't take away the primary issue: charging infrastructure is too expensive. Do you really think charging at work stays for free forever?@gnuarm: the situation in the EU is different compared to the US. Prices are very much regulated. With today's high oil prices, governments across Europe are cutting taxes on fuel in order to maintain low price levels so people can afford to go to their work and keep their homes warm.
And please don't move the goal posts by bringing in 'charging at home' when I explicity state 'public charging'. Just do the math for people that have to rely on public charging exclusively and you'll see a hybrid wins hands down on 'fuel' costs.
Ok, then it costs a lot to have your car transported to other countries overseas. That's about as relevant as talking about paying for "public charging", because very few people do it.
Over here prices for public charging go from about 50ct (slow charging) to 80ct (supercharging) eurocent per kWh with no guarantee these prices won't increase a lot due to investors in public charging wanting to see an ROI. OTOH: the current crisis has shown that governments in the EU cap gasoline prices to around 1.60 to 2.0 euro per liter.
A BEV needs 200Wh per km as a year round average when it is not used as a inner city roundabout (which could easely be replaced by a much more efficient electric bike).
So the BEV sets you back 12.5 to 16 ct per km.
A hybrid easely reaches 5l / 100km which sets you back 10ct per km (assuming the fuel price is 2 euro per liter).
In pretty much any scenario other than your carefully picked one, BEVs and PHEVs cost less to run.
And the reason very few people do it is because it makes a BEV too expensive compared to a hybrid. That is the simple reason; no need to dream up all kinds of future scenarios that don't take away the primary issue: charging infrastructure is too expensive. Do you really think charging at work stays for free forever?@gnuarm: the situation in the EU is different compared to the US. Prices are very much regulated. With today's high oil prices, governments across Europe are cutting taxes on fuel in order to maintain low price levels so people can afford to go to their work and keep their homes warm.
And please don't move the goal posts by bringing in 'charging at home' when I explicity state 'public charging'. Just do the math for people that have to rely on public charging exclusively and you'll see a hybrid wins hands down on 'fuel' costs.
Ok, then it costs a lot to have your car transported to other countries overseas. That's about as relevant as talking about paying for "public charging", because very few people do it.
Over here prices for public charging go from about 50ct (slow charging) to 80ct (supercharging) eurocent per kWh with no guarantee these prices won't increase a lot due to investors in public charging wanting to see an ROI. OTOH: the current crisis has shown that governments in the EU cap gasoline prices to around 1.60 to 2.0 euro per liter.
A BEV needs 200Wh per km as a year round average when it is not used as a inner city roundabout (which could easely be replaced by a much more efficient electric bike).
So the BEV sets you back 12.5 to 16 ct per km.
A hybrid easely reaches 5l / 100km which sets you back 10ct per km (assuming the fuel price is 2 euro per liter).
Hybrids and BEVs are completely different animals. Hybrids reduce fuel consumption, but do little for carbon emissions, because "reducing" emissions are pointless when we need to get to zero! Hybrids have never been about anything other than saving money spent on fuel.That's so wrong on so many levels.
The toyota prius has 200x less NOX emissions than those Diesel VW. And in many countries it is greener to drive a hybrid than an ICE just because where that electricity is coming from.
But look at it another way. Battery manufacturing capacity is not unlimited. If you can choose to build 1 BEV and save 100% emissions of one car, or build 30 hybrid, and save 30% emissions of 30 cars, which one is better?
QuoteA BEV needs 200Wh per km as a year round average when it is not used as a inner city roundabout (which could easely be replaced by a much more efficient electric bike).
LOL!!! I want to see your population on bikes. People here don't like being rained or snowed on.
QuoteA BEV needs 200Wh per km as a year round average when it is not used as a inner city roundabout (which could easely be replaced by a much more efficient electric bike).
LOL!!! I want to see your population on bikes. People here don't like being rained or snowed on.
Nctnico is talking about the Netherlands which is famous around the world for the amount of cycling done there, except apparently in your neck of the woods. They have 1.3 bicycles for every human being and 27% of all journeys are made by bike.
Let's be fair here, even with those whom we disagree. The situation nctnico describes isn't one he dreamed up to discredit BEVs, it just happens to be his real situation. BEVs and PHEVs work for me and apparently for you, but they aren't for everybody. Even here an urban apartment dweller might struggle quite a bit with a BEV. A significant number of BEV buyers have given up and gone back to gas.
Its more of a situation with the current electricity prices. Right now I got a contract at 0.4 EUR/KWh. Considering an electric car uses 22KWh for 100 KM, this is 8.8EUR in electricity. A hybrid would have let's say 4.5L fuel usage, resulting about ~10 EUR for the same trip, since fuel costs somewhere around 2.2EUR/L.QuoteA BEV needs 200Wh per km as a year round average when it is not used as a inner city roundabout (which could easely be replaced by a much more efficient electric bike).
LOL!!! I want to see your population on bikes. People here don't like being rained or snowed on.
Nctnico is talking about the Netherlands which is famous around the world for the amount of cycling done there, except apparently in your neck of the woods. They have 1.3 bicycles for every human being and 27% of all journeys are made by bike.
Another non-trivial issue--our BEV just had its battery replaced under warranty 7.5 years into an 8 year warranty. If the problem (leak) had occurred at 8.5 years, I'd likely be burning gas as well at this point.It is another elephant in the room of this industry. As all car industry is heavily anti-repair, EV offered them a great weapon to make repair "impossible" (they prohibit it even when it is in most cases a simple repair that can be done by any equipped repair shop)
No, you won't have 50% of BEV in 5 years. There is no way to ramp battery production this fast and source raw materials for it.QuoteBut look at it another way. Battery manufacturing capacity is not unlimited. If you can choose to build 1 BEV and save 100% emissions of one car, or build 30 hybrid, and save 30% emissions of 30 cars, which one is better?
A false dilemma. We will build all the BEVs we want as people adopt them. Presenting false arguments do not help. Carbon emissions is a long term game. We will be supplying half the US auto production as BEVs in just five years. I can't say what people will do who believe hybrids are the way forward.
Considering an electric car uses 22KWh for 100 KM, this is 8.8EUR in electricity.
Cycling is a good option for people living in dense areas with flat terrain and suitable weather. So it is naturally limited to just a small percentage of big cities.
Considering an electric car uses 22KWh for 100 KM, this is 8.8EUR in electricity.
This is the next issue--some manufacturers have emphasized efficiency to increase range, others just bolt on ever-larger batteries to their luxobarges. An efficient BEV should be <15kWh/100km and I don't mean less-than-car alternatives.
I have wrote it before: if you look at very efficient BEVs (like the new Mercedes EQXX concept) you'll see the same shape as people use to modify ICE cars to become a lot more efficient.Considering an electric car uses 22KWh for 100 KM, this is 8.8EUR in electricity.
This is the next issue--some manufacturers have emphasized efficiency to increase range, others just bolt on ever-larger batteries to their luxobarges. An efficient BEV should be <15kWh/100km and I don't mean less-than-car alternatives.
It always amuses me the sight of someone buying something at IKEA with their giant SUV - and still not being able to fit it all in, usually having something poking out of a window.One of the advantages of a bicycle is that you can easely transport very long items like tubes and lengths of wood. IIRC my record is 5 meters or so.
Cycling is a good option for people living in dense areas with flat terrain and suitable weather. So it is naturally limited to just a small percentage of big cities.Not really. With suitable clothing you can cycle all year round while being warm and comfy even when it is cold and/or raining. In the end it is about changing your habbits. With electric bikes being commonly available, flat terrain isn't necessary.
Its more of a situation with the current electricity prices. Right now I got a contract at 0.4 EUR/KWh. Considering an electric car uses 22KWh for 100 KM, this is 8.8EUR in electricity. A hybrid would have let's say 4.5L fuel usage, resulting about ~10 EUR for the same trip, since fuel costs somewhere around 2.2EUR/L.QuoteA BEV needs 200Wh per km as a year round average when it is not used as a inner city roundabout (which could easely be replaced by a much more efficient electric bike).
LOL!!! I want to see your population on bikes. People here don't like being rained or snowed on.
Nctnico is talking about the Netherlands which is famous around the world for the amount of cycling done there, except apparently in your neck of the woods. They have 1.3 bicycles for every human being and 27% of all journeys are made by bike.
I think right now it's probably cheaper to run your house from a diesel generator than to pay for these absolutely ridiculous electricity prices. I cannot wait for the gov. to drop the hammer on these companies because for sure they are price gauging the situation. If I wouldn't have my solar panels I would be absolutely upset.
Its more of a situation with the current electricity prices. Right now I got a contract at 0.4 EUR/KWh. Considering an electric car uses 22KWh for 100 KM, this is 8.8EUR in electricity. A hybrid would have let's say 4.5L fuel usage, resulting about ~10 EUR for the same trip, since fuel costs somewhere around 2.2EUR/L.QuoteA BEV needs 200Wh per km as a year round average when it is not used as a inner city roundabout (which could easely be replaced by a much more efficient electric bike).
LOL!!! I want to see your population on bikes. People here don't like being rained or snowed on.
Nctnico is talking about the Netherlands which is famous around the world for the amount of cycling done there, except apparently in your neck of the woods. They have 1.3 bicycles for every human being and 27% of all journeys are made by bike.
I think right now it's probably cheaper to run your house from a diesel generator than to pay for these absolutely ridiculous electricity prices. I cannot wait for the gov. to drop the hammer on these companies because for sure they are price gauging the situation. If I wouldn't have my solar panels I would be absolutely upset.
Cycling is a good option for people living in dense areas with flat terrain and suitable weather. So it is naturally limited to just a small percentage of big cities.Another non-trivial issue--our BEV just had its battery replaced under warranty 7.5 years into an 8 year warranty. If the problem (leak) had occurred at 8.5 years, I'd likely be burning gas as well at this point.It is another elephant in the room of this industry. As all car industry is heavily anti-repair, EV offered them a great weapon to make repair "impossible" (they prohibit it even when it is in most cases a simple repair that can be done by any equipped repair shop)
Minor issues like this, some small seal leak or faulty cell will render the whole car a brick.
Same as is now a big battle about if you can choose what repair facility you use for your car.
No, you won't have 50% of BEV in 5 years. There is no way to ramp battery production this fast and source raw materials for it.QuoteBut look at it another way. Battery manufacturing capacity is not unlimited. If you can choose to build 1 BEV and save 100% emissions of one car, or build 30 hybrid, and save 30% emissions of 30 cars, which one is better?
A false dilemma. We will build all the BEVs we want as people adopt them. Presenting false arguments do not help. Carbon emissions is a long term game. We will be supplying half the US auto production as BEVs in just five years. I can't say what people will do who believe hybrids are the way forward.
The only possibility is to artificially limit the number of new cars sold. And I do not see it will pass an angry mob.
Plus of course, governments will have to slowly bring all the taxes they pose on "conventional cars" to EVs as it is a huge part of their revenue and it cannot go down
Considering an electric car uses 22KWh for 100 KM, this is 8.8EUR in electricity.
This is the next issue--some manufacturers have emphasized efficiency to increase range, others just bolt on ever-larger batteries to their luxobarges. An efficient BEV should be <15kWh/100km and I don't mean less-than-car alternatives.
I know "early" EVs from the 80s and 90s were around 20-25 kWh/100 km with lead acid batteriesIts more of a situation with the current electricity prices. Right now I got a contract at 0.4 EUR/KWh. Considering an electric car uses 22KWh for 100 KM, this is 8.8EUR in electricity. A hybrid would have let's say 4.5L fuel usage, resulting about ~10 EUR for the same trip, since fuel costs somewhere around 2.2EUR/L.
I think right now it's probably cheaper to run your house from a diesel generator than to pay for these absolutely ridiculous electricity prices. I cannot wait for the gov. to drop the hammer on these companies because for sure they are price gauging the situation. If I wouldn't have my solar panels I would be absolutely upset.
I think your numbers are faulty. 22 kWh/100 km is around 350 Wh/mi. That is a high average consumption, even for my model X which is the BEV equivalent of the US family station wagon (now it's a van or large SUV). Most BEVs are more in the 4-5 mi/kWhr, 200-250 Wh/mi. Try your calculations with those numbers.
I know "early" EVs from the 80s and 90s were around 20-25 kWh/100 km with lead acid batteriesIts more of a situation with the current electricity prices. Right now I got a contract at 0.4 EUR/KWh. Considering an electric car uses 22KWh for 100 KM, this is 8.8EUR in electricity. A hybrid would have let's say 4.5L fuel usage, resulting about ~10 EUR for the same trip, since fuel costs somewhere around 2.2EUR/L.
I think right now it's probably cheaper to run your house from a diesel generator than to pay for these absolutely ridiculous electricity prices. I cannot wait for the gov. to drop the hammer on these companies because for sure they are price gauging the situation. If I wouldn't have my solar panels I would be absolutely upset.
I think your numbers are faulty. 22 kWh/100 km is around 350 Wh/mi. That is a high average consumption, even for my model X which is the BEV equivalent of the US family station wagon (now it's a van or large SUV). Most BEVs are more in the 4-5 mi/kWhr, 200-250 Wh/mi. Try your calculations with those numbers.
And it was small cars like VW Golf
So which BEVs can't attain 15kWh/100km?
So which BEVs can't attain 15kWh/100km?
Going by the window sticker figures and a bit of math, any of them that don't get at least a 139.6 MPG-E rating--which is actually most BEVs that aren't microcars. The Hyundai Ioniq is an example of one that does make that rating @ 150MPG-E (city). Our old Ford only has a 118 MPG-E rating (city) but it still has averaged 239 Wh/mile or 14.94 kWh/100kM in real life. If you are really only using 300Wh/mile with your Model X, then you are well under the spec as well.
I don't use the MPGe ratings because they are detached from reality. They are used to try to compare BEVs to ICE, but not in a useful way and clearly with significant variations...
...I have no interest in MPGe numbers because i never use them. Why not calculate using furlongs per fortnight?
I don't use the MPGe ratings because they are detached from reality. They are used to try to compare BEVs to ICE, but not in a useful way and clearly with significant variations...
...I have no interest in MPGe numbers because i never use them. Why not calculate using furlongs per fortnight?
Because MPG-E numbers are what is listed on the window sticker, so that's all there is to go on for an apples-to-apples comparison between models. And converting to Wh/mile or kWh/100kM is straightforward enough. 15kWh/100kM is 139.6 MPG-E. Like any EPA ratings, YMMV.
Is the MPGe rating something linear? How do they calculate it? I assume it has a magic fudge factor?
So which BEVs can't attain 15kWh/100km? Mine is one, it gets more like 300 Wh/mi (19 kWh/100 km), but it is an outlier because it is a large luxury car.
Is the MPGe rating something linear? How do they calculate it? I assume it has a magic fudge factor?
It just starts with the fundamental assumption that a gallon of gasoline is 'equivalent' to 33.7kWh. Which it is, provided you have a 100% efficient gasoline powered water heater.
One thing about the numbers we've been talking about, including my 239kWh claim for my Focus, is that MPG-E is based on 'at the wall' power--including charging losses--whereas the car will generally report power used from the battery. So that becomes a 'fudge factor' if you will. But still, 139.6MPG-E simply means you drew 15kWh from the grid for every 100kM.
So which BEVs can't attain 15kWh/100km? Mine is one, it gets more like 300 Wh/mi (19 kWh/100 km), but it is an outlier because it is a large luxury car.
Speed dependent (of course), but my PHEV Golf gets about 18kWh/100km on longer trips before engine is used. The e-Golf gets about 15kWh/100km. Even big SUVs like Kona electric can get less than 16kWh/100km (4 miles per kWh) when driven sensibly.
At about 120km/h then efficiency falls. e.g. 20-22kWh/100km may be more realistic.
The problem with EVs is torque is addictive and if you full throttle it all the time from the lights your battery will not last as long as you expect :o
If you don't need that much fuel, then it becomes easier to replace fuel from oil with synthetic / organic fuel that has no additional CO2 emissions.
If you use less fuel with a hybrid, then you'll need less non-fossil fuel as a replacement. In turn this means that 1) synthetic / organic fuels may be significantly more expensive compared to fossil fuels while you can still get from A to B for the same price. 2) you'll need to produce less fuel in order to replace fossil fuel consumption.If you don't need that much fuel, then it becomes easier to replace fuel from oil with synthetic / organic fuel that has no additional CO2 emissions.??? What does "easier" mean?
If you use less fuel with a hybrid, then you'll need less non-fossil fuel as a replacement. In turn this means that 1) synthetic / organic fuels may be significantly more expensive compared to fossil fuels while you can still get from A to B for the same price. 2) you'll need to produce less fuel in order to replace fossil fuel consumption.If you don't need that much fuel, then it becomes easier to replace fuel from oil with synthetic / organic fuel that has no additional CO2 emissions.??? What does "easier" mean?
And ofcourse modern day synthetic / organic fuel factories are powered using renewable sources so it doesn't really matter how much energy they need. In the end all what counts is that the price of the fuel being produced is competitive or not.
https://www.toyota-europe.com/world-of-toyota/feel/environment/better-air/biofuels (https://www.toyota-europe.com/world-of-toyota/feel/environment/better-air/biofuels)
Bottom line is: BEVs are not the only possible solution for zero emission cars. Far from it!
Nothing personal, but hybrids are only about reducing cost of fuel. They will never be a zero emissions solution. BEVs may not be zero emissions currently, but as more renewable power comes online, they ultimately will be truly zero emissions.
https://ev-database.org/cheatsheet/energy-consumption-electric-carI know "early" EVs from the 80s and 90s were around 20-25 kWh/100 km with lead acid batteriesIts more of a situation with the current electricity prices. Right now I got a contract at 0.4 EUR/KWh. Considering an electric car uses 22KWh for 100 KM, this is 8.8EUR in electricity. A hybrid would have let's say 4.5L fuel usage, resulting about ~10 EUR for the same trip, since fuel costs somewhere around 2.2EUR/L.
I think right now it's probably cheaper to run your house from a diesel generator than to pay for these absolutely ridiculous electricity prices. I cannot wait for the gov. to drop the hammer on these companies because for sure they are price gauging the situation. If I wouldn't have my solar panels I would be absolutely upset.
I think your numbers are faulty. 22 kWh/100 km is around 350 Wh/mi. That is a high average consumption, even for my model X which is the BEV equivalent of the US family station wagon (now it's a van or large SUV). Most BEVs are more in the 4-5 mi/kWhr, 200-250 Wh/mi. Try your calculations with those numbers.
And it was small cars like VW Golf
Like I said, faulty numbers.
https://ev-database.org/cheatsheet/energy-consumption-electric-carI know "early" EVs from the 80s and 90s were around 20-25 kWh/100 km with lead acid batteriesIts more of a situation with the current electricity prices. Right now I got a contract at 0.4 EUR/KWh. Considering an electric car uses 22KWh for 100 KM, this is 8.8EUR in electricity. A hybrid would have let's say 4.5L fuel usage, resulting about ~10 EUR for the same trip, since fuel costs somewhere around 2.2EUR/L.
I think right now it's probably cheaper to run your house from a diesel generator than to pay for these absolutely ridiculous electricity prices. I cannot wait for the gov. to drop the hammer on these companies because for sure they are price gauging the situation. If I wouldn't have my solar panels I would be absolutely upset.
I think your numbers are faulty. 22 kWh/100 km is around 350 Wh/mi. That is a high average consumption, even for my model X which is the BEV equivalent of the US family station wagon (now it's a van or large SUV). Most BEVs are more in the 4-5 mi/kWhr, 200-250 Wh/mi. Try your calculations with those numbers.
And it was small cars like VW Golf
Like I said, faulty numbers.
(https://ev-database.org/cheatsheet/energy-consumption-electric-car) I picked a number in the middle.
If you are going to do a "but but but" then include charger efficiency and then you end up with this number.
I don't really care what numbers you use. They are wrong.Dont worry, I dont care about what you have to say either, since you shown yourself to be an opiniated irritating person, in write only mode, who doesn't consider anything even if someone sends them actual fata proving them wrong. Ignore list. Good day sir.
I don't really care what numbers you use. They are wrong.Dont worry, I dont care about what you have to say either, since you shown yourself to be an opiniated irritating person, in write only mode, who doesn't consider anything even if someone sends them actual fata proving them wrong. Ignore list. Good day sir.
The reason why you two are operating with different numbers is that you are talking about "cars" whereas in this average are not just cars but vans like Citroen e-SpaceTourer M (https://ev-database.org/car/1343/Citroen-e-SpaceTourer-M-75-kWh)https://ev-database.org/cheatsheet/energy-consumption-electric-carI know "early" EVs from the 80s and 90s were around 20-25 kWh/100 km with lead acid batteriesIts more of a situation with the current electricity prices. Right now I got a contract at 0.4 EUR/KWh. Considering an electric car uses 22KWh for 100 KM, this is 8.8EUR in electricity. A hybrid would have let's say 4.5L fuel usage, resulting about ~10 EUR for the same trip, since fuel costs somewhere around 2.2EUR/L.
I think right now it's probably cheaper to run your house from a diesel generator than to pay for these absolutely ridiculous electricity prices. I cannot wait for the gov. to drop the hammer on these companies because for sure they are price gauging the situation. If I wouldn't have my solar panels I would be absolutely upset.
I think your numbers are faulty. 22 kWh/100 km is around 350 Wh/mi. That is a high average consumption, even for my model X which is the BEV equivalent of the US family station wagon (now it's a van or large SUV). Most BEVs are more in the 4-5 mi/kWhr, 200-250 Wh/mi. Try your calculations with those numbers.
And it was small cars like VW Golf
Like I said, faulty numbers.
(https://ev-database.org/cheatsheet/energy-consumption-electric-car) I picked a number in the middle.
If you are going to do a "but but but" then include charger efficiency and then you end up with this number.
I don't really care what numbers you use. They are wrong. Today's BEVs get around 4-5 miles per kWh. Convert that to kWh/100km or whatever unit you prefer, but if you start with faulty numbers, you won't get a meaningful result.
I don't know anything about your database because it doesn't load.
The connection has timed out
An error occurred during a connection to ev-database.org.
The reason why you two are operating with different numbers is that you are talking about "cars" whereas in this average are not just cars but vans like Citroen e-SpaceTourer M (https://ev-database.org/car/1343/Citroen-e-SpaceTourer-M-75-kWh)https://ev-database.org/cheatsheet/energy-consumption-electric-carI know "early" EVs from the 80s and 90s were around 20-25 kWh/100 km with lead acid batteriesIts more of a situation with the current electricity prices. Right now I got a contract at 0.4 EUR/KWh. Considering an electric car uses 22KWh for 100 KM, this is 8.8EUR in electricity. A hybrid would have let's say 4.5L fuel usage, resulting about ~10 EUR for the same trip, since fuel costs somewhere around 2.2EUR/L.
I think right now it's probably cheaper to run your house from a diesel generator than to pay for these absolutely ridiculous electricity prices. I cannot wait for the gov. to drop the hammer on these companies because for sure they are price gauging the situation. If I wouldn't have my solar panels I would be absolutely upset.
I think your numbers are faulty. 22 kWh/100 km is around 350 Wh/mi. That is a high average consumption, even for my model X which is the BEV equivalent of the US family station wagon (now it's a van or large SUV). Most BEVs are more in the 4-5 mi/kWhr, 200-250 Wh/mi. Try your calculations with those numbers.
And it was small cars like VW Golf
Like I said, faulty numbers.
(https://ev-database.org/cheatsheet/energy-consumption-electric-car) I picked a number in the middle.
If you are going to do a "but but but" then include charger efficiency and then you end up with this number.
I don't really care what numbers you use. They are wrong. Today's BEVs get around 4-5 miles per kWh. Convert that to kWh/100km or whatever unit you prefer, but if you start with faulty numbers, you won't get a meaningful result.
I don't know anything about your database because it doesn't load.
The connection has timed out
An error occurred during a connection to ev-database.org.
And it pushes the average significantly higher
The reason why you two are operating with different numbers is that you are talking about "cars" whereas in this average are not just cars but vans like Citroen e-SpaceTourer M (https://ev-database.org/car/1343/Citroen-e-SpaceTourer-M-75-kWh)Also, electric cars are most efficient in slow city traffic exactly where a fossil car is least efficient. On the highway the roles are reversed and fossil bombs are running closer to peak efficiency while electric battery tanks hit the laws of physics.
And it pushes the average significantly higher
The reason why you two are operating with different numbers is that you are talking about "cars" whereas in this average are not just cars but vans like Citroen e-SpaceTourer M (https://ev-database.org/car/1343/Citroen-e-SpaceTourer-M-75-kWh)
And it pushes the average significantly higher
NEDC is pretty optimistic where it comes to BEVs. When looking at a year round average (cold / hot) which includes a decent amount of highway driving (IOW: not using a car where a bicycle would be a better choice anyway), a reasonable ball park number for a BEV is 200Wh/km.The reason why you two are operating with different numbers is that you are talking about "cars" whereas in this average are not just cars but vans like Citroen e-SpaceTourer M (https://ev-database.org/car/1343/Citroen-e-SpaceTourer-M-75-kWh)Also, electric cars are most efficient in slow city traffic exactly where a fossil car is least efficient. On the highway the roles are reversed and fossil bombs are running closer to peak efficiency while electric battery tanks hit the laws of physics.
And it pushes the average significantly higher
So when anyone with a strong bias wants to argue "facts" they're likely picking some unrepresentative numbers.
Comparable cars (same model!) on the Australian (older/slower NEDC type) testing:
The reason why you two are operating with different numbers is that you are talking about "cars" whereas in this average are not just cars but vans like Citroen e-SpaceTourer M (https://ev-database.org/car/1343/Citroen-e-SpaceTourer-M-75-kWh)Also, electric cars are most efficient in slow city traffic exactly where a fossil car is least efficient. On the highway the roles are reversed and fossil bombs are running closer to peak efficiency while electric battery tanks hit the laws of physics.
And it pushes the average significantly higher
So when anyone with a strong bias wants to argue "facts" they're likely picking some unrepresentative numbers.
Comparable cars (same model!) on the Australian (older/slower NEDC type) testing:
https://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/Vehicle/Search (https://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/Vehicle/Search)
Hyundai 2021 Kona EV 150kw Electric 13.1 kWh/100km
Hyundai 2021 Kona EV 100kW Electric 14.3 kWh/100km
Hyundai 2021 Kona 2.0 4cyl 6.2 l/100km
Hyundai 2021 Kona 1.6 4cyl Turbo 4wd 6.9 l/100km
They're one of the lowest claimed electric consumption per 100km across the market (bizarrely the reported figures are reverse of what would be expected for the different electric models!)
while mediocre on the fossils (and if you check the full database the combined is lower than either urban or extraurban for that last example). Its not unknown for manufacturers to have enhanced aero features/parts only added to some models within a lineup, making comparison even harder. But when the offical databases are this hard to follow/broken the numbers are close to guessing.
Don't know why EV's aren't reporting separately for urban/extraurban like "normal" vehicles.
If you use less fuel with a hybrid, then you'll need less non-fossil fuel as a replacement. In turn this means that 1) synthetic / organic fuels may be significantly more expensive compared to fossil fuels while you can still get from A to B for the same price. 2) you'll need to produce less fuel in order to replace fossil fuel consumption.
