EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: vad on January 15, 2023, 04:48:07 am
-
Battery-powered vehicles will not save us. Here is why by a mechanical engineer from Serbia:
https://youtu.be/k8CnlL8I4HE
He brings few interesting points: charging infrastructure is infeasible for many car owners (think the third world countries where urban population lives predominately in high density residential buildings), and CO2 emissions impact of EVs is comparable to impact of vehicles with internal combustion engine.
I agree with the author. ICE vehicles are not going anywhere any time soon. Not until global hydrocarbon reserves are depleted. Beyond that point, transportation industry will switch to alternative energy carriers. I doubt that lithium ion batteries will dominate as energy carriers by then. In my opinion, hydrogen infrastructure, where a gas station is replaced by a hydrogen station, is more practical.
-
You are 10 years late with that criticism. It already happened, and it was viable after all. Sorry.
-
While it's true that ICE cars are not going anywhere any time soon, EVs have already shown to be practical for millions of people. I know at least half a dozen people that drive them, several have had them for quite a few years now.
It's always funny to me when I see someone predicting something will never work that has already been working for quite some time.
-
Battery-powered vehicles will not save us. Here is why by a mechanical engineer from Serbia:
https://youtu.be/k8CnlL8I4HE
He brings few interesting points: charging infrastructure is infeasible for many car owners (think the third world countries where urban population lives predominately in high density residential buildings), and CO2 emissions impact of EVs is comparable to impact of vehicles with internal combustion engine.
I agree with the author. ICE vehicles are not going anywhere any time soon. Not until global hydrocarbon reserves are depleted. Beyond that point, transportation industry will switch to alternative energy carriers. I doubt that lithium ion batteries will dominate as energy carriers by then. In my opinion, hydrogen infrastructure, where a gas station is replaced by a hydrogen station, is more practical.
Hello you’re about 5 years too late millions of EVs on the road and more to come. Sure the steam engine will never catch on and the world only needs 7 computers !!!!
-
You are 10 years late with that criticism. It already happened, and it was viable after all. Sorry.
Yep, the OP's knowledge and perspectives are way-way out dated.
Just watch this ... ( this video is made one year ago) ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P7fTPLSMeI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P7fTPLSMeI)
-
You are 10 years late with that criticism. It already happened, and it was viable after all. Sorry.
:-+
Further, some operators are installing substantial solar arrays to help further reduce the cost of charging their EV trucks.
-
The viability of EVs is dependent on power infrastructure, but that can catch up.
There are plenty of solutions for people who can't charge at home - e.g. in the UK, in some areas every other lamppost on the street has a chargepoint built in
Last month in the UK EV;s outsold ICE cars, and there are more than a million on the road. Also over 50% of electricity here is regularly coming from renewables, with only a tiny percentage of coal remaining.
In my opinion, hydrogen infrastructure, where a gas station is replaced by a hydrogen station, is more practical.
Hydrogen will never be viable outside of a few niche applications, it's just too inefficient.
Here's a good vid explaining why Hydrogen is not the answer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zklo4Z1SqkE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zklo4Z1SqkE)
-
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-hydrogen-fuel-economy-will-not-be-viable/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-hydrogen-fuel-economy-will-not-be-viable/)
-
The situation regarding the feasibility of EVs varies very much based upon where you live, your income, and what you use a vehicle for.
I work as an electrician for a metropolitan council in the UK. My journey to and from work is up and down steep hills, with significant quantities of tools and gear, as necessary. An electric vehicle capable of taking me to and from work is a long way outside my price range, and there is most definitely no charging infrastructure where I live (and no realistic possibility to add it, at this time), nor at the vast majority of places where I work.
As part of the clean air initiative the council are looking at changing all their vehicles to electric; this is proving to be a massive and costly undertaking, where, as an example, a new bin wagon costs around £180k for a euro 6 derv, and around £500k for an EV. Then you have the cost of the charger on top, another £50k.
For a fleet of, say for the sake of argument 50 bin wagons, this is a huge increase in cost, at a time when they are already running a deficit (and have been for years), and are facing further funding squeezes by central government.
And that is before we get to the capital investment part; so far that's just been periodic replacement and running cost increases. They've had an EV wagon on loan, to test it, and it's so far not been very well liked; it has a short run time, and because the electrical infrastructure at the depot can't handle it, the charger can't even fast charge. And that's just one truck.