The problem is that ethanol production needs to make a lateral move towards more sustainable production first (2nd and 3rd generation bio fuels) before production can be increased significantly. There really is a lot going on where it comes to making ethanol from agricultural and other plant based waste instead of growing crops specifically for ethanol production (see https://ethanolproducer.com/ (https://ethanolproducer.com/)). But making this move likely takes another decade as the whole chain from harvesting until production needs to be build up.If you use less fuel with a hybrid, then you'll need less non-fossil fuel as a replacement. In turn this means that 1) synthetic / organic fuels may be significantly more expensive compared to fossil fuels while you can still get from A to B for the same price. 2) you'll need to produce less fuel in order to replace fossil fuel consumption.
It is unfortunate that nobody developed an E85-only hybrid, since an E85-only engine can be made even more efficient than the gasoline Prius engine by using even higher compression. E85 is typically much cheaper (32% on average IIRC) but has 25% less thermal energy per gallon. The increased efficiency would probably make up for about half that, meaning a slight reduction in range or increase in fuel tank size along with lower operating costs and an 85% non-fossil fuel. Sadly E85 isn't common enough for this to be a viable product. An E85 only Prius Prime would really slash fossil-fuel usage.
There are a couple of diesel hybrids, which theoretically could run on some forms of biodiesel if well refined.Modern emission system in diesel engines needs at least 20 minutes of running time to work
Examples include the Mercedes "BlueEfficiency Diesel" PHEV and Citroen DS5 Hybrid.
I don't know of any North American examples -- maybe in trucks. Ford has some hybrid F150 but it's petrol powered.
There are issues with diesel hybrids due to the short-cycling of the engine, so they didn't seem to gain much market share compared to petrol hybrids. I think it's telling that VW didn't attempt to make any given they liked to pretend they were well ahead on diesel tech (or at least the cheating part)
You can never get good control over emissions on a diesel engine. A diesel engine works with excess air which also contains a lot of nitrogen. So you get a lot of NOx. Now you can try to control that by additives and reducing the amount of air by mixing exhaust gasses into the inlet but that causes the formation of sooth (fine particles consisting of half burned fuel) and reduces engine efficiency.You can deal with emissions relatively easy when you keep exhaust gasses hot enough, which means you are using at least 20-30% of engine power/keeping within an efficient region (typical engine example, dark blue line area and better) (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin-Bishop-3/publication/278707680/figure/fig18/AS:667914801774596@1536254706165/Efficiency-map-of-a-diesel-internal-combustion-engine-with-efficiency-shown-as.png)
And then we have bizarre vehicles like the Nissan e-Power Qashqai (I hate this car so much in any form, but maybe I have an irrational hatred towards SUVs.)With at least 10kWh, a better 20kWh battery, and charging it will be a great thing but this ::)
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/nissan/qashqai/357617/new-nissan-qashqai-e-power-2022-review (https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/nissan/qashqai/357617/new-nissan-qashqai-e-power-2022-review)
This car features a 1.5cyl petrol engine driving a generator which charges either a 2.1kWh battery, and a regular 187 hp electric motor then driving the wheels. So it's a series hybrid. But it has no option to recharge the battery - all energy comes from combustion. There are very few series hybrids in use, as I understand it the concern is double conversion losses from generator to motor are notable enough to avoid this design in most cases.
I can't imagine this offers any benefit on the highway but maybe in the city the ability to keep the petrol engine at high load all of the time is of some benefit. Still, it does seem like a rather odd design.
And then we have bizarre vehicles like the Nissan e-Power Qashqai (I hate this car so much in any form, but maybe I have an irrational hatred towards SUVs.)With at least 10kWh, a better 20kWh battery, and charging it will be a great thing but this ::)
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/nissan/qashqai/357617/new-nissan-qashqai-e-power-2022-review (https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/nissan/qashqai/357617/new-nissan-qashqai-e-power-2022-review)
This car features a 1.5cyl petrol engine driving a generator which charges either a 2.1kWh battery, and a regular 187 hp electric motor then driving the wheels. So it's a series hybrid. But it has no option to recharge the battery - all energy comes from combustion. There are very few series hybrids in use, as I understand it the concern is double conversion losses from generator to motor are notable enough to avoid this design in most cases.
I can't imagine this offers any benefit on the highway but maybe in the city the ability to keep the petrol engine at high load all of the time is of some benefit. Still, it does seem like a rather odd design.
It seems Toyota refused to give them their hybrid technology and it might be a little cheaper to build. But makes no sense in this configuration.
Keeping the engine at a high/constant load has significant benefits on pollutants (NOx, hydrocarbons) and can be easily tuned for higher efficiency as commonly required wide RPM range gives a significant hit to efficiency
I remember a video about an old bus in Germany (Gyro bus) that used a flywheel to power itself. There is even someone who tried to make a bicycle with a flywheel to help recuperate some of the breaking energy lost to heat (with the added advantage that the flywheel acted to help balance the bicycle at low speeds).It is called KERS and is used in some race cars
Could there be any advantage to using such a purely mechanical system let's say within the wheels themselves or on the drive-train that can be coupled to a small CVT/clutch mechanism that will not be overcome by the added weight needed to carry such a flywheel around all the time? (NOT TO MENTION the SAFETY CONCERNS if there is ever an accident, these flywheels can wreak havoc on anything in the area if it escapes).
Tell me when US and EU (not saying about China and India) will have zero carbon electricity ::)With at least 10kWh, a better 20kWh battery, and charging it will be a great thing but this ::)
It seems Toyota refused to give them their hybrid technology and it might be a little cheaper to build. But makes no sense in this configuration.
Keeping the engine at a high/constant load has significant benefits on pollutants (NOx, hydrocarbons) and can be easily tuned for higher efficiency as commonly required wide RPM range gives a significant hit to efficiency
But no matter how hard they try, they won't get the carbon emission down to zero. This is why hybrids are pointless. They are a solution to a problem we no longer have (non-CO2 pollutants) with the introduction of BEVs.
I guess you are missing the fact that bio-fuels have existed for a long time already and are being used more and more! And BEVs don't make coal and gas fueled power plants go away!
The answer is yes and no and becomes more yes every day. For sure a lot of development needs to be done but there are already industrial scale factories running that convert agricultural waste into bio-fuels. See the link I posted earlier (ethanolproducer). It is absolutely wrong to keep clinging to the picture that bio fuels are not energy efficient (they wouldn't be affordable / competitive if they where) or take land away from food production.I guess you are missing the fact that bio-fuels have existed for a long time already and are being used more and more! And BEVs don't make coal and gas fueled power plants go away!
Are there any biofuels in commercial production that:
* don't have land-use issues (bioethanol from crop is at issue here, specifically - there's absolutely no point in chopping down trees to free land for emissions-neutral fuel)
* are produced from sustainable, volume-scalable waste products (i.e. we can't just take the McDonalds chip-fat example and expect to run the whole country off that stuff) OR;
* are produced in a carbon-neutral synthetic process?
I think the answer is 'no', but you seem keen promote this as a viable alternative to BEVs so perhaps you know better?
Are there any biofuels in commercial production that:The solution is biofuels from ocean algae. Specifically, if they could figure out how to make biofuel from the kind of algae that forms algae blooms, the act of making biofuel would help solve another problem!
* don't have land-use issues (bioethanol from crop is at issue here, specifically - there's absolutely no point in chopping down trees to free land for emissions-neutral fuel)
I'm quite sceptical you can produce enough road fuel (let's just assume this is for passenger cars for now) from just agricultural waste.One quality reference to suggest that bio-fuel is a non-starter for mass replacement of fossil fuels:
I'm quite sceptical you can produce enough road fuel (let's just assume this is for passenger cars for now) from just agricultural waste.I ran some numbers based on yield per area information from Poet-DSM. Based on their numbers and just taking the amount of farm land, countries where farming is widespread should have enough agricultural waste to get to 50% to 75% of the fuel needed based on current consumption.
The numbers in that book start with specific/replacement crops as you say, waste from another crop is never going to exceed the bio-fuel production of a dedicated crop (or people would just grow that instead). Its the land area use that is telling, the figures in W/m2. Agricultural waste energy production is too low to support the current energy demands.I'm quite sceptical you can produce enough road fuel (let's just assume this is for passenger cars for now) from just agricultural waste.I ran some numbers based on yield per area information from Poet-DSM. Based on their numbers and just taking the amount of farm land, countries where farming is widespread should have enough agricultural waste to get to 50% to 75% of the fuel needed based on current consumption.
@Someone: the claims in that book are horribly outdated. Nowadays nobody involved in bio-fuel development is suggesting to grow crops to make bio-fuel.
If you cared to do some actual research you'd be better informed. Go look at yield number from Poet-DSM and other companies that actually process agricultural waste into bio-fuels. These companies have numbers that come from running industrial scale factories instead of assumptions. In addition to that, there is a wealth of up-to-date information on ethanolproducer.com .The numbers in that book start with specific/replacement crops as you say, waste from another crop is never going to exceed the bio-fuel production of a dedicated crop (or people would just grow that instead). Its the land area use that is telling, the figures in W/m2. Agricultural waste energy production is too low to support the current energy demands.I'm quite sceptical you can produce enough road fuel (let's just assume this is for passenger cars for now) from just agricultural waste.I ran some numbers based on yield per area information from Poet-DSM. Based on their numbers and just taking the amount of farm land, countries where farming is widespread should have enough agricultural waste to get to 50% to 75% of the fuel needed based on current consumption.
@Someone: the claims in that book are horribly outdated. Nowadays nobody involved in bio-fuel development is suggesting to grow crops to make bio-fuel.
But hey you'll just keep throwing out unreferenced unworked and unjustiified opinions as if they are fact that disprove others well researched and considered work. That might work on the lazy, but it wont work here.
I was a big 'fan' of algae a while ago but the numbers don't add up.Algae looked very good for a while but it seems scaling up to industrial production is far more difficult than expected. It looks like the idea of using algae has been largely abandoned (for now).
Oh look replying to figures that can be checked and referenced with... more unreferenced and unworked opinion.If you cared to do some actual research you'd be better informed. Go look at yield number from Poet-DSM and other companies that actually process agricultural waste into bio-fuels. These companies have numbers that come from running industrial scale factories instead of assumptions. In addition to that, there is a wealth of up-to-date information on ethanolproducer.comThe numbers in that book start with specific/replacement crops as you say, waste from another crop is never going to exceed the bio-fuel production of a dedicated crop (or people would just grow that instead). Its the land area use that is telling, the figures in W/m2. Agricultural waste energy production is too low to support the current energy demands.I'm quite sceptical you can produce enough road fuel (let's just assume this is for passenger cars for now) from just agricultural waste.I ran some numbers based on yield per area information from Poet-DSM. Based on their numbers and just taking the amount of farm land, countries where farming is widespread should have enough agricultural waste to get to 50% to 75% of the fuel needed based on current consumption.
@Someone: the claims in that book are horribly outdated. Nowadays nobody involved in bio-fuel development is suggesting to grow crops to make bio-fuel.
The link I provided was for the first page of a chapter which does have an explicit heading and paragraphs addressing your point of only using waste:
https://www.withouthotair.com/cD/page_286.shtml (https://www.withouthotair.com/cD/page_286.shtml)
But hey you'll just keep throwing out unreferenced unworked and unjustiified opinions as if they are fact that disprove others well researched and considered work. That might work on the lazy, but it wont work here.
A 1m^2 solar cell at 30% efficiency might generate about 1kWh per day, whereas photosynthesis has an efficiency of at most 5%. So you need a much larger collector area to make it work.Synthetic hydrocarbons and hydrogen are more likely as they can "store" the predicted excess electricity from the land efficient solar/wind generators.
Long haul trucking has been mentioned as an area where EVs are impractical. I'd like to see overhead catenaries become more common (there's a line under test in Germany.) These vehicles use diesel or batteries to power their route when off the cable. Would be interesting to know how much of the highway network you'd need to cover in these lines to cover all use cases - the majority of trucks I suspect cover some distance on highway and if the overhead line can charge a battery up at over 250kW for instance then you might only need a ten miles of line for some sections followed by long gaps. Probably position the lines close to existing power infrastructure. Working out how to bill the customer will also be interesting. Electric meter in the truck?I do not know how reliable are current german highway overhead lines.
Other thing about synfuels is using them ... they're not exactly efficient in the whole system.Don't fall into the trap of looking at efficiencies alone. In the end the only thing that counts is the price you pay as a consumer.
Hydrogen production and use roundtrip efficiency is about 50% in most optimal case. (70% electrolyser best case, 70% state-of-the-art fuel cell, zero loss of hydrogen, zero cost of cryogenics.)
Synfuels are worse if just combusted - production efficiency around 60% and combustion of nat gas in an ICE (e.g. some cars can run on nat gas) or CCGT (30-40% each) would get somewhere around 20-30% round trip efficiency.
There will be a part for either in the future but their high costs compared to using the energy to charge a battery and drive a motor (60-70% round trip efficiency) will be a lot harder to compete with.
I have passed under the overhead lines test track in Germany a couple of times. It is not like a trolleybus system. More like the system you see on a train. I doubt it is unreliable since the mechanical principle is very simple (just like it is with a train). I doubt though the system as it is currently installed in Germany is capable of doing serious charging. Imagine 100+ trucks (the stretch is 5km long!) charging 1MW each. Even big railway stations can't deliver that much power; trains have to take turns pulling out.Long haul trucking has been mentioned as an area where EVs are impractical. I'd like to see overhead catenaries become more common (there's a line under test in Germany.) These vehicles use diesel or batteries to power their route when off the cable. Would be interesting to know how much of the highway network you'd need to cover in these lines to cover all use cases - the majority of trucks I suspect cover some distance on highway and if the overhead line can charge a battery up at over 250kW for instance then you might only need a ten miles of line for some sections followed by long gaps. Probably position the lines close to existing power infrastructure. Working out how to bill the customer will also be interesting. Electric meter in the truck?I do not know how reliable are current german highway overhead lines.
But I know for city (trolley)buses the system is very fragile and needs huge maintenance. Especially when it has crosssections and switches (or how they call it when you split lines).
But no matter how hard they try, they won't get the carbon emission down to zero. This is why hybrids are pointless. They are a solution to a problem we no longer have (non-CO2 pollutants) with the introduction of BEVs.Tell me when US and EU (not saying about China and India) will have zero carbon electricity ::)
It won't be in this or even next decade
They are to bridge the gap, and with some bio/syn fuels to be used even then for cases when BEV won't offer the required range, because there always will be some minor cases where you will need more flexibility
Plus another rare example, but sadly real. How would a massive amount of people run from disaster (like a natural one or a war), you will end up with plenty of people stuck at 100-200 km. Current cheap EVs have these ranges plus will be a big portion of people do not have them fully charged.
BEVs are great city cars and I will agree they shall be even mandatory in city centers (even as I'm libertarian) but with the current technology level, energy mix and state of society are not a silver bullet.
The BEV is the only technology CURRENTLY available where it is viable that they could be powered from emissions neutral energy. There is no other technology. Not hydrogen, not biofuels, not synfuels... It just does not exist.
I don't follow. Why can various manufactured fuels use only renewable energy? Biofuels use some form of crops, but that carbon was just absorbed from the air, so releasing it again does no harm. Hydrogen involves no carbon at all if you don't use hydrocarbons as your hydrogen source. That can be water.
Are you just making the point that these are not currently commercially practical?
In the longer term biofuels can be carbon neutral, especially if they are produced on land that's otherwise not that useful. There are still concerns about offsetting food, which is more essential than energy. But I have doubts that in any case we could get enough biofuel production to replace all fossil fuels, without turning the earth into a dust bowl again. Also algae biofuels, the former love of the likes of Exxon, seem to be making little progress.The majority of front and back yards are not used for growing food. Turning that into revenue streams for the owners would be a great thing.
I don't follow. Why can various manufactured fuels use only renewable energy? Biofuels use some form of crops, but that carbon was just absorbed from the air, so releasing it again does no harm. Hydrogen involves no carbon at all if you don't use hydrocarbons as your hydrogen source. That can be water.
Are you just making the point that these are not currently commercially practical?
More or less.
Biofuels have land use offsets. If you chop down parts of the Amazon rainforest to make bioethanol, then you released more carbon over ten years than you did just burning fossil fuels. In the longer term biofuels can be carbon neutral, especially if they are produced on land that's otherwise not that useful. There are still concerns about offsetting food, which is more essential than energy. But I have doubts that in any case we could get enough biofuel production to replace all fossil fuels, without turning the earth into a dust bowl again. Also algae biofuels, the former love of the likes of Exxon, seem to be making little progress.
Hydrogen is almost exclusively produced from steam reforming of natural gas and the emissions profile of a hydrogen car powered from said "blue hydrogen" is worse than a diesel/petrol car. There are lots of additional costs with hydrogen for vehicles, the high gas pressures requiring cryo storage and pumping, the high cost of fuel cells, the low overall efficiency, and the relatively high cost of the fuel itself, despite subsidies.
Synfuels are just not produced at a large enough scale for practicality yet - and there is a lot to work out to get the process efficient and scaled up. I would say synfuels are probably the most promising technology for applications where electrification is impractical, for instance aircraft, portable generation, etc.
So of the technologies available I don't see passenger cars going anywhere but battery powered EVs. There will be a greater proportion of hybrids in the future, and plug in hybrids will still be popular. Hydrogen won't be any more of a technology demo. For trucks and trains, it's harder to say, hydrogen could make some sense there but electrification is also quite likely. For aircraft, maybe hydrogen will be investigated, but due to latency in the industry I expect the dominant technology will either be synfuel or biofuel for quite some time.
The majority of front and back yards are not used for growing food. Turning that into revenue streams for the owners would be a great thing.
There are still huge problems for BEVs to solve. Raw materials is one of them. But also cost of charging infrastructure. In the end there is really is no use to try and figure out what the definitive solution will be right now. There are too many wheels in motion. Remember: BEVs came and went before! A large part of the popularity of BEVs is based on hype.
Looking at the future I see a lot of movement to make hydrogen the new oil. What is the use of converting hydrogen to electricity only to store it in a heavy battery that gets lugged along in a car? Also from a raw materials POV running a car on hydrogen makes a lot of sense. The amount of platinum needed for the fuel cell starts to approach the amounts that are presently used in catalytic converters. Bottom line: it makes no sense to discard cars on hydrogen at this moment.
That's really high on the "Hasn't got a clue" scale. Practicalities aside, people have those yards to do things in. Sit and watch the world go by, have a quiet drink or smoke at the end of a long hot day, somewhere for the pets and kids to play, somewhere to do some exercise, somewhere to eat, somewhere to have a party, a BBQ, some people deliberately plant wildlife friendly plants in the (probably forlorn) hope of preserving enough biodiversity to stop local ecosystems collapsing, or just some pretty flowers, perhaps a few fresh herbs for the kitchen. Suggesting that people would welcome an additional tiny revenue stream by replacing all that and more with a likely monoculture of fuel plants at the cost of quality of life is, well, farcical.Using the yards for biofuel production doesn't have to interfere with the uses you listed.
Hydrogen is an intermediary, like electricity, a means of transporting and using the energy from other sources. So it can't be compared to petroleum.There are processes that make hydrogen from sunlight without making electricity first. Not sure how they will ultimately compare to electrolysis powered by PV.
Your analogy of hydrogen being an intermediary on the way to powering a BEV is complete nonsense. Hydrogen ultimately will be produced from electricity.
A large part of the popularity of BEVs is based on hype.
Using the yards for biofuel production doesn't have to interfere with the uses you listed.
Maybe you should read the news a bit more in-depth. There are hydrogen storage and production projects in various states allover the world in order to supply energy across the globe. This is one close at home for me: https://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2022/shell-to-start-building-europes-largest-renewable-hydrogen-plant.html (https://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2022/shell-to-start-building-europes-largest-renewable-hydrogen-plant.html)
And you are wrong about oil being an energy source. It isn't; it is stored solar energy.
And you are also wrong about electricity being a primary energy form. It is a handy intermediary form for local use but storage and/or transport over long distances is expensive.
Nuclear energy is the closest we can get to a primary energy source on earth.
A large part of the popularity of BEVs is based on hype.
There speaks a man who hasn't driven one, or at least lived with one for a while. The popularity, among those who have driven them, is that they are good to drive. I'm a petrol head of long standing, having driven a range of cars and motorbikes, for the cars mostly "performance" cars including some serious exotica and I like driving EVs. My PHEV gets driven almost exclusively in EV mode where it only has 66kW/88bhp available to drag its 1735 kg kerb weight around, but it doesn't feel like "only" 38kW/51bhp per tonne, it feels more responsive and tractable than the 130bhp/tonne sports car it replaced and that I liked so much, and couldn't find anything comparable in performance or handling, that I've stuck to driving for the last 22 years.
Then you add not having to listen to a petrol or diesel engine drone at you all the time, or the vibrations from the same, and it's a different world. Quiet, fast, calm, what's not to like.
Not yet but the wheels are in motion.Maybe you should read the news a bit more in-depth. There are hydrogen storage and production projects in various states allover the world in order to supply energy across the globe. This is one close at home for me: https://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2022/shell-to-start-building-europes-largest-renewable-hydrogen-plant.html (https://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2022/shell-to-start-building-europes-largest-renewable-hydrogen-plant.html)
Yes, there are projects for generating hydrogen. None of them are in competition with Petroleum, or more importantly, none are in competition with BEVs in any way.
So, where does oil come from according to you?QuoteAnd you are wrong about oil being an energy source. It isn't; it is stored solar energy.
LOL!!! I actually laughed at that one. When you decide to get serious, let me know and we can continue the discussion. LOL!
That remark misses the point by a mile... :palm: Look at resource and scalability issues of BEVs. If it would have made sense for my to drive in a BEV I'd would have but it doesn't. Despite living in a country that is among the few countries that has the highest percentage of BEVs driving around.A large part of the popularity of BEVs is based on hype.
There speaks a man who hasn't driven one, or at least lived with one for a while. The popularity, among those who have driven them, is that they are good to drive.
That remark misses the point by a mile... :palm: Look at resource and scalability issues of BEVs. If it would have made sense for my to drive in a BEV I'd would have but it doesn't. Despite living in a country that is among the few countries that has the highest percentage of BEVs driving around.A large part of the popularity of BEVs is based on hype.
There speaks a man who hasn't driven one, or at least lived with one for a while. The popularity, among those who have driven them, is that they are good to drive.
There speaks a man who hasn't driven one, or at least lived with one for a while. The popularity, among those who have driven them, is that they are good to drive. I'm a petrol head of long standing, having driven a range of cars and motorbikes, for the cars mostly "performance" cars including some serious exotica and I like driving EVs. My PHEV gets driven almost exclusively in EV mode where it only has 66kW/88bhp available to drag its 1735 kg kerb weight around, but it doesn't feel like "only" 38kW/51bhp per tonne, it feels more responsive and tractable than the 130bhp/tonne sports car it replaced and that I liked so much, and couldn't find anything comparable in performance or handling, that I've stuck to driving for the last 22 years.
Not yet but the wheels are in motion.Maybe you should read the news a bit more in-depth. There are hydrogen storage and production projects in various states allover the world in order to supply energy across the globe. This is one close at home for me: https://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2022/shell-to-start-building-europes-largest-renewable-hydrogen-plant.html (https://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2022/shell-to-start-building-europes-largest-renewable-hydrogen-plant.html)
Yes, there are projects for generating hydrogen. None of them are in competition with Petroleum, or more importantly, none are in competition with BEVs in any way.QuoteSo, where does oil come from according to you?QuoteAnd you are wrong about oil being an energy source. It isn't; it is stored solar energy.
LOL!!! I actually laughed at that one. When you decide to get serious, let me know and we can continue the discussion. LOL!
I just read an article about how car manufacturers are trying to make everything a "subscription" to drive future revenue, from installed hardware (that you choose whether to use or not) to software features (especially "cloud-connected" stuff). Knowing that, how will it impact the future owner-subscription model for automobiles and green-energy?
For example, would we essentially have a fleet of eco-friendly vehicles lined up to use in a neighbourhood and share them between people? Perhaps apartment blocks could have a scheduling system where you can reserve the car and pay for certain time using it. Would we be paying per mile driven? Would anyone even own their electric or hybrid vehicles, or would car manufacturers actually embed eco-friendly features and then disable them unless paying a subscription to utilize them (e.g. a larger-capacity battery but you can't use most of it).
So far we have been thinking "in the box" regarding the same standard private vehicle ownership model and commuting to work, stores, for leisure, etc. But what sort of paradigm-shifting future plans exist for transportation?
More people working and shopping from home, via the "Metaverse" can also reduce fuel consumption. Ride-sharing and other modes of transportation to reduce traffic congestion, which also wastes a ton of fuel (how many single-passenger vehicles occupying the roads). Yes we can work on making more fuel-efficient cars but that will eventually hit a limit.... it is only one part of a multi-pronged approach. I feel like other ways to reduce transportation in general, like increasing efficiency of existing modes (not in terms of fuel but eliminating single-passengers in 5 ton vehicles, more carpooling, store deliveries, pooled shipping, lighter/smaller 1-2 passenger vehicles like weather-covered e-bikes, etc) will have more impact.
But a lot of car ownership is about convenience and the only thing more convenient than owning a car is all of the benefits of a car without actually having to park it on your drive.That sounds reasonable until you have to pay for it. What you describe is what is called a taxi. I think you will be surprised how small the part 'labour costs' is for a ride in a taxi. IOW: self driving cars as a rental form is not going to be cheaper. Especially if you are sensible with your money and buy a used car.
That sounds reasonable until you have to pay for it. What you describe is what is called a taxi. I think you will be surprised how small the part 'labour costs' is for a ride in a taxi. IOW: self driving cars as a rental form is not going to be cheaper. Especially if you are sensible with your money and buy a used car.
That sounds reasonable until you have to pay for it. What you describe is what is called a taxi. I think you will be surprised how small the part 'labour costs' is for a ride in a taxi. IOW: self driving cars as a rental form is not going to be cheaper. Especially if you are sensible with your money and buy a used car.
I see no reason that a SDC would be more expensive than owning your own car, especially when you consider insurance, maintenance, breakdowns etc.
A taxi driver around here makes about £15 per hour if busy, if they do 30 mph average that's 50p per mile. Most taxi companies charge about 80p-£1 per mile around here. And there's no reason an SDC would need to be a new vehicle - they could easily do 500k miles before being scrapped if designed right.
My car (reasonably sized station wagon) costs me around 0.21 euro per km all in while not skimping on any maintenance. Next car is going to be cheaper due to lower fuel consumption.That sounds reasonable until you have to pay for it. What you describe is what is called a taxi. I think you will be surprised how small the part 'labour costs' is for a ride in a taxi. IOW: self driving cars as a rental form is not going to be cheaper. Especially if you are sensible with your money and buy a used car.
I see no reason that a SDC would be more expensive than owning your own car, especially when you consider insurance, maintenance, breakdowns etc.
My car (reasonably sized station wagon) costs me around 0.21 euro per km all in while not skimping on any maintenance. Next car is going to be cheaper due to lower fuel consumption.
Its like you two have been here before.....My car (reasonably sized station wagon) costs me around 0.21 euro per km all in while not skimping on any maintenance. Next car is going to be cheaper due to lower fuel consumption.
Are you truly including all of the other costs of a car?