I expect there are estimations going on as to the cost of upgrading the electrical infrastructure for all the depots where they will want to use them, and I know we are replacing all the boards at one of the depots pretty soon, but that will still only get them one charger running at low power at that depot. Why? Because the supply from the substations isn't big enough to do more, at any of the depots. So that means new mains from the substations, at a cost of probably at least £5m per depot, maybe more, and that's assuming spare capacity at the substations, which isn't a given.
Now, I'm not anti-EV, I'm not saying it can't be done, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I am saying it's going to be bloody expensive, and it certainly isn't going to be finished by 2030.
-
It's certainly seeming pretty viable so far.
Though we do need to get better chargers - the problem isn't so much the speed as it is the reliability.
Maybe ~1% of petrol pumps are out of service at any one time, but the fraction of EV chargers out of service seems much greater, around 10%, and worse, they tend to take months to get fixed. Often the EV chargers are one or two to a station, so a charger out of service reduces capacity considerably.
If you have a driveway or off road parking and can install a charger, then barring a few odd cases like the guy who travels 300 miles every day (not my idea of fun), they're entirely viable vehicles to use as daily drivers. For apartment blocks and on-street parking, more lamp-post chargers as Mike mentions, will be required, but I'd agree the infrastructure isn't there yet.
On cost, new technologies are still very expensive. But, the prices are already falling. Brand new MG4 Electric with a 50kWh battery is about £25k. That is pretty much the same price as a petrol Golf (https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/en/new/golf.html).
For those who buy used vehicles, I've been watching with interest how these are slowly dropping. The Tesla Model 3 can now be had for under £30k, as can the ID.3 (VW's electric Golf).
Also, there's no ban on old fuel vehicles, I expect we will have them until well into the 2040's, but it is a good idea to stop selling new fuel powered vehicles (at least for passenger cars).
-
The situation regarding the feasibility of EVs varies very much based upon where you live, your income, and what you use a vehicle for.
I work as an electrician for a metropolitan council in the UK. My journey to and from work is up and down steep hills, with significant quantities of tools and gear, as necessary. An electric vehicle capable of taking me to and from work is a long way outside my price range, and there is most definitely no charging infrastructure where I live (and no realistic possibility to add it, at this time), nor at the vast majority of places where I work.
As part of the clean air initiative the council are looking at changing all their vehicles to electric; this is proving to be a massive and costly undertaking, where, as an example, a new bin wagon costs around £180k for a euro 6 derv, and around £500k for an EV. Then you have the cost of the charger on top, another £50k.
For a fleet of, say for the sake of argument 50 bin wagons, this is a huge increase in cost, at a time when they are already running a deficit (and have been for years), and are facing further funding squeezes by central government.
And that is before we get to the capital investment part; so far that's just been periodic replacement and running cost increases. They've had an EV wagon on loan, to test it, and it's so far not been very well liked; it has a short run time, and because the electrical infrastructure at the depot can't handle it, the charger can't even fast charge. And that's just one truck.
I expect there are estimations going on as to the cost of upgrading the electrical infrastructure for all the depots where they will want to use them, and I know we are replacing all the boards at one of the depots pretty soon, but that will still only get them one charger running at low power at that depot. Why? Because the supply from the substations isn't big enough to do more, at any of the depots. So that means new mains from the substations, at a cost of probably at least £5m per depot, maybe more, and that's assuming spare capacity at the substations, which isn't a given.
Now, I'm not anti-EV, I'm not saying it can't be done, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I am saying it's going to be bloody expensive, and it certainly isn't going to be finished by 2030.
I agree.
We have had a EV visit our village since I was a kid, they got phased out for Derv as costs for replacing the EV was silly and the issues around making noise at 4am were gradually ignored.
As I said elsewhere I can't have an EV yet due to charging solutions. So I have a nice 20yr old vehicle for daily use, I can't go into 2 of the larger cities anymore (Bath & Bristol) so they won't get my custom. Though they will bend the rules when they need the use of my 20yr old vehicle.
I suspect we will need to look at upgrading for work but I can't see my MD being OK for me to stop halfway to a job to charge up the EV van for 1hr or so. There are many problems to solve and I don't think politicians know this, they are like the CEO that just says solve this by next week or I want 2 red lines but using blue ink.