- Space to park it, either on a driveway or an area with sufficient street parking, which influences where you can afford to live
nctnico is on the side of parking should be provided for free/subsidised by others.Not to mention, EVs don't need to charge at 6pm, like when you might put the oven on, which creates a lot of demand. EVs can charge at 2am, parked on your driveway,Can you please get me a driveway? And while you are at it, thousands of people that live in my neighbourhood would like one as well. And make it two driveways for the households with two cars.
I know of some fossil vehicle models that routinely do 500k without major repairs, so it is possible to build vehicles like that.My car (reasonably sized station wagon) costs me around 0.21 euro per km all in while not skimping on any maintenance. Next car is going to be cheaper due to lower fuel consumption.
Are you truly including all of the other costs of a car?
- Space to park it, either on a driveway or an area with sufficient street parking, which influences where you can afford to live
- Opportunity-cost and actual cost from servicing (take it in for a service, emissions test etc.) or if you do as much of this yourself, the time cost
- Cost of a breakdown, like a large repair bill if something expensive goes wrong
- Taxes and disincentives towards driving (parking fees, toll fees to enter city centres)
I do think a well built electric SDC could achieve 500k miles with ordinary maintenance. The battery pack or chassis perforation from rust would be the most common reasons to scrap a vehicle IMO. Ultimately it would cost less to sporadically hire one than to leave a car on your driveway.
I know of some fossil vehicle models that routinely do 500k without major repairs, so it is possible to build vehicles like that.
they know what it actually costs ;)
You in some other country, sure. That doesn't say that the Australian tax department has a bad handle on what a car costs to operate, its very very close to real world figures (have checked with an accountant who do this for their clients).they know what it actually costs ;)No, they really don't. The tax agency numbers are typically based on reasonable costs for an average newer vehicle. Your numbers and their numbers may be wildly off the mark for others. In your example, registration and parking are over half your total cost. For me and many others, those are nearly nil.
I'm not doxxing myself by providing the models of the vehicles I have. US cars and salty snow regions are famous for being short lived, out in arid Australia away from the salt breezes on the coast cars can and do last. In the local area we have many 25-40 year old cars in use as daily drivers, which is completely unimaginable for those from salt land/belt. The average age of a car in Australia is over 10 years old:I know of some fossil vehicle models that routinely do 500k without major repairs, so it is possible to build vehicles like that.Any examples? My (extensive) experience tells me that vehicles don't get that far without both a significant repair budget and a willingness to allow the overall condition of the vehicle to deteriorate a bit. I've seen some Prius taxis still running around at 300K miles, but there is some survivor bias built into those types of anecdotes.
That doesn't say that the Australian tax department has a bad handle on what a car costs to operate, its very very close to real world figures (have checked with an accountant who do this for their clients).
But to say parking has zero cost is only true for those people using on street parking, which does have a cost to others and by using it for "free" is a subsidy on the operating cost of a vehicle.
That is your choice of accounting method, which does nothing to make my explicitly stated choice of accounting method any less correct. Parking space has a market cost, if someone parking a car in a garage left it empty with nothing in its place that's a poor use of a resource, which has a opportunity cost since there are other productive (and paying) uses for that space. Incremental cost of nothing is plainly wrong when land and buildings have a cost, that should be amortised/apportioned over their use.But to say parking has zero cost is only true for those people using on street parking, which does have a cost to others and by using it for "free" is a subsidy on the operating cost of a vehicle.Unless you are building a new civilization on Mars or are just waxing eloquent on philosophical economics, you need to talk about incremental costs when it comes to changing the status quo. I have a garage, a driveway and available street parking. My current and future incremental costs for these are zero regardless of what the inputs were long ago or what expenses might be attributed to them in the future as they aren't going away even if my cars do. Many people will be in this same boat.
I explicitly stated average, and it happens that the vehicles here are almost on that average. Of course other country, other situation, other economics radically change the numbers.That doesn't say that the Australian tax department has a bad handle on what a car costs to operate, its very very close to real world figures (have checked with an accountant who do this for their clients).It isn't necessary to change countries to prove this wrong, at least in the way that I meant that it was wrong--there is no single number that works for everyone. All you would have to do is drive twice as far every year and your numbers would change drastically. So their numbers may work for many 'average' cases, but they can't work for everyone.
The Australian tax department do know what it costs to run a car in Australia, its very very close to the fairly average use case of the vehicles I operate.they know what it actually costs ;)No, they really don't.
]That is your choice of accounting method, which does nothing to make my explicitly stated choice of accounting method any less correct. Parking space has a market cost, if someone parking a car in a garage left it empty with nothing in its place that's a poor use of a resource, which has a opportunity cost since there are other productive (and paying) uses for that space.
You have paid for that garage space, but you refuse to apportion any cost to the car parking when you talk about the cost of owning/operating a car. Perhaps the purchase of the car should be "zero" as you already have it and aren't planning on selling it? Equally stupid.]That is your choice of accounting method, which does nothing to make my explicitly stated choice of accounting method any less correct. Parking space has a market cost, if someone parking a car in a garage left it empty with nothing in its place that's a poor use of a resource, which has a opportunity cost since there are other productive (and paying) uses for that space.Saying I'll be ahead by thousands every year because I'm not using my driveway is the same accounting that says a bankrupt company is going to be able to pay their bonds with shareholder equity and goodwill.
So suppose I ditched all my cars and signed up for your perpetual SDC service. What productive and paying uses would I have for my garage and driveway? I don't live in SF or Manhattan where you can sell parking spaces for $100K+. And being able to acquire and store a larger oscilloscope collection does not count as a paying use!
And being able to acquire and store a larger oscilloscope collection does not count as a paying use!
You have paid for that garage space, but you refuse to apportion any cost to the car parking when you talk about the cost of owning/operating a car. Perhaps the purchase of the car should be "zero" as you already have it and aren't planning on selling it? Equally stupid.
For people who have access to car sharing, they dont buy a garage in the first place. Hence the significant cost savings that you and others are trying to pretend aren't there. You're putting car parking "off the books" which is plainly incorrect as there is a cost.
I feel like other ways to reduce transportation in general, like increasing efficiency of existing modes (not in terms of fuel but eliminating single-passengers in 5 ton vehicles, more carpooling, store deliveries, pooled shipping, lighter/smaller 1-2 passenger vehicles like weather-covered e-bikes, etc) will have more impact.Who the hell is driving around in a 5-ton vehicle today?!
Who the hell is driving around in a 5-ton vehicle today?!
Who the hell is driving around in a 5-ton vehicle today?!
Well it isn't 5 tons, but a Tesla Model X has a GVWR of over 6700lbs and qualifies for a significant tax credit (Section 179) for being over 3 tons.
Again, in an urban environment that can be managed, but it is much harder in a suburban scene and impossible in rural areas. Your SDCs will be driving 40-100% more miles than private cars for equivalent use in my area.You can keep picking out unusual/corner cases all you like, I put forward some very average figures and explicitly stated as such.
I can give you simple numbers for our very-low-usage vehicle that we only use for long trips. 2010 Honda Accord, we've had it 12 years and driven it 42k miles. All maintenance including a set of tires has been less than $2400.That is an unbelievably low maintenance cost including tires. I can't even get an oil change for $200 (the oil wholesale is $100 already). Brand new cars with their "free" servicing don't even get that cheap on average:
....
Maintenance 200
One of the auto associations here puts out a broad (but somewhat shallow) analysis:All this kicked off with what I was (again explicitly) responding to:
https://rac.com.au/car-motoring/info/buying-a-car/running-costs
But do keep trying to argue my referenced figures are "wrong", under your entirely different set of assumptions and accounting (that you haven't been making explicit).My car (reasonably sized station wagon) costs me around 0.21 euro per km all in while not skimping on any maintenance. Next car is going to be cheaper due to lower fuel consumption.
Are you truly including all of the other costs of a car?
- Space to park it, either on a driveway or an area with sufficient street parking, which influences where you can afford to live
- Opportunity-cost and actual cost from servicing (take it in for a service, emissions test etc.) or if you do as much of this yourself, the time cost
- Cost of a breakdown, like a large repair bill if something expensive goes wrong
- Taxes and disincentives towards driving (parking fees, toll fees to enter city centres)
The US consumer vehicle market is completely distorted, and the majority of their consumers are happy with the cheap inefficient trucks that it produces. Leave them to it. But do fight if they try and push that in your country (Australia is now wash with US style "trucks" after the local manufactures died off).It's a ridiculous tax rule where trucks are exempt, and SUVs get classified as light trucks. It needs to go. I mean fair enough for a pickup if it's a legitimate business expense as in the bed is full of gravel or tools all the time, but an SUV...Who the hell is driving around in a 5-ton vehicle today?!Well it isn't 5 tons, but a Tesla Model X has a GVWR of over 6700lbs and qualifies for a significant tax credit (Section 179) for being over 3 tons.
Yes. The majority of the costs (over 60%) are fuel costs anyway. After that tyres and suspension parts (I don't skimp on safety so I change the tyres long before they are at the wear indicators and I have the shock absorbers changed every 150k km). My previous car was even cheaper per km (around 0.18 euro per km) but that ran on diesel and the fuel prices where lower when I drove around in it. But again: I very very carefully select the car I buy -used- for low TCO.My car (reasonably sized station wagon) costs me around 0.21 euro per km all in while not skimping on any maintenance. Next car is going to be cheaper due to lower fuel consumption.
Are you truly including all of the other costs of a car?
- Space to park it, either on a driveway or an area with sufficient street parking, which influences where you can afford to live
- Opportunity-cost and actual cost from servicing (take it in for a service, emissions test etc.) or if you do as much of this yourself, the time cost
- Cost of a breakdown, like a large repair bill if something expensive goes wrong
- Taxes and disincentives towards driving (parking fees, toll fees to enter city centres)
I can't even get an oil change for $200 (the oil wholesale is $100 already)...
...But do keep trying to argue my referenced figures are "wrong", under your entirely different set of assumptions and accounting (that you haven't been making explicit).
Prices are similar over here. An oil change with full synthetic oil and filter sets me back almost 80 euro. Not worth doing it myself.I can't even get an oil change for $200 (the oil wholesale is $100 already)...
...But do keep trying to argue my referenced figures are "wrong", under your entirely different set of assumptions and accounting (that you haven't been making explicit).
Perhaps $AUD are weaker than I thought? A 5-quart bottle of very high grade synthetic oil runs me $40, but I could cut that in half if I went with a cheaper brand.
Yes, I do most of the work on my own, but if you want to count that as a 'cost'....how much more clearly do we have to say this....
Are you truly including all of the other costs of a car?Keep talking off in the other direction, its just you making noise at this point. The argument has been carefully framed and explained, unlike your meander up the garden path to some backwater.
do as much of this yourself, the time cost
Yes, I do most of the work on my own, but if you want to count that as a 'cost', I want to add back in the time that I wait for your SDC service every time I summon it.The US has had (driven) rideshare wider/longer than other western countries, its nothing new. You dont think "oh I'd like to do something" and wait while staring at the wall. Like anything else (buying a car, fuelling/maintaining/storing it) you think ahead, order a ride share to turn up when you are planning to need it. But this is your corner case of rural/dispersed living.... which isn't representative of the majority of people living on the planet, who live in cities where a distributed transport system is minutes away just like taxis. Shared cars are fairly easily available here, you can walk around the corner and pick one up.
But this is your corner case of rural/dispersed living.... which isn't representative of the majority of people living on the planet, who live in cities where a distributed transport system is minutes away just like taxis. Shared cars are fairly easily available here, you can walk around the corner and pick one up.
The basics are already there and routine/well known. It is the economics that will change it over. While people keep imaging cars are cheap to run because they ignore/discount all the fixed costs and only look at the incremental cost of fuel it massively distorts that. So yes, I'll keep pushing back and pointing out how the private motor centric viewpoint is blinkered, misleading, entrenched, and against most individuals financial interest.
US has been car centric since the 50's, its part of the culture. That is one barrier, and something entirely different to density/distance/availability which is what you started brining up.But this is your corner case of rural/dispersed living.... which isn't representative of the majority of people living on the planet, who live in cities where a distributed transport system is minutes away just like taxis. Shared cars are fairly easily available here, you can walk around the corner and pick one up.But I'd guess (by a fair amount of observation with local knowledge...) that fewer than 20% of the people in my state (an 0% in my county) could switch to rideshare or shared car services and eliminate their vehicles.
As for corner cases--what? All of rural and suburban USA is a 'corner case'? There's no way to avoid deadheading if you are using a reasonable number (not too many) of vehicles.
OMG :palm: Another 'truth' video from Youtube :horse:
No, it is a reaction to people pulling random videos from Youtube to prove some kind of point that doesn't exist. I wish people stopped doing that and stuck to actual science that can be verified. Every year KPMG puts together a nice report about what the automotive industry may look like in the near future. That is a far more interesting read (and it doesn't claim to be the truth; just a detailed report on what is going on).OMG :palm: Another 'truth' video from Youtube :horse:
Do you just react instinctively to things like this? Is it like an area of your brain dedicated to "yuck, climate change stuff"?
There are so many wheels in motion that it is impossible to predict what the world will look like after 25 years. Just look at how the world has changed during the last 25 years. Mobile phones... flat TVs... internet... . The last few years alone have been quite a ride. Whatever long term plans are being made, these are going to be overtaken and obsoleted by technological and geopolitical developments.
However, seems you're just going to keep arguing to the ends of the earth about how your US car centric view is the "majority".... :-//
Rideshares and taxis work well in lieu of personally owned vehicles in congested urban areas if other public transportation doesn't work well. Suburban USA, not so much. Rural USA, no way in hell. I'm guessing it isn't so much different in other countries that I've observed, but I'd be happy to defer to those that live there.
Attached is an example density of the US, the majority (within the US, before considering the 95% of the world population outside those borders) live in dense suburbs or cities not the acre+ block per person you're imagining from the mass media representations. "Exploratory analysis of suburban land cover and population density in the U.S.A". The majority of the world live in cities, the majority of the US live in cities.
I suspect places like the USA in suburbia land is so cheap it may have little impact but in denser areas it would have an impact.
As I said previously, newly developed areas or places where people already don't own cars would be different as SDC services would just be taking market share from taxis and other public transportation.If you can't imagine how a share car (self driving or not) is different to a taxi or mass transit, then you're never going to get it.
the SDC service will always have a higher per-mile cost unless you try to add back in things like the cost of parking at home. Thus your viable cases for an SDC service are where parking is unavailable or prohibitively expensiveWe get it, you want to cost parking as zero. That's explicitly what we said is misleading, as parking has a cost. Private cars are parked up and doing nothing more than 95% of the time, storing all those cars while they are doing nothing is a cost to the individual and society. The promise of car sharing is that the number of vehicles required will be reduced, and the fixed operating costs (parking, registration, etc) are divided among many users which should more than offset the additional repositioning movements.
The core problem with these ideas, IMO, is that you are simply replacing a car with a different car. My cost example, as low as it was, was my most expensive per-mile car. We have a BEV that we use for the majority of our driving and the incremental cost of keeping it around is trivial. Even when Uber was subsidized by investor cash and by drivers not understanding how much their (required) newer cars were depreciating and wearing, they were much more expensive than just driving our own. And for me and a lot of others, cost isn't the primary factor--as I said, you could triple my costs and it wouldn't affect my decision nor that of any of my neighbors AFAIK.
So to sum it all up: An SDC service as opposed to a privately owned car (which, b/t/w, could also be an SDC if they ever actually produce one) will always end up driving more miles simply because there is always at least some deadheading. Because of that and the nature of a for-profit operation where there is always at least some overhead, staff, etc, the SDC service will always have a higher per-mile cost unless you try to add back in things like the cost of parking at home. Thus your viable cases for an SDC service are where parking is unavailable or prohibitively expensive (on an incremental basis, not paid-in like mine) or the paid-in parking owner can somehow recover value from the unused parking and there are not good public transportation options already and the users don't mind other aspects of shared usage, like not being able to keep their beach chairs in the trunk.
Think about it this way, if say the average CA car is $40,000 and lasts 15 years and does the average of 12k miles per year, then per mile depreciation alone is 22 cents per mile (that's more than nct's quoted cost on depreciation alone, but this is a new car.)The average car in the US is 12.2 years old. (I think, but am not sure, that this is the average of registered cars.) Given that CA is one of the better climates for car longevity, I think it's far to estimate that cars last quite a bit longer than 15 years, likely bringing the figure you calculate down to $0.12-15.
Indeed. Cars don't get scrapped after 12 years but sold to a new owner. Typically cars get exported to drive around for another 15 to 20 years in a different country (or in case of the US: maybe a different state).Think about it this way, if say the average CA car is $40,000 and lasts 15 years and does the average of 12k miles per year, then per mile depreciation alone is 22 cents per mile (that's more than nct's quoted cost on depreciation alone, but this is a new car.)The average car in the US is 12.2 years old. (I think, but am not sure, that this is the average of registered cars.) Given that CA is one of the better climates for car longevity, I think it's far to estimate that cars last quite a bit longer than 15 years, likely bringing the figure you calculate down to $0.12-15.
Who the hell is driving around in a 5-ton vehicle today?!
Well it isn't 5 tons, but a Tesla Model X has a GVWR of over 6700lbs and qualifies for a significant tax credit (Section 179) for being over 3 tons.
Indeed. Cars don't get scrapped after 12 years but sold to a new owner. Typically cars get exported to drive around for another 15 to 20 years in a different country (or in case of the US: maybe a different state).
You'd have to look at the age distribution for the cars in order to draw any meaningfull conclusions. Likely a lot of cars leave the market to be exported at a relatively young age but that also means that such cars have not devalued to 0.
I will be shocked if in 10 years 50% of new cars sold are pure BEVs. In fact, I’ll take that bet, specifically for US new car sales.
With the difference in operating costs, it will become advantageous to scrap ICE vehicles before their "use by" date has expired. In 10 years, virtually all cars sold will be BEVs. Over the course of another 10 years, we won't see very many ICE left on the roads. There may remain a few diehards who want to drive for 12 hours with no breaks (the only use case where ICE has an advantage) and insist ICE is the only answer, the 1%. The life expectancy of ICE vehicles will be dramatically reduced.
I will be shocked if in 10 years 50% of new cars sold are pure BEVs. In fact, I’ll take that bet, specifically for US new car sales.
I have one BEV (a 2015 LEAF) and one ICE (2005 CR-V) as daily drivers. Rust will kill the CR-V before other economics will and I expect to replace it with something around 6-8 years old and with an ICE (perhaps a PHEV) when that time comes and expect they will be economical to keep running come 2032.
I will be shocked if in 10 years 50% of new cars sold are pure BEVs. In fact, I’ll take that bet, specifically for US new car sales.
I'll take that bet too, and I'm as pro-EV as they come.
The reality has already hit the EV industry head on. Batteries have not plummeted in price like predicted, even with all the Gigafactory hype, and I don't see this changing much this decade. Certainly not by the half order of magnitude drop in price required, not to mention production capability.
But that will improve. Remember Moore's Law? Still going strong after how many years? Same thing with batteries.
If you believe in basic math, you will be able to take the numbers for the last several years and see the >50% annual growth in sales. Project that forward and you will see that in 10 years nearly all new cars sold will be BEVs.
But that will improve. Remember Moore's Law? Still going strong after how many years? Same thing with batteries.
No, Moore's Law doesn't apply to everything, sometimes there are hard limits. It doesn't even apply to semiconductors anymore as reality has been lagging the (thrice revised b/t/w) 'Law' of doubling density every two years. Remember the Concorde SST? Well, it turned out that supersonic travel continued to be prohibitively difficult and expensive, so we're pretty much stuck going about the same speed as the original 707. There has been tremendous effort put into battery technology for decades what we've achieved is what we have. Double the power density at half the cost? That will take a miraculous breakthrough. Will it happen? IDK, but it ain't no sure thing.
If you believe in basic math, you will be able to take the numbers for the last several years and see the >50% annual growth in sales. Project that forward and you will see that in 10 years nearly all new cars sold will be BEVs.
Project it forward another 10 years and every person on the planet will have 42 BEVs. Or something on that order. Math is tricky like that. Don't be an economist, use math wisely!
The only possible monkey wrench I see is the possibility of raw materials, such as lithium, limiting production rates.
The VW ID.3 comes with a 58kWh battery and outside of chip shortage times you could get one for 26,000 EUR. It's nearly the same capacity battery that one of the variants of the Model S offered.
The Nissan Leaf had a 24kWh battery, smaller motor, worse build quality and cost more than 26,000 EUR new, 8 years ago.
It's madness to say battery prices haven't fallen.
Don't forget the government subsidies.
Yes they have fallen, but not as dramatically as required to make EV's closer to parity with ICE cars. A new small ICE car in the Uk still costs half that.
And market forces are currently driving battery prices back up.
Batteries still aren't *cheap*, but they definitely have fallen substantially.
Not to mention that EV's simply aren't practically suitable to a large percentage of the population.Except that is from the mindset of like for like replacement (and the often repeated even on here "My car is my car and I won't use different vehicles on different days") yet the majority of households have multiple cars and the vast majority of those can swap out one of their cars without any practical impact.
Current Lithium based batteries practically hit the raw material cost so they won't be significantly cheaper. Rather might even go a little up.The solid state li-ion is supposed to drop the price of the cells by half. And integration and electronics will be cheaper, as they could use higher voltage battery packs, like lead acid, without cell balancing.
Maybe Sodium based ones in 10 or so years, can offer a solution, but who knows.
And when I look at the price of BEVs without subsidy it is not nice
Volkswagen ID.3 58kWh current price 48-50k €
Nissan Leaf 39kWh 35k € for the cheapest model and 59kW starts at 43k €
Hyundai IONIQ 5 58 kWh starts at 47k €
Kia EV6 58kWh starts at 52k €
Those are not affordable cars for the average Joe
Not to mention a proper car sharing infrastructure would eliminate a lot of that anxiety.
VW had/have a scheme where if you want to go on a really long trip and you have an EV you can rent a dirty diesel from them - and I think 1 week's rental per year of lease is free.
But I guess it's the same reason people drive big SUVs. They want a car for that 1% of the time when they go to the airport, or on a long road trip etc, but most of the time they use it to commute to work and back or get shopping etc with one or two passengers. And it's really a waste of resources because it's *hard* to share a car. Improving that is really important.
“You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.”
The WEF just came out recently and said they won't want you to own a car.
Yeah, nah.
Not to mention a proper car sharing infrastructure would eliminate a lot of that anxiety.It sure is hard to share a car.
VW had/have a scheme where if you want to go on a really long trip and you have an EV you can rent a dirty diesel from them - and I think 1 week's rental per year of lease is free.
But I guess it's the same reason people drive big SUVs. They want a car for that 1% of the time when they go to the airport, or on a long road trip etc, but most of the time they use it to commute to work and back or get shopping etc with one or two passengers. And it's really a waste of resources because it's *hard* to share a car. Improving that is really important.
Which is why very few people are suggesting that every household will use exclusively share cars. Share cars, easily and economically replace cars that are used infrequently. There is already a demand management in place which works for: airlines, hire cars, rental accommodation, the price goes up during cultural "peak" demand. Even at those higher rates, it still makes economic sense to hire/rent. Or are you the 0.001% who own their own jet and international holiday accommodation for each season? Convenience has a very high cost when all that is being held operational for use only a tiny fraction of the time.Not to mention a proper car sharing infrastructure would eliminate a lot of that anxiety.It sure is hard to share a car.
VW had/have a scheme where if you want to go on a really long trip and you have an EV you can rent a dirty diesel from them - and I think 1 week's rental per year of lease is free.
But I guess it's the same reason people drive big SUVs. They want a car for that 1% of the time when they go to the airport, or on a long road trip etc, but most of the time they use it to commute to work and back or get shopping etc with one or two passengers. And it's really a waste of resources because it's *hard* to share a car. Improving that is really important.
Part of the reason that it's hard to share a long-range car that people might want for 2 weeks out of 52 is that a lot of people will want that car around the same time (summer holidays and Christmas trips). I don't think there's any amount of demand management that's going to make people happy to make their winter family visit on the 4th week in January instead of over Christmas and New Years.
Which is why very few people are suggesting that every household will use exclusively share cars. Share cars, easily and economically replace cars that are used infrequently. There is already a demand management in place which works for: airlines, hire cars, rental accommodation, the price goes up during cultural "peak" demand. Even at those higher rates, it still makes economic sense to hire/rent. Or are you the 0.001% who own their own jet and international holiday accommodation for each season? Convenience has a very high cost when all that is being held operational for use only a tiny fraction of the time.Not to mention a proper car sharing infrastructure would eliminate a lot of that anxiety.It sure is hard to share a car.
VW had/have a scheme where if you want to go on a really long trip and you have an EV you can rent a dirty diesel from them - and I think 1 week's rental per year of lease is free.
But I guess it's the same reason people drive big SUVs. They want a car for that 1% of the time when they go to the airport, or on a long road trip etc, but most of the time they use it to commute to work and back or get shopping etc with one or two passengers. And it's really a waste of resources because it's *hard* to share a car. Improving that is really important.
Part of the reason that it's hard to share a long-range car that people might want for 2 weeks out of 52 is that a lot of people will want that car around the same time (summer holidays and Christmas trips). I don't think there's any amount of demand management that's going to make people happy to make their winter family visit on the 4th week in January instead of over Christmas and New Years.
People like owning stuff, and that will always trickle up the ladder depending on your your wealth level and desire.roughly 1/3 of Australians own a house, 1/3 loan leveraged, 1/3 renting. Similarly 1/4 of people with a car have it on finance. A house generally appreciates (over recent history, bubble etc) while a car is almost always a depreciating asset which is where it falls apart on an ownership model.
For majority of people the car ranks right up there with owning a house.
The only possible monkey wrench I see is the possibility of raw materials, such as lithium, limiting production rates.
Bingo. Throw in home and grid storage demand and your supply problems get harder.
People like owning stuff, and that will always trickle up the ladder depending on your your wealth level and desire.roughly 1/3 of Australians own a house, 1/3 loan leveraged, 1/3 renting. Similarly 1/4 of people with a car have it on finance. A house generally appreciates (over recent history, bubble etc) while a car is almost always a depreciating asset which is where it falls apart on an ownership model.
For majority of people the car ranks right up there with owning a house.
Its a social pressure to own those things, and people buy in despite the economics saying otherwise. Then convince themselves and others that it was the "right" thing to do with the sorts of misleading arguments flying about in here. Having been in all the different combinations of above (rent/leverage/own house, rent/own/share car) there can be situations where one is more profitable than the other. Trying to make generalizations across "majority" when that is mostly based on feelings/desires rather than financial basics, you can say it all you like. I'll point out how its to (the majorities) financial detriment.
Batteries still aren't *cheap*, but they definitely have fallen substantially.
Of course they have, there is a big market for them now.
But have not, and probaly will not drop enough for Joe Average to think EV's a no-brainer compared to their ICE car.
Not to mention that EV's simply aren't practically suitable to a large percentage of the population. And I don't see that changing either until you can get a large range at a cheap price AND the ability to recharge in a few minutes.
Its a social pressure to own those things, and people buy in despite the economics saying otherwise. Then convince themselves and others that it was the "right" thing to do with the sorts of misleading arguments flying about in here.
A house generally appreciates (over recent history, bubble etc) while a car is almost always a depreciating asset which is where it falls apart on an ownership model.
Which "large percentage" of the population would find BEVs impractical?
I often hear how the UK has far too many cars parking on the street making it impossible to charge at home. That's not actually the case, since level 2 charging can be placed anywhere, literally.
It's turtles all the way down.
People like owning stuff, and that will always trickle up the ladder depending on your your wealth level and desire.
For majority of people the car ranks right up there with owning a house.
Lol, spoken like someone who has never shared or rented a car. I'm not pushing utopia on anyone, just pointing out the blinkered thinking that leads people to incorrectly believe a car is cheap convenience.Its a social pressure to own those things, and people buy in despite the economics saying otherwise. Then convince themselves and others that it was the "right" thing to do with the sorts of misleading arguments flying about in here.It's not social pressure, its more like not wanting to be annoyed with having to deal with other people's issues on a daily basis. I don't want to have to deal with a car that has other people's fast food wrappers and cat vomit in it. OTOH, if I happen to eat lunch on the road or my cat throws up in the car, maybe I'd like to wait a week before cleaning it up. That's a big reason why people like to own their cars (and houses), at least in my case. If you like your utopian model, then go for it. Just don't expect to be able to impose it on the majority of the population.
Which "large percentage" of the population would find BEVs impractical?
I often hear how the UK has far too many cars parking on the street making it impossible to charge at home. That's not actually the case, since level 2 charging can be placed anywhere, literally.
It is actually the case for those that have investigated it and say it's a problem. I hear this all the time.
Its a social pressure to own those things, and people buy in despite the economics saying otherwise. Then convince themselves and others that it was the "right" thing to do with the sorts of misleading arguments flying about in here.
It's not social pressure, its more like not wanting to be annoyed with having to deal with other people's issues on a daily basis. I don't want to have to deal with a car that has other people's fast food wrappers and cat vomit in it. OTOH, if I happen to eat lunch on the road or my cat throws up in the car, maybe I'd like to wait a week before cleaning it up. That's a big reason why people like to own their cars (and houses), at least in my case. If you like your utopian model, then go for it. Just don't expect to be able to impose it on the majority of the population.
I often hear how the UK has far too many cars parking on the street making it impossible to charge at home. That's not actually the case, since level 2 charging can be placed anywhere, literally. The cord can be with the car, leaving only a connector on the EVSE, so little opportunity for stealing the copper (much harder to do when in use).
So anecdotal and not anything we can actually debate.Which "large percentage" of the population would find BEVs impractical?It is actually the case for those that have investigated it and say it's a problem. I hear this all the time.
I often hear how the UK has far too many cars parking on the street making it impossible to charge at home. That's not actually the case, since level 2 charging can be placed anywhere, literally.
Lol, spoken like someone who has never shared or rented a car. I'm not pushing utopia on anyone, just pointing out the blinkered thinking that leads people to incorrectly believe a car is cheap convenience.
Which "large percentage" of the population would find BEVs impractical?
I often hear how the UK has far too many cars parking on the street making it impossible to charge at home. That's not actually the case, since level 2 charging can be placed anywhere, literally. The cord can be with the car, leaving only a connector on the EVSE, so little opportunity for stealing the copper (much harder to do when in use).
If you want to fly around the holidays, you need to book well in advance, otherwise you don't go. That doesn't mean people buy their own airplanes.
People like owning stuff, and that will always trickle up the ladder depending on your your wealth level and desire.roughly 1/3 of Australians own a house, 1/3 loan leveraged, 1/3 renting. Similarly 1/4 of people with a car have it on finance. A house generally appreciates (over recent history, bubble etc) while a car is almost always a depreciating asset which is where it falls apart on an ownership model.
For majority of people the car ranks right up there with owning a house.
Its a social pressure to own those things, and people buy in despite the economics saying otherwise. Then convince themselves and others that it was the "right" thing to do with the sorts of misleading arguments flying about in here. Having been in all the different combinations of above (rent/leverage/own house, rent/own/share car) there can be situations where one is more profitable than the other. Trying to make generalizations across "majority" when that is mostly based on feelings/desires rather than financial basics, you can say it all you like. I'll point out how its to (the majorities) financial detriment.
You don't hear horror stories about people paying cash for a car (lemons aside, warranties generally cover that). But there are countless horror stories of people coming-a-gutsa on car loans. They literally make drama stories on the current affairs shows with monotinous regularly.
If you have the available cash, buy the car, it's pretty uch ano-brainer unless you have other cricumstances like you move or change jobs often or don't have the lifestyle etc. Yes it depreciates with time, but it's also a cash insurance buffer that should SHTF, you can sell it and get instant cash. But if SHTF financially and you are locked into a car repayment loan, good luck.
Only with hindsight can you look back and calculate the overall financial analysis. And sometimes, that's not the point.
I would strongly advise people, as first order advice, don't get a car loan. You are way better off buying a junker outright than going into a replayment plan for a new (or heaven forbid, used) car.
And then you are almost certainly financially better off just buying a junker outright and having it to yourself.
There are hug reason why the majority own their own car (finance or otherwise). The communal rental thing will always be a niche.
And the argument against the junker is that you're buying someone else's problems. You can budget for a car payment, but can you budget a surprise $2,000 bill (or whatever) for a new transmission? Do you value reliability? Do you have the skills, the tools, the time and the space to do the repairs yourself? Can you be without the car for a day, or for the week it takes for you to repair it?This is the point that is against the "convenience", there are measurable downsides of private ownership compared to rentals, nothing extra to pay or time to spend for a maintained, warranted, and breakdown covered vehicle, its all included in a rental. The time spent getting to/from a rental or share car for me has been less than the time spent administering an owned car, which with wider adoption would only improve.
Everyone has different answers to those questions, because everyone's situation is different.
Grid storage is not likely to be lithium based going forward. Autos and other "mobile" devices have a specific need for high energy density, both by volume and by weight. Grid storage does not. Other battery technologies will dominate that market.
Currently vanadium flow batteries are looking very good for stationary storage. I just read something about a very large installation that is going in. I believe it was in an article about how the technology was developed with US funds, and somehow ended up in a Chinese factory. It seems that is being corrected with the license being pulled.
This is the point that is against the "convenience", there are measurable downsides of private ownership compared to rentals, nothing extra to pay or time to spend for a maintained, warranted, and breakdown covered vehicle, its all included in a rental. The time spent getting to/from a rental or share car for me has been less than the time spent administering an owned car, which with wider adoption would only improve.
No-one is saying they will replace all cars. Sure, have a family hatch/wagon/van/mover (sized to number of young) for the daily routine, and then share/rent/borrow a car for the non daily routine tasks.This is the point that is against the "convenience", there are measurable downsides of private ownership compared to rentals, nothing extra to pay or time to spend for a maintained, warranted, and breakdown covered vehicle, its all included in a rental. The time spent getting to/from a rental or share car for me has been less than the time spent administering an owned car, which with wider adoption would only improve.Do you have a family? Doesn't work so well then.
There is ofcourse a number of people for whom owning a car is some kind of status symbol. But I think the group that simply needs a financially sensible car to travel to/from work every day is much larger. In the Netherlands used cars outsell new cars roughly 4 to 1.Which is why very few people are suggesting that every household will use exclusively share cars. Share cars, easily and economically replace cars that are used infrequently. There is already a demand management in place which works for: airlines, hire cars, rental accommodation, the price goes up during cultural "peak" demand. Even at those higher rates, it still makes economic sense to hire/rent. Or are you the 0.001% who own their own jet and international holiday accommodation for each season? Convenience has a very high cost when all that is being held operational for use only a tiny fraction of the time.Not to mention a proper car sharing infrastructure would eliminate a lot of that anxiety.It sure is hard to share a car.
VW had/have a scheme where if you want to go on a really long trip and you have an EV you can rent a dirty diesel from them - and I think 1 week's rental per year of lease is free.
But I guess it's the same reason people drive big SUVs. They want a car for that 1% of the time when they go to the airport, or on a long road trip etc, but most of the time they use it to commute to work and back or get shopping etc with one or two passengers. And it's really a waste of resources because it's *hard* to share a car. Improving that is really important.
Part of the reason that it's hard to share a long-range car that people might want for 2 weeks out of 52 is that a lot of people will want that car around the same time (summer holidays and Christmas trips). I don't think there's any amount of demand management that's going to make people happy to make their winter family visit on the 4th week in January instead of over Christmas and New Years.
It's turtles all the way down.
People like owning stuff, and that will always trickle up the ladder depending on your your wealth level and desire.
For majority of people the car ranks right up there with owning a house.
And the argument against the junker is that you're buying someone else's problems. You can budget for a car payment, but can you budget a surprise $2,000 bill (or whatever) for a new transmission? Do you value reliability?I don't think you have to do repairs yourself to run a car cheaply. I never had to. If you select a car carefully so you know the model is reliable + have the actual car checked by a mechanic before buying it, you won't be in for nasty surprises. Next to lending money for a car, the worst thing to do is buy a used car simply because it looks pretty. Typically I spend between 800 to 1500 euro on a used car to get it back to the proper maintenance level (including good tyres). With >80% devaluation eaten by the previous owner, that is well worth the money.
And the argument against the junker is that you're buying someone else's problems. You can budget for a car payment, but can you budget a surprise $2,000 bill (or whatever) for a new transmission? Do you value reliability? Do you have the skills, the tools, the time and the space to do the repairs yourself? Can you be without the car for a day, or for the week it takes for you to repair it?
Everyone has different answers to those questions, because everyone's situation is different.
I often hear how the UK has far too many cars parking on the street making it impossible to charge at home. That's not actually the case, since level 2 charging can be placed anywhere, literally. The cord can be with the car, leaving only a connector on the EVSE, so little opportunity for stealing the copper (much harder to do when in use).
I know multiple people in my town who have no parking - they own cars, and they own a house or rent a flat, and have no assured place to park and with that, no place to charge a BEV except sitting at a (currently rare, mostly slow) public charger.
It is a problem, whether you want to admit it or not. One which must be solved, not handwaved away.
So anecdotal and not anything we can actually debate.Which "large percentage" of the population would find BEVs impractical?It is actually the case for those that have investigated it and say it's a problem. I hear this all the time.
I often hear how the UK has far too many cars parking on the street making it impossible to charge at home. That's not actually the case, since level 2 charging can be placed anywhere, literally.
I know people who have said it, and in some cases, have seen their actual living situtations myself, and I know it's true.
I don't want to debate it, it's a literal truth that many people do not have the ability to practically charge an EV. And it's often not easy to get such infrastructure installed due to physical access, cost, council regulations etc.
Which "large percentage" of the population would find BEVs impractical?
I often hear how the UK has far too many cars parking on the street making it impossible to charge at home. That's not actually the case, since level 2 charging can be placed anywhere, literally. The cord can be with the car, leaving only a connector on the EVSE, so little opportunity for stealing the copper (much harder to do when in use).
People that live in apartments or other rented accommodations with assigned parking and landlords that will not permit the installation of chargers (often for totally legitimate reasons, b/t/w). People who have a budget of under $10-15K for a used car and need a reasonable daily range. Those two alone account for a pretty large swath of the US population.
Even L2 charging isn't free or anywhere near free once you price in the wiring to it. Streetside charging, even if only outlets, is a pretty big capital outlay. I'm not sure there is enough copper available.
QuoteIf you want to fly around the holidays, you need to book well in advance, otherwise you don't go. That doesn't mean people buy their own airplanes.
They certainly do if they can afford them. I would buy a Honda Jet if I could. Unfortunately anything I could afford would only be recreational and not practical transportation.
But in the meantime, what's holding that the first half back? How can we make EVs more attractive for those guys?For two car households, I think most could already have one pure-BEV. We've been doing that since late 2014 and only twice in that timeframe has it been even moderately difficult to work out a way for both adult drivers to get where they needed to go. (Once, I just hyper-miled/rolling-roadblocked my way to 96 miles on a charge. Just this week, my wife used a DC fast charger for the first time to get ~100 miles in a single trip where I needed to use the CR-V around the house and she had to go 100 miles away. [We have a LEAF, with perhaps only 75 miles of range now.])
Grid storage is not likely to be lithium based going forward. Autos and other "mobile" devices have a specific need for high energy density, both by volume and by weight. Grid storage does not. Other battery technologies will dominate that market.
Currently vanadium flow batteries are looking very good for stationary storage. I just read something about a very large installation that is going in. I believe it was in an article about how the technology was developed with US funds, and somehow ended up in a Chinese factory. It seems that is being corrected with the license being pulled.
I think grid storage even being a battery is unlikely.
Convert it into hydrogen and store that at STP in natural gas caverns, then pull that hydrogen through a few "fool-cells" to make electricity.
Or, convert that hydrogen into natural gas using Fischer-Tropsch, or ammonia using the Haber process, and then combust as necessary (carbon-neutral fuel, assuming the natural gas leakage is kept low enough.)
Most countries that use natural gas have huge salt or geological caverns underground suitable for storing whole seasons worth of gas and it's typically at a low pressure. Reuse what we have.
Small battery-packs will handle the hour-by-hour load management but I doubt they will ever do much more than that - e.g. for the UK you'd need a 960GWh battery for 1 day's electricity (assuming demand stays as is) - that's roughly enough to build 13 million Tesla Model 3's - and you'll need more than one day worth of storage if the grid is fully renewable.
Indeed. Some 50% of UK households do in fact have driveways so those are the 'easy pickings' for installing charging.
The other half will need a solution, and it's definitely harder to solve. But in the meantime, what's holding that the first half back? How can we make EVs more attractive for those guys?
By having them for sale, to start. I don't know about the UK, but it's hard to buy a BEV in the US because they've all been sold. Some models have a 1 year waiting list. Automakers are ramping up literally as fast as they can.
Hmmm... I wonder if BEVs will ever catch on?
Indeed. Some 50% of UK households do in fact have driveways so those are the 'easy pickings' for installing charging.
The other half will need a solution, and it's definitely harder to solve. But in the meantime, what's holding that the first half back? How can we make EVs more attractive for those guys?
By having them for sale, to start. I don't know about the UK, but it's hard to buy a BEV in the US because they've all been sold. Some models have a 1 year waiting list. Automakers are ramping up literally as fast as they can.
Hmmm... I wonder if BEVs will ever catch on?
No one says 100% BEV by tomorrow. It will transition over the next 15-20 years. There will still be ICE on the road in 2040.
The power generation argument is idiotic. VW e-Golf is 4 miles per kWh... average let's say of 12,000 miles per year... So we need an extra 3,000kWh per car.
UK has 30 million cars - so extra generation of 90TWh. Country generated 323TWh last year.
So yes... It is a lot... But also it is not that much - about 25% of total generation. It seems completely feasible over the course of 20 years that generation could increase by 25%. It will, after all, need to increase as gas heating is phased out. The beauty of EVs is they can charge any time they are parked up, so they are great for soaking up excess renewables.
You might want to ease up on calling things idiotic, while ignoring data you don't like...
Generation IS a problem. But not the biggest one. Grid needs to be taken to the streets. And grid is NOT specified by kWh, but by peak power... THAT is the problem.
I hope you see that there are lot of 'ifs' and 'depends' in what you write above. And that is exactly where the problem is: lots of unknowns! The most costly part of the grid is the last bit to your home (or charging point) because that is shared by the least number of people. Load balancing schemes are a crutch and basically a sign that the grid can not deal with the load.You might want to ease up on calling things idiotic, while ignoring data you don't like...
Generation IS a problem. But not the biggest one. Grid needs to be taken to the streets. And grid is NOT specified by kWh, but by peak power... THAT is the problem.
No - sorry if I offended you, but the generation argument is parroted all the time by anti-EV zealots. I'm not saying you are one, but I've heard it so many times, and it just doesn't make sense. So it needs to die as an argument.
As for local grid upgrades, sure. Loads of people charging 7kW at night would need to be accounted for, so we will probably see the upgrades being done there. At the 11kV (local medium voltage distribution) there is almost certainly enough capacity.
It will depend especially on the distribution of cars and charging times ... For instance the average driver does like 20 miles per day so they only need 1hr of charging at 7kW for most cars. With some delayed start, that could be charged almost any time between midnight and 6am, no capacity issue even if everyone does that (oven & electric hobs at 3-4kW at 6pm is not an issue already.) But if people are charging up before summer holidays to go on a long road trip, and nearly every house is pulling 7kW... possible issue. Or if everyone on that street has a really long commute...e.g. a popular commuter town... then the average may not hold out so well.
I'm just saying the present lack of overnight charging is not the huge, impenetrable roadblock that people try to make it out to be.
This is such a trivial problem to overcome.
You might want to ease up on calling things idiotic, while ignoring data you don't like...
Generation IS a problem. But not the biggest one. Grid needs to be taken to the streets. And grid is NOT specified by kWh, but by peak power... THAT is the problem.
No - sorry if I offended you, but the generation argument is parroted all the time by anti-EV zealots. I'm not saying you are one, but I've heard it so many times, and it just doesn't make sense. So it needs to die as an argument.
As for local grid upgrades, sure. Loads of people charging 7kW at night would need to be accounted for, so we will probably see the upgrades being done there. At the 11kV (local medium voltage distribution) there is almost certainly enough capacity.
It will depend especially on the distribution of cars and charging times ... For instance the average driver does like 20 miles per day so they only need 1hr of charging at 7kW for most cars. With some delayed start, that could be charged almost any time between midnight and 6am, no capacity issue even if everyone does that (oven & electric hobs at 3-4kW at 6pm is not an issue already.) But if people are charging up before summer holidays to go on a long road trip, and nearly every house is pulling 7kW... possible issue. Or if everyone on that street has a really long commute...e.g. a popular commuter town... then the average may not hold out so well.
One thing I've learned recently is there's a serious lack of monitoring at the secondary side of most of the UK's LV distribution - the DNOs (local network operators) often only know there's a capacity issue when fuses blow or transformers show excess wear upon periodic inspection. That will probably change. Fortunately one benefit of smart metering, I suppose, is that this can be monitored on a street-by-street level so it will be possible to figure out what needs to be done and where.
QuoteEven L2 charging isn't free or anywhere near free once you price in the wiring to it. Streetside charging, even if only outlets, is a pretty big capital outlay. I'm not sure there is enough copper available.
LOL. Ok, if you say so.
Exactly. It is primary and absolutely "impenetrable" block for me to buy BEV. I cannot have it fuelled (charged) so it will not drive me anywhere. And that holds true for ALL the people (several hundreds of them) living on my street. What am I saying, all of the 5000-10000 people living in this part of town have no chargers available. Only people I know here that have BEVs have private houses with garages ad driveways where they can charge at home, and not a single one have BEV as only vehicle.I'm just saying the present lack of overnight charging is not the huge, impenetrable roadblock that people try to make it out to be.
It is for those who do not have it. The difference between 'now' and 'some indeterminate time in the future with no concrete plans' seems lost on you.
Indeed. Some 50% of UK households do in fact have driveways so those are the 'easy pickings' for installing charging.
The other half will need a solution, and it's definitely harder to solve. But in the meantime, what's holding that the first half back? How can we make EVs more attractive for those guys?
By having them for sale, to start. I don't know about the UK, but it's hard to buy a BEV in the US because they've all been sold. Some models have a 1 year waiting list. Automakers are ramping up literally as fast as they can.
Hmmm... I wonder if BEVs will ever catch on?
Less than 1% of the 250 million cars, SUVs and light-duty trucks on the road in the United States are electric.
Percentage of BEV in sales of new cars is irrelevant.
https://graphics.reuters.com/AUTOS-ELECTRIC/USA/mopanyqxwva/
World figures are somewhere better, somewhere worse..
It is easy to talk about infrastructure when 1% of cars on road are BEV.
It is easy to say they will scale electricity production, high voltage distribution networks, millions of local transformer stations, hundreds of millions of chargers etc..etc... But making current BEV electricity infrastructure 50-100x larger than now is colossal undertaking...
Making 50-100x more batteries for BEV than now???
Indeed. Some 50% of UK households do in fact have driveways so those are the 'easy pickings' for installing charging.
The other half will need a solution, and it's definitely harder to solve. But in the meantime, what's holding that the first half back? How can we make EVs more attractive for those guys?
By having them for sale, to start. I don't know about the UK, but it's hard to buy a BEV in the US because they've all been sold. Some models have a 1 year waiting list. Automakers are ramping up literally as fast as they can.
Hmmm... I wonder if BEVs will ever catch on?
Less than 1% of the 250 million cars, SUVs and light-duty trucks on the road in the United States are electric.
Percentage of BEV in sales of new cars is irrelevant.
https://graphics.reuters.com/AUTOS-ELECTRIC/USA/mopanyqxwva/
World figures are somewhere better, somewhere worse..
It is easy to talk about infrastructure when 1% of cars on road are BEV.
It is easy to say they will scale electricity production, high voltage distribution networks, millions of local transformer stations, hundreds of millions of chargers etc..etc... But making current BEV electricity infrastructure 50-100x larger than now is colossal undertaking...
Making 50-100x more batteries for BEV than now???
Wow! I don't know if you are uninformed or choosing to be in denial. How much do you believe electrical production capacity will need to be increased? Not talking about production, but capacity. How many electrical generating plants will be built to supply BEVs by 2040 when nearly all cars on the road are BEVs?
Yes, we will need to build an EVSE for every BEV sold. Let's see... comparing the issue of building a quarter billion BEVs, vs building a quarter billion EVSE... Yeah, I guess the EVSE are going to be the road block. Clearly impossible.
I mean, wow! There's no way we could go from none to everyone having one of something in 30 years! Wait, what am I typing this on?
No one says 100% BEV by tomorrow. It will transition over the next 15-20 years. There will still be ICE on the road in 2040.There will be some offset by this:
The power generation argument is idiotic. VW e-Golf is 4 miles per kWh... average let's say of 12,000 miles per year... So we need an extra 3,000kWh per car.
UK has 30 million cars - so extra generation of 90TWh. Country generated 323TWh last year.
So yes... It is a lot... But also it is not that much - about 25% of total generation. It seems completely feasible over the course of 20 years that generation could increase by 25%. It will, after all, need to increase as gas heating is phased out. The beauty of EVs is they can charge any time they are parked up, so they are great for soaking up excess renewables.
Vanadium flow batteries are around for at least a decade yet is anywhere any working installation?Grid storage is not likely to be lithium based going forward. Autos and other "mobile" devices have a specific need for high energy density, both by volume and by weight. Grid storage does not. Other battery technologies will dominate that market.
Currently vanadium flow batteries are looking very good for stationary storage. I just read something about a very large installation that is going in. I believe it was in an article about how the technology was developed with US funds, and somehow ended up in a Chinese factory. It seems that is being corrected with the license being pulled.
I think grid storage even being a battery is unlikely.
Convert it into hydrogen and store that at STP in natural gas caverns, then pull that hydrogen through a few "fool-cells" to make electricity.
Here's the big reason that is not a good idea, battery storage is between 80% and 90% efficient. You can't get anywhere near that with hydrogen. If your goal is to waste energy using expensive processes, then hydrogen is ideal.QuoteOr, convert that hydrogen into natural gas using Fischer-Tropsch, or ammonia using the Haber process, and then combust as necessary (carbon-neutral fuel, assuming the natural gas leakage is kept low enough.)
Now you are doubling down on bad ideas. You need to keep in mind the goal of using renewable energy. It is to reduce and ultimately eliminate pollution, mostly the carbon emissions of fossil fuels. The processes you list above start with fossil fuels as feedstocks. You could substitute synthetic fuel or biomass derived fuels, but the cost would be quite prohibitive.QuoteMost countries that use natural gas have huge salt or geological caverns underground suitable for storing whole seasons worth of gas and it's typically at a low pressure. Reuse what we have.
Where do you get the natural gas that doesn't make this a huge polluter?QuoteSmall battery-packs will handle the hour-by-hour load management but I doubt they will ever do much more than that - e.g. for the UK you'd need a 960GWh battery for 1 day's electricity (assuming demand stays as is) - that's roughly enough to build 13 million Tesla Model 3's - and you'll need more than one day worth of storage if the grid is fully renewable.
It would be a very serious drought that left wind farms and solar farms with zero output. Still, they will be producing 13 million BEVs for the USA alone by 2029. I don't see why this makes it unreasonable to build vanadium flow batteries. Remember that the lithium ion battery is chosen for mobile applications because of the high specific energy (energy per weight). Stationary applications don't care about that and will be built at a far lower cost per kWh than lithium ion cells. Read up about it. If you want to invest money in battery technology, vandium flow batteries are going to be a bigger wave than lithium ion because of the huge demand from buffering intermittent energy sources.
Oh I see, so it is equal challenge to providing every household with a stationary 3kg box costing 500USD that needs 50W of power from standard (already there) outlet to function. You literally could not have found worse comparison.I'm pretty sure the 50W figure is in error somehow, but I'm not sure what you're talking about to know what it should be. Surely not 50kW (not available from a standard outlet), but I also can't figure out what you could do with only 50W that's relevant to BEVs. Could you clarify?
No problem at all... in a dream fantasy 8)
The reality is that selling 50 BEVs instead of 25 is a 100% increase. And for sure there is a niche market segment waiting to be filled by BEVs. There are some rumours BEV sales are levelling off in the Netherlands because the market for BEVs starts to become saturated. We have to wait until the end of 2023 to draw some conclusions on that though.
As for when people are charging, you can see the pattern by looking at parking patterns. Pretty much, it will be happening overnight. All of them at the same time.
When they are home from the office, and all other activities. 7 kW is not enough power though, you need at least 16kW to charge it in reasonable time. Average of 50km is not important again, but a peak drive.. If I have to go Rijeka-Zagreb two days in a row (something very common here) I need to charge for 2 X 360-380 km in two days. And that has to be range, about 400km on a charge.
I agree with the 25% number. However what worries me is whether electricity becomes a scarse commodity at some point. More scarse compared to keep using oil in very efficient hybrids. Switching to hybrids will already cause a huge decrease in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.
Also keep in mind that under current EU regulations each BEV sold in the EU is equal to a car that emits 90 to 95 grams (don't know the exact number currently in effect) of CO2 due to the fact that car manufacturers have to meet a CO2 emission goal for their cars on average. IOW: for each BEV sold, an ICE car which emits more CO2 is being sold.
No one says 100% BEV by tomorrow. It will transition over the next 15-20 years. There will still be ICE on the road in 2040.
The power generation argument is idiotic. VW e-Golf is 4 miles per kWh... average let's say of 12,000 miles per year... So we need an extra 3,000kWh per car.
UK has 30 million cars - so extra generation of 90TWh. Country generated 323TWh last year.
So yes... It is a lot... But also it is not that much - about 25% of total generation. It seems completely feasible over the course of 20 years that generation could increase by 25%. It will, after all, need to increase as gas heating is phased out. The beauty of EVs is they can charge any time they are parked up, so they are great for soaking up excess renewables.
You might want to ease up on calling things idiotic, while ignoring data you don't like...
Generation IS a problem. But not the biggest one. Grid needs to be taken to the streets. And grid is NOT specified by kWh, but by peak power... THAT is the problem.
And further more is there actual proof that the CO2 is the true and only culprit for climate change? How about methane which is far more a greenhouse gas than CO2. Waste disposal sites in South America are emitting a but load at the moment.
I'm just saying the present lack of overnight charging is not the huge, impenetrable roadblock that people try to make it out to be.