With my Tin-foil hat on, so far to me, it looks like the times of old are coming back. Only the wealthy will have transport, the poor can only use public transport and they must work in the local places.
-
I probably shouldn't have mentioned 2030 as it's not really relevant to the points I'm trying to make.
I can't afford a usable electric car. I can barely afford to run my existing car. My daily cost me £1250 a little over 2 years ago, and that's the sort of budget I'm likely to be limited to when I need to get another. A new car of any description is simply out of the question, and would be for anyone else on the tools here. Good luck finding an EV for that money. As a council worker, I'm public sector, and like much of the public sector workforce, over the last 12 years or so, I've had a 25-30% real-terms pay cut. Yes, I have seen the figures; it's not an exaggeration.
The infrastructure isn't there. To get there, is going to be very expensive, and very disruptive (lots of roadworks, everywhere). Charging points in lamp-posts is a joke; if all of them get used at once, hell if even a significant proportion get used at once, it'll trip the local supply. Most of those lights are running on a supply that was designed to power 400W (at most, and usually a lot less) lamps, not 10kW chargers, and even though most have been "upgraded" to LED (another contentious issue, for a different thread), the spare capacity is either quite small, or not there at all, as they've been altered to account for lower power.
The reality is that the infrastructure in this country is a long way from being able to support a 100% EV transport system, and all I'm seeing (at least in terms of local city/town/village infrastructure) to move us in that direction is baby steps at best.
-
There are plenty of solutions for people who can't charge at home - e.g. in the UK, in some areas every other lamppost on the street has a chargepoint built in
I have an issue with this statement as it gets banded about by the EV fanboys to shut up anyone who says they can't charge up at home. It might work in some areas but its not a solution open to all.
We have lamposts here, they are all on the other side of the pavement so the cable would have to drape across the pavement. In the past 2 years, 2 new ones have been installed as prior to that 500m has been covered by 1 lamp post. Now that 500m has 3. So 3 lamposts are to charge 17 cars. So though this maybe a solution for some areas its going to be costly to upgrade in my area. The roads and pavements are not wide enough to accommodate it. Though if our parish council have anything to do with it they would much prefer to have the road cleared of cars for it makes it hard for them to drive the luxobarge they have though the village.
-
I have an issue with this statement as it gets banded about by the EV fanboys to shut up anyone who says they can't charge up at home. It might work in some areas but its not a solution open to all.
We have lamposts here, they are all on the other side of the pavement so the cable would have to drape across the pavement. In the past 2 years, 2 new ones have been installed as prior to that 500m has been covered by 1 lamp post. Now that 500m has 3. So 3 lamposts are to charge 17 cars. So though this maybe a solution for some areas its going to be costly to upgrade in my area. The roads and pavements are not wide enough to accommodate it. Though if our parish council have anything to do with it they would much prefer to have the road cleared of cars for it makes it hard for them to drive the luxobarge they have though the village.
Lamp post charging is part of the solution but we'll probably need more than lamp posts, that's true.
As for tripping the local supply. The majority of these lamp post chargers are 3-4kW. No EV (in the EU/UK) charges over 7kW on single phase anyway. Lamp posts typically hang off the street ring main, which usually has enough capacity to add charging to, they are not running on a dedicated street lamp feed (some exceptions apply - old switched feeds being the most common example.) Some areas will need upgrades if they are right up at capacity limits, but this same ring main powers houses and businesses, so adding a few kW of load every ~30m doesn't sound impossible to me. The big challenge is fast chargers that pull 50-100kW, those are going to need a lot more work to install.
Using averages here: a normal driver does about 9,000 miles per annum. Round to 10k to be generous and assume 3.5 miles per kWh which is below the average economy for an EV. So annually the consumption is about 2,900 kWh. (That's actually about the same as a house, using Ofgem's median.) So how many chargers do you need? How long does each car need to charge for? If the cars get charged every six days (on average - 164 miles per charge) then they'd need 47kWh of charge, at 4.6kW (20A street charger) that's about 10 hours of charging. So a street needs to accommodate about 10 hours per week of charging per vehicle. If you say 12 hours per day are viable hours to park and find a space with a charger (9am - 9pm, people don't usually want to be hunting at 3am for a spot) then you'd need approximately 1 charger for every 6-7 vehicles.