It is for those who do not have it. The difference between 'now' and 'some indeterminate time in the future with no concrete plans' seems lost on you.
This is such a trivial problem to overcome.
I look forward to your detailed plans to resolving this issue for the majority of the affected population base. It's clearly simple, you should have those sorted by next week.
As for when people are charging, you can see the pattern by looking at parking patterns. Pretty much, it will be happening overnight. All of them at the same time.
When they are home from the office, and all other activities. 7 kW is not enough power though, you need at least 16kW to charge it in reasonable time.
Average of 50km is not important again, but a peak drive.. If I have to go Rijeka-Zagreb two days in a row (something very common here) I need to charge for 2 X 360-380 km in two days. And that has to be range, about 400km on a charge.
QuoteEven L2 charging isn't free or anywhere near free once you price in the wiring to it. Streetside charging, even if only outlets, is a pretty big capital outlay. I'm not sure there is enough copper available.
LOL. Ok, if you say so.
You clearly have no idea about infrastructure costs. We're talking about places where you need to dig to install new electricity connections, none of that third world pig on a pole stuff.
The average cost of a new supply connection from existing street cables to a dwelling in the UK is £1790, most of that cost is digging in metalled roads and making good. There are 52 roadside parking spaces down my typical residential London street. That's a minimum of 26 type 2 charging points, at a minimum of £1000 a pop for the supply, £1000 a pop for a twin socket charging pillar, so ~£50,000 plus for one street.
If you include all the streets that London Licensed Taxi drivers are required to learn there are over 30,000. That's only the streets within six miles of Charing Cross. London is about 30 miles across, give or take. Which leads to a crude estimate of 180,000 streets. There's 9200 miles of roads in London (not an estimate). So that's on the order of £9 billion, just for London. Over £1000 for each man, woman and child that lives in London. The current property taxes for London total about £5 billion a year.
This is the sort of stuff people from the UK give me all the time. There are some who have BEVs and discuss rationally how they charge in their garage or driveway. None of them have needed new feeds from the street! You must think a BEV requires a direct connection to a nuclear power plant to charge! I charge my Tesla model X from a 120V, 15A outlet that provides 1.44 kW to the car which puts just 1 kW into the battery. In the UK, you don't even have such low power outlets, do you?
No one says 100% BEV by tomorrow. It will transition over the next 15-20 years. There will still be ICE on the road in 2040.There will be some offset by this:
The power generation argument is idiotic. VW e-Golf is 4 miles per kWh... average let's say of 12,000 miles per year... So we need an extra 3,000kWh per car.
UK has 30 million cars - so extra generation of 90TWh. Country generated 323TWh last year.
So yes... It is a lot... But also it is not that much - about 25% of total generation. It seems completely feasible over the course of 20 years that generation could increase by 25%. It will, after all, need to increase as gas heating is phased out. The beauty of EVs is they can charge any time they are parked up, so they are great for soaking up excess renewables.
"it takes around 2 to 3kWh of electricity and 2 to 3kWh of heat energy (DOE figures) to produce a gallon of gas"
If the numbers are correct then it is a significant portion of the electricity needed for EVs when switched from ICEs
Vanadium flow batteries are around for at least a decade yet is anywhere any working installation?
Hydrogen storage might a necessity in European conditions
Because you need to withstand a winter when you have minuscule solar power and wind can stop blowing for weeks (it happens quite commonly)
So to be able to have fossils as a backup for the worst case you need about 1 week of storage (for peak draw power as it happens in the same time)
And to be 100% renewable + nuclear it will have to be at least one whole month worth of energy
There is no way around it. Sahara solar farm is not a realistic approach as it is not a stable region. And you won't be able to transfer energy across Europe anyway.
So some huge chemical storage is a must.
In the US it can be significantly different.
As for when people are charging, you can see the pattern by looking at parking patterns. Pretty much, it will be happening overnight. All of them at the same time.
When they are home from the office, and all other activities. 7 kW is not enough power though, you need at least 16kW to charge it in reasonable time. Average of 50km is not important again, but a peak drive.. If I have to go Rijeka-Zagreb two days in a row (something very common here) I need to charge for 2 X 360-380 km in two days. And that has to be range, about 400km on a charge.
There aren't many EVs (or any currently made, that I'm aware of) that go above 11kW, or 16A x 3ph, so I'm not sure 16kW is a near-term requirement. Of course, it could change.
The capacity issue is mostly down to average usage though.
There is nothing in principle wrong with using the average journey distance to calculate grid loading - so if the average daily usage is 20 miles then a user will need 5kWh per night in charging. That is 7kW for less than an hour, or 3.6kW for just under two. The grid already handles - with some margin for capacity - peak times when cookers are switched on, or morning time if you have electric showers (9kW+ per home) and similar.
The point of using the average is of course there will be cases where you need 7kW x 8 hours twice in a row - but it's unlikely everyone on the street will need it. And most homes in Europe have at least 40A single phase service so can support 16-24A EV charging. Many homes in Europe have 3ph in which case EV charging is even better because it sits equally across all three phases, even at lower powers. No diversity or phase-balance calculations to make.
The biggest issues are not on the cables to each home but at the distribution network between those - it's common that there might only be a 300A x 3ph cable feeding a whole street. This may need to be replaced, depending on the load, but that can be monitored and upgraded as needed. At the low-voltage to medium-voltage transformer, it's possible there will need to be larger transformers fitted, or upgrades to the 11kV (or other AC voltage) lines - that could get expensive. But I'm not sure I'd be that worried by space for a bigger transformer. Transformer design has only improved since some of those have been installed. A 3MVA transformer fits in a 2m x 2m box, and that's enough to support an Ionity fast charging station.
For what it's worth I know two people who work in the distribution network here - National Grid plc - and they both tell me they are very on board with EVs. They are giving their employees who have a driveway a company electric van, and are converting the fleet to EVs. See, the distributor gets paid the more kWh's flow, so it really is in their interest to make sure they can allow it. Their biggest short-term concern, for the UK, is building more HV transmission lines to allow the renewable power in Scotland to make it to the rest of the UK, as at present there are only two 400kV (~10GW each) links connecting the two halves.
Or you stop for 10-15 minutes along the way, have a coffee and hit the bathroom. You can get up to 200 miles or even 321 km in that time. If you are going to whine that this is not reasonable, then I guess you can keep your gas burner and be the last guy driving an ICE in 2050.
This is why I typically don't discuss BEVs with people from the UK. They managed to essentially run the world at one point, but today can't seem to be able to wire a 240V outlet.
I have asked about the actual numbers in another thread, but no one seems to know. Categorized per system emitting CO2 what the actual values are. The main focus at the moment is on the car and the households using fossil fuels to run. Some say this only takes up a very small share in the total CO2 emission the human race is responsible for.That sort of data is readily available:
So is there a chart that shows how much CO2 a human or other big animal produces by eating and pooping, how much industry produces, how much house holds produce, how much cars produce, etc.
QuoteEven L2 charging isn't free or anywhere near free once you price in the wiring to it. Streetside charging, even if only outlets, is a pretty big capital outlay. I'm not sure there is enough copper available.
LOL. Ok, if you say so.
You clearly have no idea about infrastructure costs. We're talking about places where you need to dig to install new electricity connections, none of that third world pig on a pole stuff.
The average cost of a new supply connection from existing street cables to a dwelling in the UK is £1790, most of that cost is digging in metalled roads and making good. There are 52 roadside parking spaces down my typical residential London street. That's a minimum of 26 type 2 charging points, at a minimum of £1000 a pop for the supply, £1000 a pop for a twin socket charging pillar, so ~£50,000 plus for one street.
If you include all the streets that London Licensed Taxi drivers are required to learn there are over 30,000. That's only the streets within six miles of Charing Cross. London is about 30 miles across, give or take. Which leads to a crude estimate of 180,000 streets. There's 9200 miles of roads in London (not an estimate). So that's on the order of £9 billion, just for London. Over £1000 for each man, woman and child that lives in London. The current property taxes for London total about £5 billion a year.
I'm sorry, I really have no idea what you are talking about. "new supply connection from existing street cables to a dwelling"??? Are you planning to build a new house just for your car?
This is the sort of stuff people from the UK give me all the time. There are some who have BEVs and discuss rationally how they charge in their garage or driveway. None of them have needed new feeds from the street! You must think a BEV requires a direct connection to a nuclear power plant to charge! I charge my Tesla model X from a 120V, 15A outlet that provides 1.44 kW to the car which puts just 1 kW into the battery. In the UK, you don't even have such low power outlets, do you?
This is why I typically don't discuss BEVs with people from the UK. They managed to essentially run the world at one point, but today can't seem to be able to wire a 240V outlet.
This is the sort of stuff people from the UK give me all the time. There are some who have BEVs and discuss rationally how they charge in their garage or driveway. None of them have needed new feeds from the street! You must think a BEV requires a direct connection to a nuclear power plant to charge! I charge my Tesla model X from a 120V, 15A outlet that provides 1.44 kW to the car which puts just 1 kW into the battery. In the UK, you don't even have such low power outlets, do you?
I'm charging my PHEV from an extension lead run out of the kitchen window! That's 2.3kW. About the lowest you would normally charge a car on around here... Still, it shows that you can install EV charging even if you rent. The total cost of the infrastructure was... about £20 for a heavy duty waterproof lead from the DIY store.
I'll put a proper EV charger on the wall once I move in to the new place.
I've been very lucky, my neighbours are considerate, and I get to park in front of my house almost all the time, and so can cobble together charging at the kerb, running a cable under a safety yellow tread strip. But as soon as there are a few people in my street needing to do that you can bet your last dollar that the local authority will ban it on safety grounds, and probably rightly once these become a common hazard to foot traffic rather than a rare one.Yup. In the city where I live you get a 259 euro fine for putting a cable over the side walk (to charge your EV). Even if it is in a safety strip.
I'm pissing my pants here :-DD
Or you stop for 10-15 minutes along the way, have a coffee and hit the bathroom. You can get up to 200 miles or even 321 km in that time. If you are going to whine that this is not reasonable, then I guess you can keep your gas burner and be the last guy driving an ICE in 2050.
There are very few chargers on the way. All of them are slow and usually taken by desperate ones.... Also I don't have time to faff around. I need to get there and back without wasting additional time.. 15 minutes charge on slow charger is not helpful. 2 hours I don't have just because I made a wrong decision to buy a car the doesn't serve my usage patterns..
I don't serve my car purposes. It is the other way around. Until BEV serves my lifestyle as well as gasoline burner and is affordable to me to buy, no BEV for me. And that is how it is for 90% of all population. THAT is the reason why there no more BEVs on the street. These people are not anti green. They just cannot afford it. In more ways than just price to purchase it.
And I'm sure you're quite happy to go and invest tens of thousands of dollars into a vehicle which is impractical for you with no foreseeable change to that fact. The rest of the world has other ideas.
This is why I typically don't discuss BEVs with people from the UK. They managed to essentially run the world at one point, but today can't seem to be able to wire a 240V outlet.
The issue here is that you are arguing from a point of profound ignorance as to the reality of living in this country.
Running cables to a dwelling was brought up as an example of the cost of running underground cabling. The reverse would be required for a house to provide its own charging point at the roadside, or similar work required to provision charging up a street on behalf of the houses there by, say, a local council, or a private company providing charging facilities.
And I'm sure you're quite happy to go and invest tens of thousands of dollars into a vehicle which is impractical for you with no foreseeable change to that fact. The rest of the world has other ideas.
You seem to have snipped something you wanted to reply to. But my BEV is not impractical in any way. It works very well and charging is nearly everywhere.
Cerebus: I'm not handwaving. I just know that this is not such an insurmountable problem. It only requires a bit of innovative thinking rather than not looking past the roadblock.
Ok, that is what I have said several times. Many, but not all people from the UK, who discuss this seem to think it is an intractable problem. I'm willing to bet that in 10 years, solutions abound.
Cerebus: I'm not handwaving. I just know that this is not such an insurmountable problem. It only requires a bit of innovative thinking rather than not looking past the roadblock.
Ok, that is what I have said several times. Many, but not all people from the UK, who discuss this seem to think it is an intractable problem. I'm willing to bet that in 10 years, solutions abound.
But if you are forced to park on the public street you don't have the same easy options.People choose to own a car and park it on the street. So many choices! Upsides and downsides to those choices.
But if you are forced to park on the public street you don't have the same easy options.People choose to own a car and park it on the street. So many choices! Upsides and downsides to those choices.
Cerebus: I'm not handwaving. I just know that this is not such an insurmountable problem. It only requires a bit of innovative thinking rather than not looking past the roadblock.
Ok, that is what I have said several times. Many, but not all people from the UK, who discuss this seem to think it is an intractable problem. I'm willing to bet that in 10 years, solutions abound.
Who is contractually obliged to own a car and park it on the street. It is a choice.That is not always the case, but it does nicely identify those with the privilege.But if you are forced to park on the public street you don't have the same easy options.People choose to own a car and park it on the street. So many choices! Upsides and downsides to those choices.
Who is contractually obliged to own a car and park it on the street. It is a choice.That is not always the case, but it does nicely identify those with the privilege.But if you are forced to park on the public street you don't have the same easy options.People choose to own a car and park it on the street. So many choices! Upsides and downsides to those choices.
Don't own your parking? you cant complain about its lack of amenities or convenience. Want to own a vehicle (say so you can conduct business as a tradeperson)? That's part of the costs of choosing to do that.
I've been very lucky, my neighbours are considerate, and I get to park in front of my house almost all the time, and so can cobble together charging at the kerb, running a cable under a safety yellow tread strip. But as soon as there are a few people in my street needing to do that you can bet your last dollar that the local authority will ban it on safety grounds, and probably rightly once these become a common hazard to foot traffic rather than a rare one.Yup. In the city where I live you get a 259 euro fine for putting a cable over the side walk (to charge your EV). Even if it is in a safety strip.
I have asked about the actual numbers in another thread, but no one seems to know. Categorized per system emitting CO2 what the actual values are. The main focus at the moment is on the car and the households using fossil fuels to run. Some say this only takes up a very small share in the total CO2 emission the human race is responsible for.That sort of data is readily available:
So is there a chart that shows how much CO2 a human or other big animal produces by eating and pooping, how much industry produces, how much house holds produce, how much cars produce, etc.
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/climate-change-qa/sources-of-ghg-gases (https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/climate-change-qa/sources-of-ghg-gases)
reported in co2 "equivalent"
Private transport is somewhere around 5-10% of total Australian emissions by that measure. Still a bigger opportunity for change than things like LED bulb replacement (and the carbon offsets that were shuffled around on that).
Oh I see, so it is equal challenge to providing every household with a stationary 3kg box costing 500USD that needs 50W of power from standard (already there) outlet to function. You literally could not have found worse comparison.
I'm pretty sure the 50W figure is in error somehow, but I'm not sure what you're talking about to know what it should be. Surely not 50kW (not available from a standard outlet), but I also can't figure out what you could do with only 50W that's relevant to BEVs. Could you clarify?
There will be some offset by this:
"it takes around 2 to 3kWh of electricity and 2 to 3kWh of heat energy (DOE figures) to produce a gallon of gas"
If the numbers are correct then it is a significant portion of the electricity needed for EVs when switched from ICEs
I've looked for substantiation of these numbers and it is not to be found. The "heat energy" is not particularly relevant unless the source of that energy is given. The 2 to 3 kWh of electricity is probably more like 0.5 kWh. If I find the sources of this info, I'll post it here.QuoteVanadium flow batteries are around for at least a decade yet is anywhere any working installation?
By "around" you mean they were invented a decade ago. So? Why is that relevant? The application of grid storage is very recent and every technology for that purpose is relatively new. Lithium ion batteries are only used for grid storage because of the advances in production from Tesla's use in autos. Now we need similar advances in production for vanadium flow batteries.
Either there needs to be a fossil backup or huge storage of hydrogen, electrolyzed from hugely abundant electricity in times when conditions are idealQuoteHydrogen storage might a necessity in European conditions
Because you need to withstand a winter when you have minuscule solar power and wind can stop blowing for weeks (it happens quite commonly)
So to be able to have fossils as a backup for the worst case you need about 1 week of storage (for peak draw power as it happens in the same time)
Sorry, that doesn't make sense. How does a need for "fossils" turn into storing hydrogen? If you are going to use fossil fuel, why not just store that?QuoteAnd to be 100% renewable + nuclear it will have to be at least one whole month worth of energy
There is no way around it. Sahara solar farm is not a realistic approach as it is not a stable region. And you won't be able to transfer energy across Europe anyway.
So some huge chemical storage is a must.
In the US it can be significantly different.
Don't forget that nuclear requires storage. It has the opposite problem of renewables which are intermittent. Nuclear is not easy to scale back. Not only is that uneconomical, but if you try to ramp it up and down for the daily cycle, you end up xenon poisoning the reactor. So it needs to store energy at the slack demand times so it doesn't get throttled back, then it needs the additional energy reserve to power the peak times.
The US also has political instability issues. Texas, a very large region, is an independent grid. So the rest of the US has to operate around them, even though they are an ideal location for wind power. I'm hoping they will secede so we can treat them as a foreign country, possibly hostile.
Is owning a car now considered a privilege?But if you are forced to park on the public street you don't have the same easy options.People choose to own a car and park it on the street. So many choices! Upsides and downsides to those choices.
That is not always the case, but it does nicely identify those with the privilege.
Nothing.
Also something to think about. Do we have any idea of the long term influence of what we are doing? Erecting big wind farms everywhere on the planet. What does this do to the climate.
See the bigger picture here?Not really, I see ramblings, which are basically equivalent to the "Solarpanels are going to suck away the energy from the sun and we will all live in darkness"
Look at weather predictions. These are based on models and are often wrong, at least here where I live.You are either looking at low quality websites doing predictions. Or your expectations are too high, and you want to know the weather more than 5 days in advance. There are weather models that take 27 parameters in a 100m grid, and can predict pretty much how the weather will be for maybe two weeks. The best supercomputers have trouble running the model in real time, plus the smallest observation error, measurement error will change the outcome.
Also something to think about. Do we have any idea of the long term influence of what we are doing? Erecting big wind farms everywhere on the planet. What does this do to the climate.Nothing.
See the bigger picture here?
Not really, I see ramblings, which are basically equivalent to the "Solarpanels are going to suck away the energy from the sun and we will all live in darkness"
Look at weather predictions. These are based on models and are often wrong, at least here where I live.You are either looking at low quality websites doing predictions. Or your expectations are too high, and you want to know the weather more than 5 days in advance. There are weather models that take 27 parameters in a 100m grid, and can predict pretty much how the weather will be for maybe two weeks. The best supercomputers have trouble running the model in real time, plus the smallest observation error, measurement error will change the outcome.
You imagine there is no choice, while in fact you aren't living in a totalitarian dictatorship eliminating all free will (east Germany anyone?). Your choice of accomodation and job are just that, there is no force requiring you to undertake them with no other option.Ones choices are, I'm afraid to say, often constrained by available accomodations, work, and transit. Many simply do not have a choice about owning a car, nor any short-term choice about where they live. It's very nice that you do, but as I said, it demonstrates your privilege.Who is contractually obliged to own a car and park it on the street. It is a choice.That is not always the case, but it does nicely identify those with the privilege.But if you are forced to park on the public street you don't have the same easy options.People choose to own a car and park it on the street. So many choices! Upsides and downsides to those choices.
Don't own your parking? you cant complain about its lack of amenities or convenience. Want to own a vehicle (say so you can conduct business as a tradeperson)? That's part of the costs of choosing to do that.
Is owning a car now considered a privilege?... can't tell if serious or joke. Car ownership being a basic human right? Even if it were a right, that doesn't make it mandatory or an essential of life.
How about it being a basic human right, and a consequence of living above the poverty line?
Is owning a car now considered a privilege?... can't tell if serious or joke. Car ownership being a basic human right? Even if it were a right, that doesn't make it mandatory or an essential of life.
How about it being a basic human right, and a consequence of living above the poverty line?
Ah, great. Next time I need to go to the toilet I'll take a dump in the neighbour's garden. According to you, I have that choice.You imagine there is no choice, while in fact you aren't living in a totalitarian dictatorship eliminating all free will (east Germany anyone?). Your choice of accomodation and job are just that, there is no force requiring you to undertake them with no other option.Ones choices are, I'm afraid to say, often constrained by available accomodations, work, and transit. Many simply do not have a choice about owning a car, nor any short-term choice about where they live. It's very nice that you do, but as I said, it demonstrates your privilege.Who is contractually obliged to own a car and park it on the street. It is a choice.That is not always the case, but it does nicely identify those with the privilege.But if you are forced to park on the public street you don't have the same easy options.People choose to own a car and park it on the street. So many choices! Upsides and downsides to those choices.
Don't own your parking? you cant complain about its lack of amenities or convenience. Want to own a vehicle (say so you can conduct business as a tradeperson)? That's part of the costs of choosing to do that.
People get stuck in what they perceive to be optimal situations, that with a narrow/short view may well be the nearest best option, but miss the wider choices that could be better overall.
Yeah, it is covered by many many legal systems. Just one below:Is owning a car now considered a privilege?... can't tell if serious or joke. Car ownership being a basic human right? Even if it were a right, that doesn't make it mandatory or an essential of life.
How about it being a basic human right, and a consequence of living above the poverty line?
Ah, great. Next time I need to go to the toilet I'll take a dump in the neighbour's garden. According to you, I have that choice.
You imagine there is no choice, while in fact you aren't living in a totalitarian dictatorship eliminating all free will (east Germany anyone?). Your choice of accomodation and job are just that, there is no force requiring you to undertake them with no other option.
People get stuck in what they perceive to be optimal situations, that with a narrow/short view may well be the nearest best option, but miss the wider choices that could be better overall.
Yeah, it is covered by many many legal systems. Just one below:Is owning a car now considered a privilege?... can't tell if serious or joke. Car ownership being a basic human right? Even if it were a right, that doesn't make it mandatory or an essential of life.
How about it being a basic human right, and a consequence of living above the poverty line?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_an_adequate_standard_of_living (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_an_adequate_standard_of_living)
And it's impossible for a country in Europe to ban you from car ownership. They can take your license, if you don't deserve it.
Of course there are always hippies and gen-z living in a city center debating this.
But car ownership is not a privilege. It's not something that is given to you by someone else for any reason, you are born with the right.
Did you read that link? a car (or transport) is not included on the list of adequate standard of living. Quoting the original source:Yeah, it is covered by many many legal systems. Just one below:Is owning a car now considered a privilege?... can't tell if serious or joke. Car ownership being a basic human right? Even if it were a right, that doesn't make it mandatory or an essential of life.
How about it being a basic human right, and a consequence of living above the poverty line?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_an_adequate_standard_of_living (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_an_adequate_standard_of_living)
And it's impossible for a country in Europe to ban you from car ownership. They can take your license, if you don't deserve it.
Of course there are always hippies and gen-z living in a city center debating this.
But car ownership is not a privilege. It's not something that is given to you by someone else for any reason, you are born with the right.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.25% of UK households have no car, 30% of Dutch households have no car. It's not some fringe thing or solely out of poverty, but a legitimate choice for many.
That is so typical of politics :-DD On the one hand they push you into buying an EV, but when you do and try to charge it with a cable running from your house to the car over "public" land then you get fined for it. :palm:
Through this thread I saw mentioned a lot that overnight charging is the thing, but with solar electricity there is not a lot of it around during the night! So this means wind has to fill in here, but that does not always blow, meaning there still is a large need for conventional electricity. No will many say, electricity storage will do here. With current state of battery technology I doubt that will be feasible. What will, I don't know. Just pointing out problems I see here.
Also something to think about. Do we have any idea of the long term influence of what we are doing? Erecting big wind farms everywhere on the planet. What does this do to the climate. Are we changing micro climates that can have an impact on the big picture? Think of it, a wind mill takes energy from wind blowing, reducing its strength a bit. On a large enough scale, does this change how clouds are being dispersed and with that change rain distribution?
Same question with wind farms in the north sea. All the pillars that stand on the seabed how do they affect current flow and with that temperature distribution through the water?
Solar installations on grasslands, how does that affect the thermal behavior? We know that asphalt has a big impact where it comes to heat. It absorbs a lot during the day and releases it at night.
See the bigger picture here? Do we know about the long term effect of what we are doing to try and change the effects of what we already did?
No-one has infinite/all imaginable choices available, but at the same time very few have no choice (even incarcerated people have choices). You can try and argue stupid extremes, but they are stupid and do nothing to discredit the basic premise that people make their own choices and are not forced to do anything a specific as own a car or park it on the street (let alone the and condition presented above).You imagine there is no choice, while in fact you aren't living in a totalitarian dictatorship eliminating all free will (east Germany anyone?). Your choice of accomodation and job are just that, there is no force requiring you to undertake them with no other option.I don't imagine, I am simply aware that not everyone has the full range of choices you or I have. You seem to be stuck in the optimal situation of having every option available to you at all times with acceptable levels of risk, which simply isn't reality.
People get stuck in what they perceive to be optimal situations, that with a narrow/short view may well be the nearest best option, but miss the wider choices that could be better overall.
25% of UK households have no car, 30% of Dutch households have no car. It's not some fringe thing or solely out of poverty, but a legitimate choice for many.Where did you get those numbers? The report you linked to says 12.9% in 2014 (which is higher compared to 2010; keep in mind 2014 is just after the credit crunch). Since then the number of cars in the NL has grown by more than 14%.
a thesis elaborating on this without relying on hyperbole and nonsense
You imagine there is no choice, while in fact you aren't living in a totalitarian dictatorship eliminating all free will (east Germany anyone?). Your choice of accomodation and job are just that, there is no force requiring you to undertake them with no other option.
People get stuck in what they perceive to be optimal situations, that with a narrow/short view may well be the nearest best option, but miss the wider choices that could be better overall.
I don't imagine, I am simply aware that not everyone has the full range of choices you or I have. You seem to be stuck in the optimal situation of having every option available to you at all times with acceptable levels of risk, which simply isn't reality.
Well done crossing different posts to try and make out like I'm being inconsistent, one is an 8 year old set of data with extensive discussion of underlying reasons for car ownership (or not), vs current figures that you could equally try and find disputing numbers and references but hey:25% of UK households have no car, 30% of Dutch households have no car. It's not some fringe thing or solely out of poverty, but a legitimate choice for many.Where did you get those numbers? The report you linked to says 12.9% in 2014. Since then the number of cars in the NL has grown by more than 14%
But your whole 'it is a choice' theme is utterly ridiculous. For many owning a car means being able to make more money and thus have a better live. Who wouldn't want a better life?Some will be better off and some won't, but they have the choice. Its not ridiculous to say people can make choices about these things, for some the choice will be obvious, but the "reasoning" shown in this thread is laughable.
Choices. Move closer to job, or take different job closer to accomodation. No one is forced with no choice to take a job that they must travel by private car to, they choose because they believe it is in their interests.a thesis elaborating on this without relying on hyperbole and nonsenseIf the only work available to you to support your basic living expenses requires travel by car, and the only accomodation available within the budget this creates has no parking, this is not hyperbole nor nonsense. And yes, those conditions exist simultaneously for many, even if you have never been placed in such a position (this is the privilege I have been describing - a lost point to most of those with it).
Technically, one has the choice to have none of the three (job, car, and home) and live on the street where they used to park their car, however very few would consider that a reasonable choice - fewer still who have families.