Looking at some streets in London which have this technology already installed, they are at around 1 in 20 vehicles. So they have a way to go, but it's not as if you will need a charger for every possible space and need to handle 100kW per road in charging demand.
In terms of economics: if that charger is busy every day of the week for 10 hours and dispenses 46kWh per day, then at a 5p/kWh margin, it makes £800 a year. That's probably enough to make back its costs pretty quickly - though the cost figures for the lamp post chargers aren't given it's hard to imagine that modifying an existing lamp column costs much more than about £3-4k. Installing a new charger is probably the most expensive option but if a whole street is done over the course of a day or two then the per device cost can be quite reasonable.
-
I think you're wildly optimistic about how much spare capacity there is.
And once again, "miles" or "kilometres" is a completely meaningless way to express the charge in a battery. Miles on the flat? Miles uphill? What about ambient temperature, variations in the mass of the load?
-
I have an issue with this statement as it gets banded about by the EV fanboys to shut up anyone who says they can't charge up at home. It might work in some areas but its not a solution open to all.
We have lamposts here, they are all on the other side of the pavement so the cable would have to drape across the pavement. In the past 2 years, 2 new ones have been installed as prior to that 500m has been covered by 1 lamp post. Now that 500m has 3. So 3 lamposts are to charge 17 cars. So though this maybe a solution for some areas its going to be costly to upgrade in my area.
Such areas include West London... "It was reported earlier this year that new housing developments in Hounslow, Ealing and Hillingdon would have to be paused due to strain on the electricity network, with no spare capacity for new connections until at least 2035." It looks like that has been overcome politically. Cough.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/west-london-electricity-shortage-housing-hounslow-ealing-hillingdon-b1031501.html (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/west-london-electricity-shortage-housing-hounslow-ealing-hillingdon-b1031501.html)
As for tripping the local supply. The majority of these lamp post chargers are 3-4kW. No EV (in the EU/UK) charges over 7kW on single phase anyway. Lamp posts typically hang off the street ring main, which usually has enough capacity to add charging to, they are not running on a dedicated street lamp feed (some exceptions apply - old switched feeds being the most common example.) Some areas will need upgrades if they are right up at capacity limits, but this same ring main powers houses and businesses, so adding a few kW of load every ~30m doesn't sound impossible to me.
For that to be believable you have to specify how many lamp posts are fed from the "street ring main" - whatever that might be.
A quick glance indicates that an LED streetlight consumes ~0.1kW peak power. Therefore adding a 7kW charger is a rather large increase in peak power consumption!
N.B. peak power consumption is the relevant measure, since multiple cars will need to be charged at the same time, e.g. overnight. Mean is as irrelevant as the mean output of wind farms w.r.t. "keeping the lights on". No, the wind isn't always blowing somewhere! As a rule of thumb and taking the UK's entire wind generating capacity into account, for ~1% of the time (i.e. 3 days/year) the wind power output will be ~1% of peak or 3% of mean.
And then, as you note...
The big challenge is fast chargers that pull 50-100kW, those are going to need a lot more work to install.
... except it is more than simple local installation work, it is the entire generation and grid infrastructure.
-
tom66 you make a good argument but can you also redo the maths but this time including the chap who lives two doors up he owns a BMW and an Audi, every time he drives away he has to try his best to make his mark on the road. I expect if we did go electric he would hog the local charger.
I still hope that they might go for swappable batteries so you pull up and fit new charged battery and drive off. This would save a lot of issues around charging and would even out the issues around affordability as the batteries would be rented and allow the cars to be that bit cheaper and meaning the running gear could live on longer that the battery.
An EV currently is very expensive and my thoughts are by the time they are down to the <£5k they will be at 1/3 battery life and be close to the MOT saying the battery is unsafe and the car need to be scrapped. But I am open to the idea that they will get cheaper I just hope we don't have a period of purposeful obsolescence just to sell people a shiny new car.
-
I think you're wildly optimistic about how much spare capacity there is.
And once again, "miles" or "kilometres" is a completely meaningless way to express the charge in a battery. Miles on the flat? Miles uphill? What about ambient temperature, variations in the mass of the load?
Not super-accurate, but certainlly a long way from "meaningless"
These factors can be avaraged to give a figure that is meaningful enough for most purposes. Flat vs. uphill makes little difference as much of what you spend going uphill comes back on the way down via regen braking.