Choices. Move closer to job, or take different job closer to accomodation. No one is forced with no choice to take a job that they must travel by private car to, they choose because they believe it is in their interests.a thesis elaborating on this without relying on hyperbole and nonsenseIf the only work available to you to support your basic living expenses requires travel by car, and the only accomodation available within the budget this creates has no parking, this is not hyperbole nor nonsense. And yes, those conditions exist simultaneously for many, even if you have never been placed in such a position (this is the privilege I have been describing - a lost point to most of those with it).
Technically, one has the choice to have none of the three (job, car, and home) and live on the street where they used to park their car, however very few would consider that a reasonable choice - fewer still who have families.
do I have to keep repeating this? choice, is for the individual, they make their decision. Owning a car is a choice, working a given job is a choice, living in a particular location is a choice, its a tiny tiny minority who have even one of those "forced" upon them with no choice.
Well done crossing different posts to try and make out like I'm being inconsistent, one is an 8 year old set of data with extensive discussion of underlying reasons for car ownership (or not), vs current figures that you could equally try and find disputing numbers and references but hey:25% of UK households have no car, 30% of Dutch households have no car. It's not some fringe thing or solely out of poverty, but a legitimate choice for many.Where did you get those numbers? The report you linked to says 12.9% in 2014. Since then the number of cars in the NL has grown by more than 14%
UK 25%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/adhocs/009922numberofvehiclesperhousehold (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/adhocs/009922numberofvehiclesperhousehold)
Dutch 30%
https://www.iamexpat.nl/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/30-percent-dutch-households-do-not-own-car (https://www.iamexpat.nl/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/30-percent-dutch-households-do-not-own-car)
or Dutch 26%
http://techzle.com/car-ownership-in-the-netherlands-continues-to-increase (http://techzle.com/car-ownership-in-the-netherlands-continues-to-increase)
.. specifically noting that more cars per capita /= more households with carsBut your whole 'it is a choice' theme is utterly ridiculous. For many owning a car means being able to make more money and thus have a better live. Who wouldn't want a better life?Some will be better off and some won't, but they have the choice. Its not ridiculous to say people can make choices about these things, for some the choice will be obvious, but the "reasoning" shown in this thread is laughable.
And it's far too late to do it now, so reality unfortunately has diverged from utopian dream.I don't see why an utopia would exclude cars, and other forms of personal transportation. It's literally an object that gives you freedom to do things at other places, whenever you want.
And it's far too late to do it now, so reality unfortunately has diverged from utopian dream.I don't see why an utopia would exclude cars, and other forms of personal transportation. It's literally an object that gives you freedom to do things at other places, whenever you want.
Can you accept that other people would have different opinion or life goals than yours? And they are just as valid.And it's far too late to do it now, so reality unfortunately has diverged from utopian dream.I don't see why an utopia would exclude cars, and other forms of personal transportation. It's literally an object that gives you freedom to do things at other places, whenever you want.
Are you trolling, or just dense?
I 200% agree in principle but look at the history of Someone and judge by yourself whether he/she is genuinly participating in discussions or just trolling / stirring up sh!t. You can find pages of Someone and Wuerstchenhund discussing the same thing going round in circles. Argumentum ad nauseam. I have drawn my conclusion a long time ago.Can you accept that other people would have different opinion or life goals than yours? And they are just as valid.And it's far too late to do it now, so reality unfortunately has diverged from utopian dream.I don't see why an utopia would exclude cars, and other forms of personal transportation. It's literally an object that gives you freedom to do things at other places, whenever you want.
Are you trolling, or just dense?
Limited, but not singular, there is choice. Your extreme position is plainly nonsense.Once again you discount the reality of limited available employment and housing. Do we have to keep repeating that your idyllic world isn't the entire world?Choices. Move closer to job, or take different job closer to accomodation. No one is forced with no choice to take a job that they must travel by private car to, they choose because they believe it is in their interests.a thesis elaborating on this without relying on hyperbole and nonsenseIf the only work available to you to support your basic living expenses requires travel by car, and the only accomodation available within the budget this creates has no parking, this is not hyperbole nor nonsense. And yes, those conditions exist simultaneously for many, even if you have never been placed in such a position (this is the privilege I have been describing - a lost point to most of those with it).
Technically, one has the choice to have none of the three (job, car, and home) and live on the street where they used to park their car, however very few would consider that a reasonable choice - fewer still who have families.
do I have to keep repeating this? choice, is for the individual, they make their decision. Owning a car is a choice, working a given job is a choice, living in a particular location is a choice, its a tiny tiny minority who have even one of those "forced" upon them with no choice.
Finally something that can be quantified rather than the sensationalist hand waving.it's very easy to demonstrate that there are a whole class of people, doing essential jobs, that need personal transport to do them. Any essential worker who works shifts outside of convenient public transportation operating hours: police, nurses, firefighters, utilities workers, transport workers who have to get there first to open up public transport for the day, and so on.You imagine there is no choice, while in fact you aren't living in a totalitarian dictatorship eliminating all free will (east Germany anyone?). Your choice of accomodation and job are just that, there is no force requiring you to undertake them with no other option.I don't imagine, I am simply aware that not everyone has the full range of choices you or I have. You seem to be stuck in the optimal situation of having every option available to you at all times with acceptable levels of risk, which simply isn't reality.
People get stuck in what they perceive to be optimal situations, that with a narrow/short view may well be the nearest best option, but miss the wider choices that could be better overall.
Transport | Public | Driver | Passenger | Active | Home | Off Work | |||
All Workers | 11.7% | 63.4% | 4.6% | 5.2% | 4.7% | 10.4% | |||
Medical Practitioners | 4.7% | 76.0% | 2.3% | 7.2% | 0.9% | 9.0% | |||
Nursing Professionals | 5.5% | 67.5% | 3.1% | 4.2% | 0.3% | 19.2% | |||
Fire and Emergency Workers | 2.1% | 67.0% | 1.5% | 5.1% | 0.3% | 24.1% | |||
Police | 8.8% | 66.4% | 1.5% | 5.7% | 0.2% | 17.5% | |||
Ambulance Officers and Paramedics | 0.8% | 65.8% | 0.9% | 4.9% | 0.2% | 27.3% | |||
Cleaners and Laundry Workers | 12.4% | 61.1% | 8.3% | 6.3% | 1.2% | 10.7% | |||
Rubbish Collectors | 3.7% | 72.1% | 6.7% | 8.9% | 1.5% | 7.7% | |||
Public | Driver | Passenger | Active | Home | |||||
All Workers | 13.1% | 70.8% | 5.2% | 5.8% | 5.3% | ||||
Medical Practitioners | 5.1% | 83.5% | 2.6% | 7.9% | 0.9% | ||||
Nursing Professionals | 6.9% | 83.6% | 3.9% | 5.2% | 0.4% | ||||
Fire and Emergency Workers | 2.7% | 88.3% | 2.0% | 6.7% | 0.4% | ||||
Police | 10.7% | 80.4% | 1.8% | 6.9% | 0.2% | ||||
Ambulance Officers and Paramedics | 1.1% | 90.7% | 1.2% | 6.8% | 0.3% | ||||
Cleaners and Laundry Workers | 13.9% | 68.4% | 9.3% | 7.1% | 1.3% | ||||
Rubbish Collectors | 4.0% | 77.6% | 7.3% | 9.6% | 1.6% | ||||
And I'm sure you're quite happy to go and invest tens of thousands of dollars into a vehicle which is impractical for you with no foreseeable change to that fact. The rest of the world has other ideas.
You seem to have snipped something you wanted to reply to. But my BEV is not impractical in any way. It works very well and charging is nearly everywhere.
There was nothing of substance to reply to, merely the presence of your attempted reply.
Your BEV may be practical - you are missing the issue that for many people it simply would not be and no change to this is in sight despite your assertion that there is no problem. Nobody is going to buy a BEV which they cannot practically use based upon the dream that someone else will shortly turn up and fix it.
Cerebus: I'm not handwaving. I just know that this is not such an insurmountable problem. It only requires a bit of innovative thinking rather than not looking past the roadblock.
Ok, that is what I have said several times. Many, but not all people from the UK, who discuss this seem to think it is an intractable problem. I'm willing to bet that in 10 years, solutions abound.
It is an intractable problem for those who have it, and the vast majority of those are not in a position to keep changing their vehicles.
Cerebus: I'm not handwaving. I just know that this is not such an insurmountable problem. It only requires a bit of innovative thinking rather than not looking past the roadblock.
Ok, that is what I have said several times. Many, but not all people from the UK, who discuss this seem to think it is an intractable problem. I'm willing to bet that in 10 years, solutions abound.
To the person making a decision ot buy an EV it doesn't matter that the probem can be solved, or may be solved in the future, it's a simple fact that it doesn't work for them NOW.
And solving street parking charging is not as easy as solving say a home charging problem.
Installing an extra power in your garage or outside your house and running an extension lead is trivial, you can do it yourself or just hire an electrican to do it fairly easily, so it's no impedement to buying an EV.
But if you are forced to park on the public street you don't have the same easy options. And regardless of how much effort oyu put into solving this problem, there wil ALWAYS be people who are unable to buy an EV because of the charging issue.
EV's will never reach the convenience point of getting 500km range in 2 minutes at a petrol station like ICE cars. So you need to be a certain kind of buys to go for an EV. This will not change for the forseeable future.
Cerebus: I'm not handwaving. I just know that this is not such an insurmountable problem. It only requires a bit of innovative thinking rather than not looking past the roadblock.
Ok, that is what I have said several times. Many, but not all people from the UK, who discuss this seem to think it is an intractable problem. I'm willing to bet that in 10 years, solutions abound.
If it just requires "a bit of innovative thinking" then you should be able to provide that if it's so simple. Reducing it to "a bit of innovative thinking" without proposing even the faintest hint of a concrete solution is exactly handwaving.
Of course, it doesn't just require "a bit of innovative thinking" it requires 100s of billions of pounds spent on infrastructure for the UK alone before BEVs for the masses is a practical thing the way ICE vehicles currently are.
These are hard costs, not costs that benefit much from economies of scale. Someone has to dig the roads, install a vast number of public charging points where they are convenient for all people to use at a reasonable price* and wire the whole lot to the electricity distribution system. Someone has to make that investment and until they do BEVs will remain not a mass market thing but the playthings of dilettantes with upwards of £30k to spend and a relatively large property with off street parking that they can fit their own charger in.[\quote]
I am so tired of people with limited imagination whining about how massive the task is to install a charge point. Yes, it has to be done 33 million times in the UK. You have 15 years to git 'er done. Better if you stop whining and start now.QuoteLondon currently has around 6000 EV public charge points, mostly 7kW slow AC chargers
a population of 9.5 million people, and currently 2.6 million cars registered to London addresses. One charge point, of the type that needs a whole night to charge a typical BEV, per 433 cars. Say for arguments sake that's one charge per car per week. That cuts the factor to around 62. So we are short 370,000 charge points just for London. If we take your mythical 10 years when all will be solved, that requires the equivalent of 102 off 7kW chargers to be installed in London every day. Or to put it differently, the number of public chargers currently available would have to double in the next two months.
The whole UK has less than 35,000 public charging points in total, only ~5000 are rapid or ultra rapid. If we are going to ban the sale of new ICE cars in 2030 as mooted, a shit load of infrastructure needs building in the next 8 years to support the 2-3 million new cars purchased a year in the UK plus the BEV and PHEVs sold in the interim before BEVs become the only game in town..
* A lot of the current public charge points charge double what you'd pay for home charging without even offering fast charging.
I've been very lucky, my neighbours are considerate, and I get to park in front of my house almost all the time, and so can cobble together charging at the kerb, running a cable under a safety yellow tread strip. But as soon as there are a few people in my street needing to do that you can bet your last dollar that the local authority will ban it on safety grounds, and probably rightly once these become a common hazard to foot traffic rather than a rare one.Yup. In the city where I live you get a 259 euro fine for putting a cable over the side walk (to charge your EV). Even if it is in a safety strip.
That is so typical of politics :-DD On the one hand they push you into buying an EV, but when you do and try to charge it with a cable running from your house to the car over "public" land then you get fined for it. :palm:
I have asked about the actual numbers in another thread, but no one seems to know. Categorized per system emitting CO2 what the actual values are. The main focus at the moment is on the car and the households using fossil fuels to run. Some say this only takes up a very small share in the total CO2 emission the human race is responsible for.That sort of data is readily available:
So is there a chart that shows how much CO2 a human or other big animal produces by eating and pooping, how much industry produces, how much house holds produce, how much cars produce, etc.
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/climate-change-qa/sources-of-ghg-gases (https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/climate-change-qa/sources-of-ghg-gases)
reported in co2 "equivalent"
Private transport is somewhere around 5-10% of total Australian emissions by that measure. Still a bigger opportunity for change than things like LED bulb replacement (and the carbon offsets that were shuffled around on that).
Still only a partial answer, but an interesting take from it: Generating electricity is the number one in producing CO2 emission, and what do we do, switch to EV's which use electricity. Sure there is a big movement to get electricity from "renewables", which I find a wrong term for solar and wind, but that is another discussion.
Through this thread I saw mentioned a lot that overnight charging is the thing, but with solar electricity there is not a lot of it around during the night! So this means wind has to fill in here, but that does not always blow, meaning there still is a large need for conventional electricity. No will many say, electricity storage will do here. With current state of battery technology I doubt that will be feasible. What will, I don't know. Just pointing out problems I see here.
Also something to think about. Do we have any idea of the long term influence of what we are doing? Erecting big wind farms everywhere on the planet. What does this do to the climate. Are we changing micro climates that can have an impact on the big picture? Think of it, a wind mill takes energy from wind blowing, reducing its strength a bit. On a large enough scale, does this change how clouds are being dispersed and with that change rain distribution?
Same question with wind farms in the north sea. All the pillars that stand on the seabed how do they affect current flow and with that temperature distribution through the water?
Solar installations on grasslands, how does that affect the thermal behavior? We know that asphalt has a big impact where it comes to heat. It absorbs a lot during the day and releases it at night.
See the bigger picture here? Do we know about the long term effect of what we are doing to try and change the effects of what we already did?
And don't come knocking with "sure we do, because we did simulations on the computer". These are just simulations based on models that we tune to get the outcome we want. Look at weather predictions. These are based on models and are often wrong, at least here where I live. Has to do with the mountain range in the Cantal. We use three different website to check the forecast and they mostly differ between them and can't even seem to predict it right for the current day.
Take from it what you will, again just my 2 cents worth.
Oh I see, so it is equal challenge to providing every household with a stationary 3kg box costing 500USD that needs 50W of power from standard (already there) outlet to function. You literally could not have found worse comparison.
I'm pretty sure the 50W figure is in error somehow, but I'm not sure what you're talking about to know what it should be. Surely not 50kW (not available from a standard outlet), but I also can't figure out what you could do with only 50W that's relevant to BEVs. Could you clarify?
He was talking about a computer, reffering to gnuarm his remark that he was typing his message on something that was not available some 30 odd years ago.
Economic pressures will require every property owner to provide BEV charging just like they currently provide Internet, cable and other services, your protestations aside.
There will be some offset by this:
"it takes around 2 to 3kWh of electricity and 2 to 3kWh of heat energy (DOE figures) to produce a gallon of gas"
If the numbers are correct then it is a significant portion of the electricity needed for EVs when switched from ICEs
I've looked for substantiation of these numbers and it is not to be found. The "heat energy" is not particularly relevant unless the source of that energy is given. The 2 to 3 kWh of electricity is probably more like 0.5 kWh. If I find the sources of this info, I'll post it here.QuoteVanadium flow batteries are around for at least a decade yet is anywhere any working installation?
By "around" you mean they were invented a decade ago. So? Why is that relevant? The application of grid storage is very recent and every technology for that purpose is relatively new. Lithium ion batteries are only used for grid storage because of the advances in production from Tesla's use in autos. Now we need similar advances in production for vanadium flow batteries.
That numbers about gas processing vary widely so it is hard to get any relevant ones
I know lithium batteries had already scaled production. But Vanadium flow was presented as a quick "magical" solution.
And even when some are built recently, they are small compared to Lithium based installations.
So it seems there is some huge technical difficulty in turning them from a lab demonstrator to a commercial scale.
QuoteEither there needs to be a fossil backup or huge storage of hydrogen, electrolyzed from hugely abundant electricity in times when conditions are idealQuoteHydrogen storage might a necessity in European conditions
Because you need to withstand a winter when you have minuscule solar power and wind can stop blowing for weeks (it happens quite commonly)
So to be able to have fossils as a backup for the worst case you need about 1 week of storage (for peak draw power as it happens in the same time)
Sorry, that doesn't make sense. How does a need for "fossils" turn into storing hydrogen? If you are going to use fossil fuel, why not just store that?QuoteAnd to be 100% renewable + nuclear it will have to be at least one whole month worth of energy
There is no way around it. Sahara solar farm is not a realistic approach as it is not a stable region. And you won't be able to transfer energy across Europe anyway.
So some huge chemical storage is a must.
In the US it can be significantly different.
Don't forget that nuclear requires storage. It has the opposite problem of renewables which are intermittent. Nuclear is not easy to scale back. Not only is that uneconomical, but if you try to ramp it up and down for the daily cycle, you end up xenon poisoning the reactor. So it needs to store energy at the slack demand times so it doesn't get throttled back, then it needs the additional energy reserve to power the peak times.
The US also has political instability issues. Texas, a very large region, is an independent grid. So the rest of the US has to operate around them, even though they are an ideal location for wind power. I'm hoping they will secede so we can treat them as a foreign country, possibly hostile.
Because if you scale renewable to be more than a few percent of the average load you end up with idling solar and wind for a big portion of the time when will the sun shine and wind blow at the same time.
So you have basically "free" electricity
Nuclear can easily just dump "waste" power to the cooling tower. This is not an issue, just wasteful behavior.
As renewable electricity price is massively volatile even on an hour-to-hour scale, you can use this time when it is so abundant its price fall to zero to things with relatively low efficiency.
Like electrolyzing water and then burning that hydrogen to get power.
Or just wait with high energy demand tasks to this time, not all can be timed, but a surprisingly big portion can be.
For example, in households, most energy consumption tasks like water and space heating and cooling (which can be done with proper insulation without any effect on comfort), clothes, and dishwashing can be easily delayed to the high generation times. Just bill the actual price of electricity to people and most of them will do it. And this is way over 50% of consumption for most houses.
Yeah, it is covered by many many legal systems. Just one below:Is owning a car now considered a privilege?... can't tell if serious or joke. Car ownership being a basic human right? Even if it were a right, that doesn't make it mandatory or an essential of life.
How about it being a basic human right, and a consequence of living above the poverty line?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_an_adequate_standard_of_living (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_an_adequate_standard_of_living)
And it's impossible for a country in Europe to ban you from car ownership. They can take your license, if you don't deserve it.
Of course there are always hippies and gen-z living in a city center debating this.
But car ownership is not a privilege. It's not something that is given to you by someone else for any reason, you are born with the right.
I 200% agree in principle but look at the history of Someone and judge by yourself whether he/she is genuinly participating in discussions or just trolling / stirring up sh!t.Can you accept that other people would have different opinion or life goals than yours? And they are just as valid.And it's far too late to do it now, so reality unfortunately has diverged from utopian dream.I don't see why an utopia would exclude cars, and other forms of personal transportation. It's literally an object that gives you freedom to do things at other places, whenever you want.
Are you trolling, or just dense?
Economic pressures will require every property owner to provide BEV charging just like they currently provide Internet, cable and other services, your protestations aside.
Property owners provide none of these things.
Here's an example from a friend of mine of a street which will be problematic: https://goo.gl/maps/62227FQWX5SyFpaj6
I await your suggestions.
E: Or how about this one: https://goo.gl/maps/8nbw3BvUu3bhknUH9
Here's an example from a friend of mine of a street which will be problematic: https://goo.gl/maps/62227FQWX5SyFpaj6
E: Or how about this one: https://goo.gl/maps/8nbw3BvUu3bhknUH9
That still doesn't solve the problem with people having no fixed parking spaces. Over here it is first comes, first served. If you are late, then you have to park your car far away from your home. Street level charging can only be solved by having a public charging point at each parking spot (and then some because typically there aren't enough parking spots to begin with). But that is a rather expensive solution. With better batteries that allow charging in a few minutes and gas-station like super chargers, things will be much easier and more economic. At home charging is a crutch and shouldn't be an end goal for charging infrastructure.Here's an example from a friend of mine of a street which will be problematic: https://goo.gl/maps/62227FQWX5SyFpaj6
Install drainage gutters like these: https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/case-study/oxgul-e/ allowing those who live on the same side that they park on to charge their vehicles from their home.
Cerebus: I'm not handwaving. I just know that this is not such an insurmountable problem. It only requires a bit of innovative thinking rather than not looking past the roadblock.
Ok, that is what I have said several times. Many, but not all people from the UK, who discuss this seem to think it is an intractable problem. I'm willing to bet that in 10 years, solutions abound.
If it just requires "a bit of innovative thinking" then you should be able to provide that if it's so simple. Reducing it to "a bit of innovative thinking" without proposing even the faintest hint of a concrete solution is exactly handwaving.
Happy to. What's the problem to be solved? If it's charging BEVs, the obvious solution is to install charging.
Next!
Another 25% are installed in apartment and condo parking facilities at the owners' expense.
QuoteQuoteLondon currently has around 6000 EV public charge points, mostly 7kW slow AC chargers
Which are fast for level 2 charging and EXACTLY what you want!!! BEVs are not gas fueled smoke belchers. You don't stand around waiting for them to charge. You charge when they are parked, which is 95% of the time. Parked at home, be charging. Parked at work, be charging. Parked which shopping or at a movie, be charging.
That still doesn't solve the problem with people having no fixed parking spaces. Over here it is first comes, first served. If you are late, then you have to park your car far away from your home. Street level charging can only be solved by having a public charging point at each parking spot (and then some because typically there aren't enough parking spots to begin with). But that is a rather expensive solution. With better batteries that allow charging in a few minutes and gas-station like super chargers, things will be much easier and more economic. At home charging is a crutch and shouldn't be an end goal for charging infrastructure.
I cant stop laughing at the ridiculous extremes in this thread.That still doesn't solve the problem with people having no fixed parking spaces. Over here it is first comes, first served. If you are late, then you have to park your car far away from your home. Street level charging can only be solved by having a public charging point at each parking spot (and then some because typically there aren't enough parking spots to begin with). But that is a rather expensive solution. With better batteries that allow charging in a few minutes and gas-station like super chargers, things will be much easier and more economic. At home charging is a crutch and shouldn't be an end goal for charging infrastructure.It does solve the need, if it's public charging. Recall a 20 mile range per day would mean the average user of a 200 mile car is charging less than once per week. So if you put chargers in that cover say 20% of all spaces then that would cover demand fairly comfortably I suspect.
Fast charging is absolutely important but I think you're missing a key advantage of EVs if you don't take advantage of slow trickle charging, even if that's not done when parked at home.
]I cant stop laughing at the ridiculous extremes in this thread.
person A) car parking has no cost
person B) car parking is too expensive and the free alternative is too costly in other ways
On street charging looks plausible and cheap from an infrastructure standpoint, usual public infrastructure issues of vandalism and how to monetise the service.
You cant leave vehicle charging points as free use, they require some monetising or people will find all sorts of creative ways to use the free power. Parking meters in denser areas are already grid connected here so its not some enormous new additional cost out of nowhere. Convincing people they will have to pay for these things seems to be the enormous road-block. If you aren't owning or paying for your parking I have zero sympathy for your lack of options, since its likely others are already paying/subsidising on your behalf.On street charging looks plausible and cheap from an infrastructure standpoint, usual public infrastructure issues of vandalism and how to monetise the service.Hand-waving much? Cheap? Really? How about $3K to 10K per station, with perhaps that price coming down some with volume. And forget monetizing it, nobody makes money selling EV charging.
walking back and moving your goalposts]I cant stop laughing at the ridiculous extremes in this thread.Not ridiculous nor extreme, just different cases.
person A) car parking has no cost
person B) car parking is too expensive and the free alternative is too costly in other ways
For some, parking has no ongoing incremental cost. I think I'm in that category, but if you protest you can consider the rancher in Montana.
That it has been "free" for people has distorted their view, because it was never free.
You also seem to manage to completely ignore that I'm an EV driver and lecture me as if I've no clue about how they charge, how much charge they need, when they need it etc. etc.
You cant leave vehicle charging points as free use, they require some monetising or people will find all sorts of creative ways to use the free power.On street charging looks plausible and cheap from an infrastructure standpoint, usual public infrastructure issues of vandalism and how to monetise the service.Hand-waving much? Cheap? Really? How about $3K to 10K per station, with perhaps that price coming down some with volume. And forget monetizing it, nobody makes money selling EV charging.
Parking meters in denser areas are already grid connected here so its not some enormous new additional cost out of nowhere. Convincing people they will have to pay for these things seems to be the enormous road-block. If you aren't owning or paying for your parking I have zero sympathy for your lack of options, since its likely others are already paying/subsidising on your behalf.
Hand-waving much? Cheap? Really? How about $3K to 10K per station, with perhaps that price coming down some with volume. And forget monetizing it, nobody makes money selling EV charging.
How about $3K to 10K per station, with perhaps that price coming down some with volume. And forget monetizing it, nobody makes money selling EV charging.Around here (New England, but appears to US-wide), DC fast charging is charged at around 2x the cost of electricity.
There is no advantage of slow charging at all. My estimate is that a slow, public charging point costs 5k to 10k euro in a 10 year time span. That money comes from your pocket and you get nothing in return.That still doesn't solve the problem with people having no fixed parking spaces. Over here it is first comes, first served. If you are late, then you have to park your car far away from your home. Street level charging can only be solved by having a public charging point at each parking spot (and then some because typically there aren't enough parking spots to begin with). But that is a rather expensive solution. With better batteries that allow charging in a few minutes and gas-station like super chargers, things will be much easier and more economic. At home charging is a crutch and shouldn't be an end goal for charging infrastructure.
It does solve the need, if it's public charging. Recall a 20 mile range per day would mean the average user of a 200 mile car is charging less than once per week. So if you put chargers in that cover say 20% of all spaces then that would cover demand fairly comfortably I suspect.
Fast charging is absolutely important but I think you're missing a key advantage of EVs if you don't take advantage of slow trickle charging, even if that's not done when parked at home.
But since you insist that parking is a vital part of the equationDon't bother. Parking costs don't matter when comparing TCOs between cars. The parking costs will be identical so they drop out of the equation.
There is no advantage of slow charging at all.Well then don’t I feel like an idiot having done over 50% of my charging for 7.5 years at around 1.5kW peak and, except for exactly 4 DC fast charge sessions, all the rest at 6.6kW peak.
There is no advantage of slow charging at all. My estimate is that a slow, public charging point costs 5k to 10k euro in a 10 year time span. That money comes from your pocket and you get nothing in return.
You are also way to optimistic about how people deal with shared infrastructure. My asshole neighbour across the street will happily punch you in the face if you dare park in 'his' parking spot in the front of his home. The police had to come several times already to calm him down.