-
You are 10 years late with that criticism. It already happened, and it was viable after all. Sorry.
You have to be careful to address the proper question. I didn't watch the whole video, but enough to know that the question is not "will/do EVs work for some or even many people?", but rather "will EVs replace ICE-powered vehicles entirely (globally) in the near or foreseeable future".
The answer to the first is "yes, they work fine for me and many others". I've had one for nearly a decade now. The answer to the second is "no, not with technology that is currently available or forseeable in the near future". I know plenty of people for whom EVs are not currently a viable option nor will they be under anything like current circumstances.
-
I think you're wildly optimistic about how much spare capacity there is.
And once again, "miles" or "kilometres" is a completely meaningless way to express the charge in a battery. Miles on the flat? Miles uphill? What about ambient temperature, variations in the mass of the load?
Not super-accurate, but certainlly a long way from "meaningless"
These factors can be avaraged to give a figure that is meaningful enough for most purposes. Flat vs. uphill makes little difference as much of what you spend going uphill comes back on the way down via regen braking.
Can you push energy into the battery as fast as you can pull it out? If not then regen braking will only be that efficient for short durations (e.g. start stop in cities) or on gentle hills.
I wouldn't trust a Tesla salesman to give an answer. In my experience they can't even manage to turn on a screen demister, simply parrot the company line about "typical" range, and spout incoherent DoubleSpeak about whether or not Teslas are self-driving. I doubt other salesmen are any better.
-
Can you push energy into the battery as fast as you can pull it out? If not then regen braking will only be that efficient for short durations (e.g. start stop in cities) or on gentle hills.
Generally speaking, mostly, minus conversion losses. The power is going through the same motor and inverter electronics. maximum DC charger rates are a similar order of magnitude to motor powers, e.g. on my Kona, max DC charge is 77kW and the motor is 150kW max.
I don't recall offhand the max I've seen it regen, but pretty sure it was well over 50kW
Of course driving style is a factor - slam on the brakes too hard and the friction braking will take over, and there are aero & friction losses.
-
Can you push energy into the battery as fast as you can pull it out? If not then regen braking will only be that efficient for short durations (e.g. start stop in cities) or on gentle hills.
I wouldn't trust a Tesla salesman to give an answer. In my experience they can't even manage to turn on a screen demister, simply parrot the company line about "typical" range, and spout incoherent DoubleSpeak about whether or not Teslas are self-driving. I doubt other salesmen are any better.
Regen braking on my PHEV, which has a much less efficient battery than a normal EV (because it's so small) is about 75% round trip efficiency. That is, if I put 1kWh into climbing a hill, I get about 750Wh going back down it on the way home - that's for a hill on a country road at about 40 mph speed limit.
It's less efficient the faster you go, because air drag dominates. Climbing up the M62 in West Yorkshire towards Manchester usually had the power meter pegged at about 40% (this is with the engine on, but it's measuring overall system power regardless.) Whereas coming down the hill, the engine usually can shut off, but the regen is usually around ~5% power. So there is much more power going in than going out. I found the e-Golf to be more efficient here (fully battery EV) as it had aero skirts and rims, but it was around 10%. So not dramatic.
For how people are driving, 3.5 miles per kWh seems to be a reasonable fleet average. If you live in a city, you're probably closer to 5 miles per kWh, whereas if you are on the motorway going 85 mph, you might only get 2.5 miles per kWh.
-
There are plenty of solutions for people who can't charge at home - e.g. in the UK, in some areas every other lamppost on the street has a chargepoint built in
I have an issue with this statement as it gets banded about by the EV fanboys to shut up anyone who says they can't charge up at home. It might work in some areas but its not a solution open to all.
Agreed. Public charging is horribly expensive as well. I'm 80% sure my first non-ICE car will be powered by hydrogen because that is better suitable & cheaper for my use compared to BEV. But first long haul trucking needs to accellerate implementing hydrogen fueling stations. Long haul trucks typically have ranges from 1200km to 2500km on a single tank. There is no way to match that using batteries.
-
Can you push energy into the battery as fast as you can pull it out? If not then regen braking will only be that efficient for short durations (e.g. start stop in cities) or on gentle hills.
Generally speaking, mostly, minus conversion losses. The power is going through the same motor and inverter electronics. maximum DC charger rates are a similar order of magnitude to motor powers, e.g. on my Kona, max DC charge is 77kW and the motor is 150kW max.