Another problem is that (at least in the Netherlands) a parking space with a charger is no longer a parking space but a space where you charge your car. Once charging is done, you need to move your car (the fine is 90 euro). That just doesn't work with overnight charging; you'd have to get out of bed during the night to move your car (or be awakened by an angry neighbour that needs to charge a car).
One solution would be to have charging points with multiple outlets (say 6 to 8 ) that can serve several cars that are parked in a row without needing specific charging space, but that idea seemed not to have occured yet at the companies that develop / install charging points. And it would mean needing long cables that litter the street; it could be that regulations are blocking this idea already.
But that still doesn't solve the principle problem that public charging is very expensive to begin with. None of the companies currently active in the Netherlands is making money from their charging points. They will have to earn their money back at some point [...]
No. I wrote 'costs'. As in installation and ongoing costs like having a helpdesk, permits, rent, payment infrastructure, maintenance, fees to have a grid connection, etc. That is the investment from the company that owns the charging point. They will want to make a healthy profit margin and interest from their investment. That money comes from your pocket. You'll likely be sharing a charging point with 3 or 4 others at most (due to distance between home/charging point) so you can see that the infrastructure costs are quite high when many of the cars are BEVs and there are many charging points.There is no advantage of slow charging at all. My estimate is that a slow, public charging point costs 5k to 10k euro in a 10 year time span. That money comes from your pocket and you get nothing in return.
We've been over this before.
Let's pretend your 10k euro cost is correct. I would argue it is not, but for the sake of analysis let's go with it. If the electricity is just 0.05 EUR extra per kWh above the cost price (ex VAT, other taxes etc.), then 10k euro takes 200,000kWh to pay back. That is 28,500 hours of charging at 7kW. There are 87,600 hours in 10 years, so that charger only needs to have >1/3rd occupancy to be profitable.
Electricity from a charging point doesn't cost 0.05 euro above cost price, it is typically double the consumer cost price! And even at double the consumer price for electricity, they aren't making a profit. There is a very good reason charging point operators hide their prices; they are insanely high.50% gross margin isn’t “insanely high” in my book.
Until you start calculating fuel costs for a hybrid; then the hybrid is more cost effective. Take the uncertainty of future price gouging into account and you see why buying a BEV is not such a good idea if you have to depend solely on public charging and want to drive the car for 5 to 10 years.Electricity from a charging point doesn't cost 0.05 euro above cost price, it is typically double the consumer cost price! And even at double the consumer price for electricity, they aren't making a profit. There is a very good reason charging point operators hide their prices; they are insanely high.50% gross margin isn’t “insanely high” in my book.
Especially with the current electricity prices. I also just love how a company can say they deliver 100% wind energy, and then claim that the price of electricity went up because of some global conflict. Oh dear, did that conflict stop the winds somehow?Until you start calculating fuel costs for a hybrid; then the hybrid is more cost effective. Take the uncertainty of future price gouging into account and you see why buying a BEV is not such a good idea if you have to depend solely on public charging and want to drive the car for 5 to 10 years.Electricity from a charging point doesn't cost 0.05 euro above cost price, it is typically double the consumer cost price! And even at double the consumer price for electricity, they aren't making a profit. There is a very good reason charging point operators hide their prices; they are insanely high.50% gross margin isn’t “insanely high” in my book.
I also just love how a company can say they deliver 100% wind energy, and then claim that the price of electricity went up because of some global conflict. Oh dear, did that conflict stop the winds somehow?
There is no advantage of slow charging at all.That still doesn't solve the problem with people having no fixed parking spaces. Over here it is first comes, first served. If you are late, then you have to park your car far away from your home. Street level charging can only be solved by having a public charging point at each parking spot (and then some because typically there aren't enough parking spots to begin with). But that is a rather expensive solution. With better batteries that allow charging in a few minutes and gas-station like super chargers, things will be much easier and more economic. At home charging is a crutch and shouldn't be an end goal for charging infrastructure.
It does solve the need, if it's public charging. Recall a 20 mile range per day would mean the average user of a 200 mile car is charging less than once per week. So if you put chargers in that cover say 20% of all spaces then that would cover demand fairly comfortably I suspect.
Fast charging is absolutely important but I think you're missing a key advantage of EVs if you don't take advantage of slow trickle charging, even if that's not done when parked at home.
My estimate is that a slow, public charging point costs 5k to 10k euro in a 10 year time span. That money comes from your pocket and you get nothing in return.
You are also way to optimistic about how people deal with shared infrastructure. My asshole neighbour across the street will happily punch you in the face if you dare park in 'his' parking spot in the front of his home. The police had to come several times already to calm him down.
Another problem is that (at least in the Netherlands) a parking space with a charger is no longer a parking space but a space where you charge your car. Once charging is done, you need to move your car (the fine is 90 euro).
That just doesn't work with overnight charging; you'd have to get out of bed during the night to move your car (or be awakened by an angry neighbour that needs to charge a car).
And that brings me to the next problem: charging spots take scarse parking spots away. In the Netherlands most streets have less parking spaces than cars (by design)
and there is very little room for expansion. Earlier this year they actually removed two charging spots from the street where I live because the parking spaces can't be missed.
One solution would be to have charging points with multiple outlets (say 6 to 8 ) that can serve several cars that are parked in a row without needing specific charging space, but that idea seemed not to have occured yet at the companies that develop / install charging points. And it would mean needing long cables that litter the street; it could be that regulations are blocking this idea already.
But that still doesn't solve the principle problem that public charging is very expensive to begin with.
None of the companies currently active in the Netherlands is making money from their charging points. They will have to earn their money back at some point and the problem is that you can't choose from which company to charge from; there will be only one in your street jacking up the prices for as long as they can. At some point prices will become regulated for sure, but that will take decades (*)
* Note: district heating is something similar. One company that serves a whole area without consumers being able to switch to a different supplier. After 30 years of lobbying and proceedings, the Dutch government finally created a law that limits the prices for district heating.
There is no advantage of slow charging at all.Well then don’t I feel like an idiot having done over 50% of my charging for 7.5 years at around 1.5kW peak and, except for exactly 4 DC fast charge sessions, all the rest at 6.6kW peak.
The big advantage for me was to have a car that was usually “full” with 30 seconds of effort. That’s hundreds of petrol station visits avoided. The second advantage was lesser battery degradation when slow charging to full rather than fast charging to full.
Until you start calculating fuel costs for a hybrid; then the hybrid is more cost effective. Take the uncertainty of future price gouging into account and you see why buying a BEV is not such a good idea if you have to depend solely on public charging and want to drive the car for 5 to 10 years.Electricity from a charging point doesn't cost 0.05 euro above cost price, it is typically double the consumer cost price! And even at double the consumer price for electricity, they aren't making a profit. There is a very good reason charging point operators hide their prices; they are insanely high.50% gross margin isn’t “insanely high” in my book.
If you factor in pollution like NOx and SO2 (the stuff that makes humans sick) then the hybrids wins hands down. I have posted the calculations a long time ago. Even with relatively clean electricity in the Netherlands, a BEV emits 5 times more SO2 compared to an efficient hybrid.Until you start calculating fuel costs for a hybrid; then the hybrid is more cost effective. Take the uncertainty of future price gouging into account and you see why buying a BEV is not such a good idea if you have to depend solely on public charging and want to drive the car for 5 to 10 years.Electricity from a charging point doesn't cost 0.05 euro above cost price, it is typically double the consumer cost price! And even at double the consumer price for electricity, they aren't making a profit. There is a very good reason charging point operators hide their prices; they are insanely high.50% gross margin isn’t “insanely high” in my book.
I'd like to see those numbers. But real numbers, not made up stuff.
If a hybrid gets 50 mpg, that's still twice the cost of fueling a BEV (at US prices of fuel, not sure how high gasoline is in the UK or EU) and a hybrid has other costs like maintenance because of the ICE. It also spews pollution and simply does not address the carbon problem at all.
Owning a BEV is like going from a Nokia 3310i to an iPhone.I want neither phones. I have a good old POTS phone on my desk. Doesn't need charging at all and batteries never wear. Having to plug in a car every day just sucks. There is no place on earth where that is an improvement. It is a tedious action I can do without. I'm not a fan of having to fuel my car but at least that doesn't need to happen very often. Wireless charging a BEV would be a true improvement though.
I want neither phones. I have a good old POTS phone on my desk. Doesn't need charging at all and batteries never wear. Having to plug in a car every day just sucks. There is no place on earth where that is an improvement. It is a tedious action I can do without. I'm not a fan of having to fuel my car but at least that doesn't need to happen very often. Wireless charging a BEV would be a true improvement though.
Owning a BEV is like going from a Nokia 3310i to an iPhone.Yes, and owning an electric car now will feel like having an iPhone 2G when the 5 comes out. Solid state lithium, twice the range from the same battery, no fire.
OK, on the one hand it's slightly inconvenient to plug in every night, rather than 'refuel' every two weeks. But, on the other hand, it takes zero time, because it happens while you sleep. And besides the odd very long road trip, if you can manage this nightly charging routine (or even nightly-once-every-week) then it can work out more convenient than petrol. And, like the new phone, it gives you many more advantages and it's much nicer to use.
Having to plug in a car every day just sucks. There is no place on earth where that is an improvement.
I don't don't like BEVs; you are absolutely wrong about that. I do want a new car to be an improvement though. It would be better if the car didn't need any meddling at all. Driving a car is already something from the stone age (especially with a manual gearbox -looking forward to driving an automatic hybrid-). I want less meddling, not more. Again, plugging in/out all the time and messing with (wet/dirty) wires really isn't an improvement. It is needing more pampering. Especially for someone like me who is prone to forgetting that. I can't count the times I don't even lock the car. The car is no longer on my mind; I'm at my destination so travelling things are done. The car is there to serve me, not the other way around.I want neither phones. I have a good old POTS phone on my desk. Doesn't need charging at all and batteries never wear. Having to plug in a car every day just sucks. There is no place on earth where that is an improvement. It is a tedious action I can do without. I'm not a fan of having to fuel my car but at least that doesn't need to happen very often. Wireless charging a BEV would be a true improvement though.
Ok, we get it. You don't like EVs. But, really, complaining about plugging one in is a bit like complaining about having to press the brake now and then. Compared to the overall action of driving a car it really seems pretty bloody minimal!
Owning a BEV is like going from a Nokia 3310i to an iPhone.
OK, on the one hand it's slightly inconvenient to plug in every night, rather than 'refuel' every two weeks. But, on the other hand, it takes zero time, because it happens while you sleep. And besides the odd very long road trip, if you can manage this nightly charging routine (or even nightly-once-every-week) then it can work out more convenient than petrol. And, like the new phone, it gives you many more advantages and it's much nicer to use.
Having to plug in a car every day just sucks. There is no place on earth where that is an improvement.
If you have your own garage space with an L2 EVSE in it, it takes 10-15 seconds every night (at most) and really is a big improvement over going to a gas station once a week or so. I can't imagine an easier or more convenient way of fueling your car.
If you factor in pollution like NOx and SO2 (the stuff that makes humans sick) then the hybrids wins hands down. I have posted the calculations a long time ago. Even with relatively clean electricity in the Netherlands, a BEV emits 5 times more SO2 compared to an efficient hybrid.Until you start calculating fuel costs for a hybrid; then the hybrid is more cost effective. Take the uncertainty of future price gouging into account and you see why buying a BEV is not such a good idea if you have to depend solely on public charging and want to drive the car for 5 to 10 years.Electricity from a charging point doesn't cost 0.05 euro above cost price, it is typically double the consumer cost price! And even at double the consumer price for electricity, they aren't making a profit. There is a very good reason charging point operators hide their prices; they are insanely high.50% gross margin isn’t “insanely high” in my book.
I'd like to see those numbers. But real numbers, not made up stuff.
If a hybrid gets 50 mpg, that's still twice the cost of fueling a BEV (at US prices of fuel, not sure how high gasoline is in the UK or EU) and a hybrid has other costs like maintenance because of the ICE. It also spews pollution and simply does not address the carbon problem at all.
And hybrids address the CO2 problem for sure.
As long as BEVs compensate non-hybrid ICE car sales AND electricity used for production and driving isn't 100% renewable, BEVs do nothing for CO2 reduction.
Don't forget that BEVs have a much larger CO2 footprint due to production as well.
You need to drive around 150k km to break even compared to a regular ICE car.
With an efficient hybrid the BEV is likely to lose
(which is why you never see hybrids mentioned in CO2 comparisons between BEV / ICE). In China BEVs are an environmental dissaster compared to hybrids due to the amount of coal fired power plants. Toyota has already shown that reduction of CO2 emission is possible without selling any BEVs... All easy to verify information.
I'm not a fan of having to fuel my car but at least that doesn't need to happen very often. Wireless charging a BEV would be a true improvement though.
Owning a BEV is like going from a Nokia 3310i to an iPhone.Yes, and owning an electric car now will feel like having an iPhone 2G when the 5 comes out. Solid state lithium, twice the range from the same battery, no fire.
OK, on the one hand it's slightly inconvenient to plug in every night, rather than 'refuel' every two weeks. But, on the other hand, it takes zero time, because it happens while you sleep. And besides the odd very long road trip, if you can manage this nightly charging routine (or even nightly-once-every-week) then it can work out more convenient than petrol. And, like the new phone, it gives you many more advantages and it's much nicer to use.
Owning a BEV is like going from a Nokia 3310i to an iPhone.
OK, on the one hand it's slightly inconvenient to plug in every night, rather than 'refuel' every two weeks. But, on the other hand, it takes zero time, because it happens while you sleep. And besides the odd very long road trip, if you can manage this nightly charging routine (or even nightly-once-every-week) then it can work out more convenient than petrol. And, like the new phone, it gives you many more advantages and it's much nicer to use.
And for some it's like not being allowed to charge nightly but having to take your phone to an Apple Store half an hour out of your way and wait three hours until it's charged.
Also when it's plugged in you can take advantage of the electrically driven climate control system to pre-condition your car for a particular departure time without using up any of your battery charge (well, you can on mine anyway). In the recent unseasonably hot weather in the UK that's something I've been very pleased to have; more than pleased, smug in fact. No doubt I'll be equally pleased, and smug, if we have anything that looks like a winter this year - interior warm, any frost melted off and a toasty warm seat for my backside.
There are a lot of people with morevisionprivilege who are ready to buy right now.
Also when it's plugged in you can take advantage of the electrically driven climate control system to pre-condition your car for a particular departure time without using up any of your battery charge (well, you can on mine anyway). In the recent unseasonably hot weather in the UK that's something I've been very pleased to have; more than pleased, smug in fact. No doubt I'll be equally pleased, and smug, if we have anything that looks like a winter this year - interior warm, any frost melted off and a toasty warm seat for my backside.
There really is something quite amusing about watching your neighbour hurredly scrape ice off their windscreen as you get into your car, do a single swipe of the windscreen wiper and drive right off... all in a perfectly warm car with all windows demisted.
And in the summer months, I can get into a cool car, it works both ways.
There are a lot of people with morevisionprivilege who are ready to buy right now.
You know, I have plenty of vision, and a drive.. and absolutely no way to recoup the cost of even a second hand BEV within the next 10-15 years.
It's amazing how there are situations which differ from yours.
There are a lot of people with morevisionprivilege who are ready to buy right now.
You know, I have plenty of vision, and a drive.. and absolutely no way to recoup the cost of even a second hand BEV within the next 10-15 years.
It's amazing how there are situations which differ from yours.
If you can't recoup the price differential of a BEV over 15 years, maybe your mistake is driving! You clearly drive so little, you should probably just use Uber or public transport. Some people just shouldn't be driving, I guess.
My mistake is engaging the wilfully ignorant.That appears to be an epidemic in this thread.
Even without parking/charging access issues, BEVs dont stack up economically for many countries/use cases. Without subsidies and/or fleet/average fuel economy requirements (Australia as an example) BEVs are not cost competitive. Looking out 10-15 years requires a guess/bet on future energy prices, so is very hard to make any certain predictions.There are a lot of people with moreYou know, I have plenty of vision, and a drive.. and absolutely no way to recoup the cost of even a second hand BEV within the next 10-15 years.visionprivilege who are ready to buy right now.
It's amazing how there are situations which differ from yours.
There are a lot of people with morevisionprivilege who are ready to buy right now.
You know, I have plenty of vision, and a drive.. and absolutely no way to recoup the cost of even a second hand BEV within the next 10-15 years.
It's amazing how there are situations which differ from yours.
If you can't recoup the price differential of a BEV over 15 years, maybe your mistake is driving! You clearly drive so little, you should probably just use Uber or public transport. Some people just shouldn't be driving, I guess.
My mistake is engaging the wilfully ignorant.
Still waiting on your suggestions for the streets I mentioned. tom66's suggestion is great, if only there were more than two feet of pavement and anyone was going to pay to dig up and properly reinstate the entire street to suit. But therein lies the issue: Who's paying to totally rebuild towns and cities? And no, the property owners won't - whether they live there or are renting it out.
Even without parking/charging access issues, BEVs dont stack up economically for many countries/use cases. Without subsidies and/or fleet/average fuel economy requirements (Australia as an example) BEVs are not cost competitive. Looking out 10-15 years requires a guess/bet on future energy prices, so is very hard to make any certain predictions.There are a lot of people with moreYou know, I have plenty of vision, and a drive.. and absolutely no way to recoup the cost of even a second hand BEV within the next 10-15 years.visionprivilege who are ready to buy right now.
It's amazing how there are situations which differ from yours.
No one. The UK will forever be hopelessly out of date and irrelevant. That has been the path forward in the UK since the end of WWII.
Even without parking/charging access issues, BEVs dont stack up economically for many countries/use cases. Without subsidies and/or fleet/average fuel economy requirements (Australia as an example) BEVs are not cost competitive. Looking out 10-15 years requires a guess/bet on future energy prices, so is very hard to make any certain predictions.There are a lot of people with moreYou know, I have plenty of vision, and a drive.. and absolutely no way to recoup the cost of even a second hand BEV within the next 10-15 years.visionprivilege who are ready to buy right now.
It's amazing how there are situations which differ from yours.
Not really. It is extremely unlikely that solar will increase in price. So if nothing else, you can cap your electric costs by installing solar.
It is a safe bet that gasoline prices will go up. In 20 years, when there are barely any ICE left on the roads, the gasoline infrastructure will be largely dismantled and gas will both be very hard to find, and very expensive.
Also when it's plugged in you can take advantage of the electrically driven climate control system to pre-condition your car for a particular departure time without using up any of your battery charge (well, you can on mine anyway). In the recent unseasonably hot weather in the UK that's something I've been very pleased to have; more than pleased, smug in fact. No doubt I'll be equally pleased, and smug, if we have anything that looks like a winter this year - interior warm, any frost melted off and a toasty warm seat for my backside.
No one. The UK will forever be hopelessly out of date and irrelevant. That has been the path forward in the UK since the end of WWII.
Yes, yes, it is a great shame that the UK doesn't have any hope of keeping up with the achievements of places like Puerto Rico.
Even without parking/charging access issues, BEVs dont stack up economically for many countries/use cases. Without subsidies and/or fleet/average fuel economy requirements (Australia as an example) BEVs are not cost competitive. Looking out 10-15 years requires a guess/bet on future energy prices, so is very hard to make any certain predictions.There are a lot of people with moreYou know, I have plenty of vision, and a drive.. and absolutely no way to recoup the cost of even a second hand BEV within the next 10-15 years.visionprivilege who are ready to buy right now.
It's amazing how there are situations which differ from yours.
Not really. It is extremely unlikely that solar will increase in price. So if nothing else, you can cap your electric costs by installing solar.
It is a safe bet that gasoline prices will go up. In 20 years, when there are barely any ICE left on the roads, the gasoline infrastructure will be largely dismantled and gas will both be very hard to find, and very expensive.
In my case it's now been 24 months owning an EV and it's done 32,000km.
An ICE car at say 8L/100km would use 1280 litres/year and at say $1.80/L that would cost me about $2300 in petrol per year. 10 years is $23,000, not including inflation related or oil market related cost increases of petrol, or maintenance. Not including reduction in home electricity cost. And I agree it's a given that the cost of petrol is very unlikely to drop.
EV's (and solar), from financial perspective are about paying a lot more up front now, for less ongoing cost in the future. But then you also have to factor in the desired longevity of the car and possble battery refurbishment costs.
Why are you being so petty? I was simply trying to make a point with sarcasm. So many people from the UK have such a defeatist attitude about BEVs. It makes me wonder how the UK ever got anything done. There has to be someone in the UK that can figure it out. I guess it will take a while to find that one person.
Don't feed the troll.Why are you being so petty? I was simply trying to make a point with sarcasm. So many people from the UK have such a defeatist attitude about BEVs. It makes me wonder how the UK ever got anything done. There has to be someone in the UK that can figure it out. I guess it will take a while to find that one person.
I think you're being a little unfair to the UK, frankly.
I'm not judging, but these luxuries use energy, and as long as not all energy comes from "renewables" it counteracts the whole purpose of the changeover to a BEV.
Sure ICE owners turn on the engine to heat the windshield and warm the car before they start driving, which is also very bad. I make it a habit to first do what is needed to prepare for driving and start the car when ready to take of. Already did so when I was still working. Just put on a pair of gloves and use a good scraper to clear the windshield.
Furthermore it shows the big flaw in the whole idea of counteracting the human impact on nature.
The human race should reduce consumption of especially energy in the fight against climate change. But what we do is just the opposite. Sure I have build myself a big house I keep warm in winter, but don't need to cool in summer. Like to play the no children card here :)
Read SiliconWizard his post here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/why-no-dodgy-quantum-entanglement-technology/msg4372342/#msg4372342 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/why-no-dodgy-quantum-entanglement-technology/msg4372342/#msg4372342) It reflects what I'm saying.
The whole energy transition thing is still aimed at a growing and not stabilizing economy. People are very concerned about the environment and climate change and sooth their conscience with owning a BEV, installing solar panels, switching to green energy and recycling, but it should not impact their lives to the extend that they can't have three vacations a year or what other luxuries they enjoy.
I'm not judging, but these luxuries use energy, and as long as not all energy comes from "renewables" it counteracts the whole purpose of the changeover to a BEV. Sure ICE owners turn on the engine to heat the windshield and warm the car before they start driving, which is also very bad. I make it a habit to first do what is needed to prepare for driving and start the car when ready to take of. Already did so when I was still working. Just put on a pair of gloves and use a good scraper to clear the windshield.
Oh, and if you are going to dis a group, you might at least learn something about them. For starters, Puerto Rico is not a country. It's a US territory. So all your negative BS is misplaced. Compare the Nobel Prize winners of the US to the UK. 400 vs the not even close 138 for the second place UK. Yeah, that is embarrassing for you.
Why are you being so petty? I was simply trying to make a point with sarcasm. So many people from the UK have such a defeatist attitude about BEVs. It makes me wonder how the UK ever got anything done. There has to be someone in the UK that can figure it out. I guess it will take a while to find that one person.
Why are you being so petty? I was simply trying to make a point with sarcasm. So many people from the UK have such a defeatist attitude about BEVs. It makes me wonder how the UK ever got anything done. There has to be someone in the UK that can figure it out. I guess it will take a while to find that one person.
I think you're being a little unfair to the UK, frankly. I would argue the US is more opposed to electric vehicles with their obsession over massive trucks/SUVs, driving to places that most people walk/cycle to and insistence that a vehicle is impractical unless it can drive 1,000 miles in a day non stop.
PR is a small territory, you can easily cross from one side to another on a single charge with almost every EV made today, so your view of how accepted electric vehicles are may be influenced by that.
The UK has a well-developed charging network, a large number of charging companies based in the UK which have expanded into Europe, and equipment manufacturers and suppliers. We have a factory that is supposed to be building new EV batteries (we'll see if it takes off), Nissan makes the Leaf for Europe & UK here, the plug-in hybrid-electric London taxi (100km all electric range) is made in Birmingham, UK and we've got a few EV startups too (ARRIVAL is the big one having recently won a contract to supply Royal Mail with custom built EV vans.)
Engineers in general, which is predominantly the membership base of this forum, seem to have a very luddite-like view of the world and seem to be very opposed to change.
This is not just in relation to EVs, it's things like smartphones, "the cloud", heck I've even seen an argument here where a chap was insistent that his Ni-Cad drill was better than a new Li-Ion one because he can leave the battery at 0% for a year and it'll still work. Never mind the fact it can do half the torque and half the work before going flat.
Of the EE friends I know, only about two or three are actively interested in electric vehicles. Most are on the fence and a few are opposed in similar ways to several of the posters might be here.
I imagine it will begin to shift over time, nothing changes overnight.
100 km is pretty lame range, even for a city car. I don't know how many miles a day a taxi drives, well, km then, but 100 km is only 60 miles and that's not much for any sort of working vehicle, even if you charge at lunch. We'll see if it is successful.
Looking at the average value for Prague (a decent size city) average taxi (and all uber, bolt ...) are 180-220 km a working day100 km is pretty lame range, even for a city car. I don't know how many miles a day a taxi drives, well, km then, but 100 km is only 60 miles and that's not much for any sort of working vehicle, even if you charge at lunch. We'll see if it is successful.
It's not a bad compromise tbh... Most of the taxis spend their time tootling around in city traffic where average speeds of 8 mph mean you're doing well. So they can easily run till lunch. The petrol engine then gets them any fares to the airport and back.
But I think long term something like a 200mi / 300km all electric taxi will make the most sense. PHEVs are training wheels for real EVs :)
As for Ni-Cads, no doubt at all that a Li-Ion power tool battery will outperform on current output. My drill battery is fist sized and can do 30 amps without cutting out, at 18V. That's over 500W peak power. You are not getting that from Ni-Cads.
In my case it's now been 24 months owning an EV and it's done 32,000km.
An ICE car at say 8L/100km would use 1280 litres/year and at say $1.80/L that would cost me about $2300 in petrol per year. 10 years is $23,000, not including inflation related or oil market related cost increases of petrol, or maintenance. Not including reduction in home electricity cost. And I agree it's a given that the cost of petrol is very unlikely to drop.
EV's (and solar), from financial perspective are about paying a lot more up front now, for less ongoing cost in the future. But then you also have to factor in the desired longevity of the car and possble battery refurbishment costs.
The insurance on my 204 hp Golf PHEV was less than my 90 hp Peugeot 206 HDi diesel.
It turns out the insurance profile of EV and PHEV drivers (Tesla probably excepted) is "boring old guy who likes efficiency". There are few better categories as far as insurers are concerned.
No one. The UK will forever be hopelessly out of date and irrelevant. That has been the path forward in the UK since the end of WWII.
Yes, yes, it is a great shame that the UK doesn't have any hope of keeping up with the achievements of places like Puerto Rico.
Exactly. It's not about ability, it's about mindset. We are limited by what we think we can do.
Oh, and if you are going to dis a group, you might at least learn something about them. For starters, Puerto Rico is not a country. It's a US territory. So all your negative BS is misplaced. Compare the Nobel Prize winners of the US to the UK. 400 vs the not even close 138 for the second place UK. Yeah, that is embarrassing for you.
Why are you being so petty? I was simply trying to make a point with sarcasm. So many people from the UK have such a defeatist attitude about BEVs. It makes me wonder how the UK ever got anything done. There has to be someone in the UK that can figure it out. I guess it will take a while to find that one person.