I don't recall offhand the max I've seen it regen, but pretty sure it was well over 50kW
Of course driving style is a factor - slam on the brakes too hard and the friction braking will take over, and there are aero & friction losses.
Well 77kW vs 150kW is a factor of 2, which is about what I would have guessed without doing any research. Hence I believe it :)
That may well be fine in the Fens, or Cambridge where people get off bikes to go over a hump-backed bridge over a railway (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.1991623,0.1395592,3a,75y,122.26h,80.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3AU9fgXBuhkVo7mnshu8ng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) and the "dale" in Borrowdale (http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map?x=544386&y=260578&z=110&sv=borrowdale&st=6&tl=Map+of+Borrowdale,+Cambridge,+CB4&searchp=ids&mapp=map) invites the observation "Contour? What contour".
It might be a limitation in the Pennines or lakes - or in any country where anything higher than 2000ft/650m would not be classed a "mountain".
-
Can you push energy into the battery as fast as you can pull it out? If not then regen braking will only be that efficient for short durations (e.g. start stop in cities) or on gentle hills.
I wouldn't trust a Tesla salesman to give an answer. In my experience they can't even manage to turn on a screen demister, simply parrot the company line about "typical" range, and spout incoherent DoubleSpeak about whether or not Teslas are self-driving. I doubt other salesmen are any better.
...
Climbing up the M62 in West Yorkshire towards Manchester usually had the power meter pegged at about 40% (this is with the engine on, but it's measuring overall system power regardless.) Whereas coming down the hill, the engine usually can shut off, but the regen is usually around ~5% power. ...
I presume that is the same speed up hill and down dale :)
What would the power meter show going at the same speed on the flat with zero wind?
-
There are plenty of solutions for people who can't charge at home - e.g. in the UK, in some areas every other lamppost on the street has a chargepoint built in
I have an issue with this statement as it gets banded about by the EV fanboys to shut up anyone who says they can't charge up at home. It might work in some areas but its not a solution open to all.
Agreed. Public charging is horribly expensive as well. I'm 80% sure my first non-ICE car will be powered by hydrogen because that is better suitable & cheaper for my use compared to BEV. But first long haul trucking needs to accellerate implementing hydrogen fueling stations. Long haul trucks typically have ranges from 1200km to 2500km on a single tank. There is no way to match that using batteries.
Nobody needs that much range on one charge, due to driver time limitations, provided there is sufficiently fast charging.
-
charging infrastructure is infeasible for many car owners
Let say we make fuel 10x more expensive while keeping electricity prices the same, how infeasible would it remain? In the end electricity doesn't compete against the status quo, it competes against compressed hydrogen, liquid hydrogen and synthetic fuel ... none of the alternatives are cheap, the status quo is going bye bye.
think the third world countries where urban population lives predominately in high density residential buildings
The third world is flexible, they'll adapt.
CO2 emissions impact of EVs is comparable to impact of vehicles with internal combustion engine.
Even without looking at the calculations I know one thing for 100% certain, he is calculating from status quo ... which is bloody useless. At net zero steel will be refined with hydrogen, heavy machinery will run on LH2 etc etc etc. Only major non cyclical CO2 emissions at net zero will be from concrete.
I agree with the author. ICE vehicles are not going anywhere any time soon.
The US is rich enough to go net zero by 2050, if they say "go net zero too, or kiss trade with us goodbye" then it will likely be cheaper to follow the transition than to lose the trading partner.
-
I presume that is the same speed up hill and down dale :)
What would the power meter show going at the same speed on the flat with zero wind?
Indeed.
On the flat, at 70 mph with no head or tailwind, about 20%. The power meter at 100% represents around 80kW. (It's got weird mapping as the whole car has 150kW and it goes up to 140%, but we'll ignore "sport mode" for now.) So you need roughly 18kW to maintain that speed.
This gives you an idea of efficiency for an EV at motorway speeds. In ideal conditions, 60kWh would get you 3.3 hours of driving, or 233 miles - equivalent to 3.8 miles per kWh. However, once you add variability - hills, stopping, acceleration, plus other consumers, mostly heating/AC, you'll find the figure drops. A 60kWh car can usually do about 210 miles on the motorway consistently.
I suspect for some time 60kWh batteries will be the standard for EVs.