Also when it's plugged in you can take advantage of the electrically driven climate control system to pre-condition your car for a particular departure time without using up any of your battery charge (well, you can on mine anyway). In the recent unseasonably hot weather in the UK that's something I've been very pleased to have; more than pleased, smug in fact. No doubt I'll be equally pleased, and smug, if we have anything that looks like a winter this year - interior warm, any frost melted off and a toasty warm seat for my backside.
I'm not judging, but these luxuries use energy, and as long as not all energy comes from "renewables" it counteracts the whole purpose of the changeover to a BEV. Sure ICE owners turn on the engine to heat the windshield and warm the car before they start driving, which is also very bad. I make it a habit to first do what is needed to prepare for driving and start the car when ready to take of. Already did so when I was still working. Just put on a pair of gloves and use a good scraper to clear the windshield.
Furthermore it shows the big flaw in the whole idea of counteracting the human impact on nature. The human race should reduce consumption of especially energy in the fight against climate change. But what we do is just the opposite. Sure I have build myself a big house I keep warm in winter, but don't need to cool in summer. Like to play the no children card here :)
Read SiliconWizard his post here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/why-no-dodgy-quantum-entanglement-technology/msg4372342/#msg4372342 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/why-no-dodgy-quantum-entanglement-technology/msg4372342/#msg4372342) It reflects what I'm saying.
The whole energy transition thing is still aimed at a growing and not stabilizing economy. People are very concerned about the environment and climate change and sooth their conscience with owning a BEV, installing solar panels, switching to green energy and recycling, but it should not impact their lives to the extend that they can't have three vacations a year or what other luxuries they enjoy.
About airconditioning in a car: Personally I consider it a safety feature. It has been scientifically proven the human brain doesn't work well at high temperatures.
100 km is pretty lame range, even for a city car. I don't know how many miles a day a taxi drives, well, km then, but 100 km is only 60 miles and that's not much for any sort of working vehicle, even if you charge at lunch. We'll see if it is successful.
It's not a bad compromise tbh... Most of the taxis spend their time tootling around in city traffic where average speeds of 8 mph mean you're doing well. So they can easily run till lunch. The petrol engine then gets them any fares to the airport and back.
But I think long term something like a 200mi / 300km all electric taxi will make the most sense. PHEVs are training wheels for real EVs :)
As for Ni-Cads, no doubt at all that a Li-Ion power tool battery will outperform on current output. My drill battery is fist sized and can do 30 amps without cutting out, at 18V. That's over 500W peak power. You are not getting that from Ni-Cads.
The insurance on my 204 hp Golf PHEV was less than my 90 hp Peugeot 206 HDi diesel.
It turns out the insurance profile of EV and PHEV drivers (Tesla probably excepted) is "boring old guy who likes efficiency". There are few better categories as far as insurers are concerned.
@Cerebus, don't get me wrong, it was no personal attack on you. Just an observation on society in its whole.
Our old car was 17 years old and the French government had a very good deal for us on trade in. As we have no income apart from some interest on savings we fall in a tax bracket that allowed a grant of 3000 euro back for our old car as long as it got scrapped. We did look into a more environmental friendly option, but the prices are to high. Now we have a ~2 year old Ford Fiesta with enough horse power to drive comfortably in the hills, which the old one lacked a bit, and it has a better fuel economy then the old one. ~5.5L/100Km. We drive maybe 8000Km per year, of which ~50% is from twice a year a trip to visit the parents in the Netherlands.
To compensate a bit I switch of my internet every night. (Mostly because it saves money :) ) This means 1 fiber to ethernet converter, 2 wireless routers in series (one controlled by my ISP) and a switch. Not a lot, but every bit helps.
And how about refilling the oil? Those taxis are Brittish made cars so they have to leak oil >:D
100 km is pretty lame range, even for a city car. I don't know how many miles a day a taxi drives, well, km then, but 100 km is only 60 miles and that's not much for any sort of working vehicle, even if you charge at lunch. We'll see if it is successful.
It's not a bad compromise tbh... Most of the taxis spend their time tootling around in city traffic where average speeds of 8 mph mean you're doing well. So they can easily run till lunch. The petrol engine then gets them any fares to the airport and back.
But I think long term something like a 200mi / 300km all electric taxi will make the most sense. PHEVs are training wheels for real EVs :)
As for Ni-Cads, no doubt at all that a Li-Ion power tool battery will outperform on current output. My drill battery is fist sized and can do 30 amps without cutting out, at 18V. That's over 500W peak power. You are not getting that from Ni-Cads.
Looking at the average value for Prague (a decent size city) average taxi (and all uber, bolt ...) are 180-220 km a working day100 km is pretty lame range, even for a city car. I don't know how many miles a day a taxi drives, well, km then, but 100 km is only 60 miles and that's not much for any sort of working vehicle, even if you charge at lunch. We'll see if it is successful.
It's not a bad compromise tbh... Most of the taxis spend their time tootling around in city traffic where average speeds of 8 mph mean you're doing well. So they can easily run till lunch. The petrol engine then gets them any fares to the airport and back.
But I think long term something like a 200mi / 300km all electric taxi will make the most sense. PHEVs are training wheels for real EVs :)
As for Ni-Cads, no doubt at all that a Li-Ion power tool battery will outperform on current output. My drill battery is fist sized and can do 30 amps without cutting out, at 18V. That's over 500W peak power. You are not getting that from Ni-Cads.
Sorry, I missed that it is a hybrid. I don't have much enthusiasm for hybrids. They don't solve any problems, other than making ICE cheaper to run.
That's something people say that makes no sense to me. It's not an EV, it just uses a battery and electric motor to improve mileage. It doesn't have the same advantages or disadvantages.
QuoteAs for Ni-Cads, no doubt at all that a Li-Ion power tool battery will outperform on current output. My drill battery is fist sized and can do 30 amps without cutting out, at 18V. That's over 500W peak power. You are not getting that from Ni-Cads.
You mean the density? Yeah, that's true. But I've never seen a battery power tool that lacked in power. I would still be using my NiCd Makita, but I'm not paying nearly as much for a new battery as I would for a new drill.
Sorry, I missed that it is a hybrid. I don't have much enthusiasm for hybrids. They don't solve any problems, other than making ICE cheaper to run.
That's something people say that makes no sense to me. It's not an EV, it just uses a battery and electric motor to improve mileage. It doesn't have the same advantages or disadvantages.
I don't know if you actually understand what a PHEV *is*.
The best way to think of a PHEV is like a battery-electric vehicle that can run on petrol when the battery is flat. That is why I say it is like training wheels. You get slowly more used to electric mobility. Working out how to schedule your charging times, finding public chargers, optimising efficiency for EV driving.
That kind of thing. My PHEV offsets some 80% of emissions because the petrol engine *simply never runs for those miles*. When it is running on petrol, you get some efficiency benefits from being electrically-assisted, e.g. my car only has a 1.4L engine but is almost as fast as the comparable model with a 2.0L engine, which means less drag and higher load factors. But that's relatively minor compared to pure EV benefits.QuoteAs for Ni-Cads, no doubt at all that a Li-Ion power tool battery will outperform on current output. My drill battery is fist sized and can do 30 amps without cutting out, at 18V. That's over 500W peak power. You are not getting that from Ni-Cads.
You mean the density? Yeah, that's true. But I've never seen a battery power tool that lacked in power. I would still be using my NiCd Makita, but I'm not paying nearly as much for a new battery as I would for a new drill.
Both energy and power density are improved, the drill can do more torque and it can supply that torque for longer before needing a battery charge.
That's the part that makes no sense to me. You don't need to undergo training wheels for a BEV. None of this is rocket science. Also, most PHEVs don't use level 3 charging, only level 1 and 2 which take time. People don't want to wait around for that, so not much use of public charging. They will mostly either just charge at home, or not charge at all and run off gasoline. This is why a PHEV is not at all like a BEV. It has many of the disadvantages of an ICE vehicle and few of the advantages of a BEV. It is it's own animal, which takes getting used to, in ways that are different from BEVs.
That seems to be majorly discounting the flexibility that the PHEV offers. If you're in a situation where charging is easy and convenient and you're driving the typical short amount per day, it gives you a lot of the benefits of the BEV. If you're in a situation where charging isn't easy or where you have a particularly long day of driving, it's still able to accomplish that without any fuss or inconvenience relative to a normal ICE car.The best way to think of a PHEV is like a battery-electric vehicle that can run on petrol when the battery is flat. That is why I say it is like training wheels. You get slowly more used to electric mobility. Working out how to schedule your charging times, finding public chargers, optimising efficiency for EV driving.That's the part that makes no sense to me. You don't need to undergo training wheels for a BEV. None of this is rocket science. Also, most PHEVs don't use level 3 charging, only level 1 and 2 which take time. People don't want to wait around for that, so not much use of public charging. They will mostly either just charge at home, or not charge at all and run off gasoline. This is why a PHEV is not at all like a BEV. It has many of the disadvantages of an ICE vehicle and few of the advantages of a BEV. It is it's own animal, which takes getting used to, in ways that are different from BEVs.
Our daily drivers right now are a BEV and an ICE. When it comes time to replace the ICE, we're almost surely going to replace it with a used PHEV, for the flexibility reasons listed above.
That's the part that makes no sense to me. You don't need to undergo training wheels for a BEV. None of this is rocket science. Also, most PHEVs don't use level 3 charging, only level 1 and 2 which take time. People don't want to wait around for that, so not much use of public charging. They will mostly either just charge at home, or not charge at all and run off gasoline. This is why a PHEV is not at all like a BEV. It has many of the disadvantages of an ICE vehicle and few of the advantages of a BEV. It is it's own animal, which takes getting used to, in ways that are different from BEVs.
Well, you live in a country that is just over 100km across, whereas I'm in a country where a holiday is easily 500-600km so I think perspectives vary. You do need to consider fast charging if you live in the UK. A PHEV eliminates that hassle. You can do shorter journeys, like your commute on electricity alone but longer trips require little or no planning, as long as you have petrol you can just... go.
At the time I bought my PHEV the only other EV option in my price range was the BMW i3 94Ah which had roughly 100 mile all electric range. I would not have made much impact to my overall electric usage (maybe gone from 80% to 100% electric) but had the inconvenience of a short range EV with slow fast charging (~38kW max for the i3) making road tripping a pain. Keep in mind we own a single car, so we don't have the option to own a short range EV and a diesel car or something like some families do.
Now, today, there are many better options, if you can buy them, like the VW ID.3 which have 100kW+ fast charging and 300km+ range so the 'hassle' factor drops to close to zero if you have home charging.
I would argue that anyone buying a brand new PHEV (with a few limited exceptions) is making a mistake but used PHEVs are bloody good bargains.
That seems to be majorly discounting the flexibility that the PHEV offers. If you're in a situation where charging is easy and convenient and you're driving the typical short amount per day, it gives you a lot of the benefits of the BEV. If you're in a situation where charging isn't easy or where you have a particularly long day of driving, it's still able to accomplish that without any fuss or inconvenience relative to a normal ICE car.The best way to think of a PHEV is like a battery-electric vehicle that can run on petrol when the battery is flat. That is why I say it is like training wheels. You get slowly more used to electric mobility. Working out how to schedule your charging times, finding public chargers, optimising efficiency for EV driving.That's the part that makes no sense to me. You don't need to undergo training wheels for a BEV. None of this is rocket science. Also, most PHEVs don't use level 3 charging, only level 1 and 2 which take time. People don't want to wait around for that, so not much use of public charging. They will mostly either just charge at home, or not charge at all and run off gasoline. This is why a PHEV is not at all like a BEV. It has many of the disadvantages of an ICE vehicle and few of the advantages of a BEV. It is it's own animal, which takes getting used to, in ways that are different from BEVs.
It allows someone to buy a PHEV, expecting to own it 7-10 years, without knowing in advance their exact parking/charging/garaging situation.
Flexibility has value, especially in this case. Our daily drivers right now are a BEV and an ICE. When it comes time to replace the ICE, we're almost surely going to replace it with a used PHEV, for the flexibility reasons listed above.
The battery pack will be extra weight you drag around making the ICE more inefficient. IMHO having a PHEV with relatively large batteries makes most sense if a significant part of what you are driving can be done using the batteries AND if you have a cheap source for charging. Otherwise it is not worth having the larger batteries. If you care about cost then it certainly is good to fill in a spreadsheet to calculate optimal TCO.Our daily drivers right now are a BEV and an ICE. When it comes time to replace the ICE, we're almost surely going to replace it with a used PHEV, for the flexibility reasons listed above.
Same here. I don't understand how combining the features of a BEV and ICE/hybrid into a long-range PHEV make it somehow worse than a separate BEV and ICE.
I'm simply pointing out that [PHEVs] are completely unrelated to the process of converting to BEVs. The two are not related.In order for EVs to be bought, they have to be considered. In order for them to be considered, they have to have awareness.
Our daily drivers right now are a BEV and an ICE. When it comes time to replace the ICE, we're almost surely going to replace it with a used PHEV, for the flexibility reasons listed above.
Same here. I don't understand how combining the features of a BEV and ICE/hybrid into a long-range PHEV make it somehow worse than a separate BEV and ICE.
I'm simply pointing out that they are completely unrelated to the process of converting to BEVs. The two are not related.
The battery pack will be extra weight you drag around making the ICE more inefficient. IMHO having a PHEV with relatively large batteries makes most sense if a significant part of what you are driving can be done using the batteries AND if you have a cheap source for charging. Otherwise it is not worth having the larger batteries. If you care about cost then it certainly is good to fill in a spreadsheet to calculate optimal TCO.
I think that the ability to recapture braking energy will outweigh any weight concerns in almost all but the most extreme corner cases, even compared to a smaller battery.
Well, I was reacting to 'long range PHEVs'. In my mind you start to get into ranges around 160miles (say 100km to 200km) which would require a much larger battery pack. Ofcourse with cheaper / high energy per weight batteries in the future, the equation changes but we aren't there yet. Feature creep is the enemy of any good product.The battery pack will be extra weight you drag around making the ICE more inefficient. IMHO having a PHEV with relatively large batteries makes most sense if a significant part of what you are driving can be done using the batteries AND if you have a cheap source for charging. Otherwise it is not worth having the larger batteries. If you care about cost then it certainly is good to fill in a spreadsheet to calculate optimal TCO.
I think that the ability to recapture braking energy will outweigh any weight concerns in almost all but the most extreme corner cases, even compared to a smaller battery. (small batteries have limited regen absorption capability) PHEVs are typically a bit on the expensive side, so I won't make any cost arguments, but in my view the ideal use case is when your daily driving can be done with all or mostly battery power and the ICE is reserved for longer trips. There are quite a few Chevy Volt owners that have been doing this for years and many of them get by with very low gasoline usage. There are quite a few PHEVs now with 25-40 mile EV ranges.
I'm simply pointing out that [PHEVs] are completely unrelated to the process of converting to BEVs. The two are not related.In order for EVs to be bought, they have to be considered. In order for them to be considered, they have to have awareness.
I know many people who now have a BEV as a result of them or a friend having bought a PHEV (Volts in this case) and realizing “hey, that plug-in thing is pretty cool!”
I can’t help but see that chain of human awareness to consideration to purchase as being part of the adoption path from pure ICE to BEVs.
Our daily drivers right now are a BEV and an ICE. When it comes time to replace the ICE, we're almost surely going to replace it with a used PHEV, for the flexibility reasons listed above.
Same here. I don't understand how combining the features of a BEV and ICE/hybrid into a long-range PHEV make it somehow worse than a separate BEV and ICE.
Well, if you're thinking like an engineer then the combination allows you to take advantage of the best qualities of both, at the cost of some increased complexity. Of course if you've caught religion, then you'll battle for your corner while disparaging the other corner and burn any heretics who think there might be a middle ground between the two. It doesn't matter whether the religion in question is mainstream "Petrolhead" or mainstream "BEV" or a small spinoff sect like Tesla drivers, they all hate heretics.
I'm simply pointing out that they are completely unrelated to the process of converting to BEVs. The two are not related.
And we're pointing out that you are simply completely wrong on that matter and you've made no credible arguments to support your opinion. If I drive to work and back in a PHEV and the commute is entirely within it's EV range (the ICE never starts), how does that differ driving a BEV on the same trip?
Our daily drivers right now are a BEV and an ICE. When it comes time to replace the ICE, we're almost surely going to replace it with a used PHEV, for the flexibility reasons listed above.
Same here. I don't understand how combining the features of a BEV and ICE/hybrid into a long-range PHEV make it somehow worse than a separate BEV and ICE.
Well, if you're thinking like an engineer then the combination allows you to take advantage of the best qualities of both, at the cost of some increased complexity. Of course if you've caught religion, then you'll battle for your corner while disparaging the other corner and burn any heretics who think there might be a middle ground between the two. It doesn't matter whether the religion in question is mainstream "Petrolhead" or mainstream "BEV" or a small spinoff sect like Tesla drivers, they all hate heretics.
So the "best" qualities include higher pollution of ICE, higher fuel costs of ICE, the regular maintenance of ICE, and the highest complication of any of the three.
Hybrids were an idea from 20 years ago before BEVs were practical. BEVs are a much better solution today and will continue to improve over the next 20 years at least. There is so little down side to BEVs that it's a slam dunk! What downsides they have, will be highly mitigated over the next few years as every automaker produces millions. Well, every automaker who plans to stay in business.
I wouldn't have considered a BEV if I hadn't driven a PHEV beforehand. Sorry, you're just wrong about this. I frequent a UK focused EV forum and every poster I've seen who has traded in their PHEV has *either* got a BEV or a newer PHEV, but the majority are getting BEVs. It's clearly working. Once you drive electric, you never want to go back.Yeah, that 1.6 KWh battery is also there to drive the engine in a more efficient way, not just breaking.
And as for public charging, I make use of 3kW public chargers all the time. Go to the supermarket, 45 minutes shopping and the car has gained all the range it used for the drive there. OK it's "nothing" on the grand scale of things (6-7 miles added range) but it changes your view of how you use a vehicle. And the supermarket doesn't charge for electricity so it makes it a very cheap drive indeed.
@nctnico: plugs on hybrids only make sense if the battery is a usable capacity IMO. So a 1.6kWh Prius battery is not really worth charging, especially because the car can only use about 800Wh of that.
I wouldn't have considered a BEV if I hadn't driven a PHEV beforehand. Sorry, you're just wrong about this.
I frequent a UK focused EV forum and every poster I've seen who has traded in their PHEV has *either* got a BEV or a newer PHEV, but the majority are getting BEVs. It's clearly working. Once you drive electric, you never want to go back.
And as for public charging, I make use of 3kW public chargers all the time. Go to the supermarket, 45 minutes shopping and the car has gained all the range it used for the drive there. OK it's "nothing" on the grand scale of things (6-7 miles added range) but it changes your view of how you use a vehicle. And the supermarket doesn't charge for electricity so it makes it a very cheap drive indeed.
Our daily drivers right now are a BEV and an ICE. When it comes time to replace the ICE, we're almost surely going to replace it with a used PHEV, for the flexibility reasons listed above.
Same here. I don't understand how combining the features of a BEV and ICE/hybrid into a long-range PHEV make it somehow worse than a separate BEV and ICE.
Well, if you're thinking like an engineer then the combination allows you to take advantage of the best qualities of both, at the cost of some increased complexity. Of course if you've caught religion, then you'll battle for your corner while disparaging the other corner and burn any heretics who think there might be a middle ground between the two. It doesn't matter whether the religion in question is mainstream "Petrolhead" or mainstream "BEV" or a small spinoff sect like Tesla drivers, they all hate heretics.
So the "best" qualities include higher pollution of ICE, higher fuel costs of ICE, the regular maintenance of ICE, and the highest complication of any of the three.
Hybrids were an idea from 20 years ago before BEVs were practical. BEVs are a much better solution today and will continue to improve over the next 20 years at least. There is so little down side to BEVs that it's a slam dunk! What downsides they have, will be highly mitigated over the next few years as every automaker produces millions. Well, every automaker who plans to stay in business.
There's little point arguing with a religious zealot. You pick what suits your belief system and quietly ignore the rest. Your reply is no different to a petrol zealot answering with "So the 'best' qualities include running out of battery and waiting ages to charge it".
The secondary issue is if you have low/zero air pollution zones how can you really allow PHEVs into that - there is no way to know externally if the car is running electric or petrol.
When the facts can no longer be argued, some resort to ad hominem.
The biggest problem with PHEVs is they are impossible to tax and incentivise correctly, at least if you still have regular petrol hybrids.That's the exact right wording of the problem.
All this tax-free BEV is BS
I know it is meant to support its adoption
But in all seriousness it is indeed bad times that this kind of information is not widely spread. I guess television time has become to expensive.Who is watching TV anyway nowadays? I read news online and watch series / films online.
The biggest problem with PHEVs is they are impossible to tax and incentivise correctly, at least if you still have regular petrol hybrids.That's the exact right wording of the problem.
Like Germany. People were buying these as company cars, and never plugging it to the wall. Why? Because you still got a petrol card, that allowed you to buy petrol to the company's expense, but you couldn't get the same benefit for electricity. It's just bad policy.
I could use a PHEV maybe 90% in electric mode, yet I'm to be taxed almost as an ICE. And this is happening in the 21 century, where it would take a very minimal effort to be able to send telemetry data to the tax office (let's just ignore the data protection aspects of this). So we are not switching to a superior tech, due to policies :palm:.
And yes, the infamous Outlander. I think most of those were exported from here when the incentives ran out. Talk about being in the right place at the right time.
But in all seriousness it is indeed bad times that this kind of information is not widely spread. I guess television time has become to expensive.Who is watching TV anyway nowadays? I read news online and watch series / films online.
In all fairness; the Dutch government has similar incentives and they seem to work OK but that is mainly due to the fact that the Netherlands is a very densily populated country so it is not extremely expensive to have a country wide charging infrastructure. Still, a lot (about 1/3) of BEVs supported by tax incentives are being exported because there is no demand for them on the second market.The biggest problem with PHEVs is they are impossible to tax and incentivise correctly, at least if you still have regular petrol hybrids.That's the exact right wording of the problem.
Like Germany. People were buying these as company cars, and never plugging it to the wall. Why? Because you still got a petrol card, that allowed you to buy petrol to the company's expense, but you couldn't get the same benefit for electricity. It's just bad policy.
I could use a PHEV maybe 90% in electric mode, yet I'm to be taxed almost as an ICE. And this is happening in the 21 century, where it would take a very minimal effort to be able to send telemetry data to the tax office (let's just ignore the data protection aspects of this). So we are not switching to a superior tech, due to policies :palm:.
And yes, the infamous Outlander. I think most of those were exported from here when the incentives ran out. Talk about being in the right place at the right time.
I'm sure that company car taxation rules in the UK had a very similar effect. A few years back the UK government introduced a significant reduction in the "benefit in kind" taxation on company cars that were plug-in that led to two models in particular becoming hugely popular as company cars: the BMW 330e and the Lexus RX 450h (plus the infamous Outlander/Taxlander). The people specifying these were, I suspect, in the most part simply looking to reduce their tax liabilities. I'm sure that some were making a genuine "green" choice, but most were simply looking to their pockets and only had a few experimental charges of the battery.
The good news from this is that a glut of them appeared on the post-leasing market at around the same time leading to relatively affordable hybrids becoming available to people who couldn't afford (or didn't want to pay) full ticket prices for a PHEV or BEV. I was one such person and got a BMW 330e in very good condition for a very good price (Not my first choice of style of car at all, I'm a 2 seater convertible kind of guy at heart, my only reason for choosing it was the opportunity to get a plug-in at all). It's notable that the charge cable that plugs into a normal domestic socket that came with mine had little apparent wear when I got the car, it looks much tattier now that I've used it every few days for the last 5 months.
Unfortunately the same bout of tax incentives didn't inject a lot of post-lease BEVs into the market at affordable prices. Despite what some commentators here have said I'm sure that is because many people who were in a position to specify a BEV as a company car were deterred by anxieties over reliable charging. It certainly wasn't a cost issue - the BMW 330e PHEV that I picked up would, with its options, have carried around a £40,000 price tag new off the forecourt - easily enough for those company car specifiers to buy a BEV rather than a PHEV.
Also because of the way the company car market has changed in the UK company cars have gravitated towards the premium/luxury end of the market with most cars that aren't strict essentials going to higher paid executives (30 years ago when I was an middle ranking employee my job attracted a company car as a perk, nowadays the same job wouldn't). Sadly what that meant for PHEVs/BEVs coming off lease was there were negligible numbers in the medium-sized or small car sector so there was no impact in that market segment that most needs affordable second hand PHEVs/BEVs to be hitting the roads.
So yes, the usual story with government meddling of unintended outcomes. At least in the case of the UK gov's failures it put some second hand PHEVs and maybe a small handful of BEVs onto the market at prices that private buyers who couldn't afford a new PHEV/BEV could contemplate.
About the new rules, the public will learn when they violate them. And that brings money into the treasury. Win win for the government :-DD
All this tax-free BEV is BS
I know it is meant to support its adoption
But it has no logical reason, it uses the same roads and presents that same danger to the public (it is still 2 ton metal box on wheels)
But with the current BEV position on the market when it is in Luxury or at least the top of the menu
It is just a support for the wealthy portion of the population
And with wider adoption, they will have to increase taxes anyway because there will be only a few ICE to tax and governments need this huge tax revenue
All this tax-free BEV is BSWhat does that mean, "tax-free BEV"? I pay plenty of tax on my BEV.
I know it is meant to support its adoption
But it has no logical reason, it uses the same roads and presents that same danger to the public (it is still 2 ton metal box on wheels)
But with the current BEV position on the market when it is in Luxury or at least the top of the menu
It is just a support for the wealthy portion of the population
And with wider adoption, they will have to increase taxes anyway because there will be only a few ICE to tax and governments need this huge tax revenue
All this tax-free BEV is BSWhat does that mean, "tax-free BEV"? I pay plenty of tax on my BEV.
I know it is meant to support its adoption
But it has no logical reason, it uses the same roads and presents that same danger to the public (it is still 2 ton metal box on wheels)
But with the current BEV position on the market when it is in Luxury or at least the top of the menu
It is just a support for the wealthy portion of the population
And with wider adoption, they will have to increase taxes anyway because there will be only a few ICE to tax and governments need this huge tax revenue
A lot of countries, and states within countries, have low tax or no tax incentives to buy EV's. They might even give cash grants. You know, all this net-zero stuff.
Similar with solar which is why uptake exploded here in Australia when the subsidies and feed-in tarrifs were announced.
I don't know what countries they would be. Do you? Can you name any?
I don't know what countries they would be. Do you? Can you name any?
Probably the best well-known example is Norway. Their polices have led to massive EV adoption even in an Arctic climate.
https://elbil.no/english/norwegian-ev-policy/
Almost all EU countries have some form of lowered taxes and/or direct incentivesI don't know what countries they would be. Do you? Can you name any?
Probably the best well-known example is Norway. Their polices have led to massive EV adoption even in an Arctic climate.
https://elbil.no/english/norwegian-ev-policy/
I see some exclusions from taxes paid when buying a BEV, which would be like the incentives we have here, a one time thing to lower the effective cost of the car. VAT is 25%!!! Wow
Many of the ongoing exclusions have run out, like the road tax. Tolls and ferry fees are now half rather than free.
So Norway is not so much different from the US. They have purchase incentives and some minor ongoing savings on tolls, but charge a road tax.