-
charging infrastructure is infeasible for many car owners
Let say we make fuel 10x more expensive while keeping electricity prices the same, how infeasible would it remain? In the end electricity doesn't compete against the status quo, it competes against compressed hydrogen, liquid hydrogen and synthetic fuel ... none of the alternatives are cheap, the status quo is going bye bye.
Crikey at x2 we are already close to breaking point with it pushing up costs. EV have been spoilt for years with road tax reductions, incentives etc. If they increase fuel prices to offset EV charging points I feel you might have a riot on your hands soon enough. The governments of the world are throwing money at this and many startups are making use if this, some even get attention from Dave.
With regards to lorries that go miles on a tank. Drivers can drive for x hours but to get around this they will use two drivers, one sleeping while the other drives. They do stop but these even on a fast charge will need a few hours on a fast charge.
Let us just say there are many many problems to solve and putting pressure on industry to solve these issues will help move things forward but I just hope the politicians can stop meddling.
I would love to see motorsports get involved in solving some more of the issues as they are quite good at it, I know some are using bio fuels more, the ev racing is doing well. I was pleased with the efforts of the Isle of Man TT did with making a race just for EV bikes and that cause a massive surge in fast yet practical bikes that could suffer the TT mountain circuit.
-
There are plenty of solutions for people who can't charge at home - e.g. in the UK, in some areas every other lamppost on the street has a chargepoint built in
I have an issue with this statement as it gets banded about by the EV fanboys to shut up anyone who says they can't charge up at home. It might work in some areas but its not a solution open to all.
Agreed. Public charging is horribly expensive as well. I'm 80% sure my first non-ICE car will be powered by hydrogen because that is better suitable & cheaper for my use compared to BEV. But first long haul trucking needs to accellerate implementing hydrogen fueling stations. Long haul trucks typically have ranges from 1200km to 2500km on a single tank. There is no way to match that using batteries.
Nobody needs that much range on one charge, due to driver time limitations, provided there is sufficiently fast charging.
That is what some truck manufacturers also say about their electric trucks. But I doubt they have been on the road looking at the real life of a trucker. IF it would make sense to have a smaller range for a truck, the diesel tanks would be smaller already. They need to haul all the extra weight along as well. But appearantly, hauling the fuel along makes using the truck more efficient.
Some electric truck manufacturers state that a truck would only need to have about 4.5 hours of range because the driver needs to rest. But the thing is: the driver needs to rest, not work on charging the truck so getting the charging setup (waiting in line, doing the payment, etc) all cuts into driving time. Not rest time!
And then there is the practical side. My wife and I drive >20k km through Europe every year. One of my observations is that many parking spaces where trucks stop (with room for 50 to 200 trucks) along highways are not gas stations. About 1 in 5 parking spaces have a gas station. And in many cases these parking spaces are chuck full with trucks. This translates into needing 5 times more charging stations (compared to gas stations) that need to be able 50 to 200 trucks simultaneously. That would require tremendous amounts of energy. A long haul truck consumes about 30 to 40 liters of diesel per 100km.
On top of that, it happens that truck drivers need to take their break on the hard shoulder or a small parking spot because their driving time is up. How are those drivers going to get their trucks charged?
Bottom line: Long haul trucks on batteries is not going to work in the next 20 years -period-.
Now ofcourse you can argue that drivers should take care of charging more often, do more planning, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda but that takes you right back to the reason why long haul tucks have such large fuel tanks: fussing with fueling and needing to care about range takes too much time away from driving and thus costs too much money.
-
Crikey at x2 we are already close to breaking point with it pushing up costs. EV have been spoilt for years with road tax reductions, incentives etc. If they increase fuel prices to offset EV charging points I feel you might have a riot on your hands soon enough. The governments of the world are throwing money at this and many startups are making use if this, some even get attention from Dave.
First you simply ban sales of new ICE cars, they only want net zero in 30 years. They don't have to boil the frog tomorrow.
-
But first long haul trucking needs to accellerate implementing hydrogen fueling stations. Long haul trucks typically have ranges from 1200km to 2500km on a single tank. There is no way to match that using batteries.
Nobody needs that much range on one charge, due to driver time limitations, provided there is sufficiently fast charging.
For time-sensitive ground transit, we do team driving in the US (one truck and trailer, two drivers).
-
I have an issue with this statement as it gets banded about by the EV fanboys to shut up anyone who says they can't charge up at home. It might work in some areas but its not a solution open to all.
We have lamposts here, they are all on the other side of the pavement so the cable would have to drape across the pavement. In the past 2 years, 2 new ones have been installed as prior to that 500m has been covered by 1 lamp post. Now that 500m has 3. So 3 lamposts are to charge 17 cars. So though this maybe a solution for some areas its going to be costly to upgrade in my area. The roads and pavements are not wide enough to accommodate it. Though if our parish council have anything to do with it they would much prefer to have the road cleared of cars for it makes it hard for them to drive the luxobarge they have though the village.
My dad had a Tesla as his only vehicle for about the last 8 months of his life. He lived in a condo and couldn't charge at home so he relied entirely on superchargers and destination charging, ie plugging in at businesses he visited and the yacht club where he kept his boat. I personally wouldn't get an EV if I couldn't charge at home since home charging is by far the most compelling feature they offer, but it seemed to work for him.
I don't know why we need so many threads about this but hydrogen is DOA. California, arguably one of the most progressive places on the planet tried it and it failed, there are only a handful of stations and as far as I recall there is only one company, Toyota that has built a hydrogen powered car. I've never seen one exept in pictures and never known anyone that had one or even anyone that has seen one. They're extremely niche, BEV has won and the battle is over, there are already millions of them on the roads and they're selling as fast as automakers can build them. I'll be curious to see how long Toyota clings to the hydrogen fantasy before they finally accept that it's a dead end and throw in the towel.
-
But appearantly, hauling the fuel along makes using the truck more efficient.
Here in the US diesel prices vary a lot by region. Long distance truckers save a lot of money by being able to buy their fuel where it costs the least. Ranges on US tractor-trailers can exceed 2000 miles even with a full cargo load (80,000lbs GVW).
Electricity prices vary a lot too. I would want my EV to have enough range for my entire day's driving under almost all circumstances because outside charging is much more expensive and inconvenient compared to home. If I have to go someplace and wait even ten minutes, I may as well take my old ICE vehicle to Costco for gas and get 5 dozen eggs while I'm at it.
-
IMO we should keep running semi trucks on diesel for the foreseeable future, propane or CNG are also viable options if they really want to phase out diesel for that purpose. The resources are far better spent to electrify passenger cars, the technology is already here and already mature, the cars are reliable and there have been models on the market for years already that can go 300+ miles. They're also the vehicles that dominate the traffic in the areas closest to where most people live.
-
Here it’s common for office garages to have charging at the retail rate for a kWh. (Often, they have rooftop solar and are selling electricity to the EV at retail, but that’s a good kind of hack IMO.)
If you have your own rooftop solar and are home to charge when the sun is shining, you have this same benefit, but most office workers work in the daytime.
-
That is what some truck manufacturers also say about their electric trucks. But I doubt they have been on the road looking at the real life of a trucker. IF it would make sense to have a smaller range for a truck, the diesel tanks would be smaller already. They need to haul all the extra weight along as well. But appearantly, hauling the fuel along makes using the truck more efficient.
The incremental cost of a bigger fuel tank for a small improvement in convenience is nothing compared to the cost of bigger batteries. So EV trucks will certainly have less range than diesel trucks. But the question is, does it matter too much if stopping for rest every 8 hours (legal limit)? I think the only time it does, is drivers that might work in pairs on the same truck. As far as I know, this is pretty uncommon.
Some electric truck manufacturers state that a truck would only need to have about 4.5 hours of range because the driver needs to rest. But the thing is: the driver needs to rest, not work on charging the truck so getting the charging setup (waiting in line, doing the payment, etc) all cuts into driving time. Not rest time!
Trucks do benefit from one thing that cars don't, and that is that they typically run well prepared routes. A truck might move goods from one warehouse to another, for example. An electric truck would then only be selected (a) if the journey makes sense for that class of vehicle, i.e. charging is available and journey is within range, and (b) it would be planned around that in terms of total time and starting/finishing charge etc. The first task when unloading would be to plug the truck in. There is no chance the driver will be waving a credit card in front of the reader, this will be done with VIN and/or plug and charge capability with an invoice issued directly to the operator. (Plug and charge is part of CCS but few public chargers implement it yet, as vehicle manufacturers have been slow to adopt it. I hope that changes soon.)
-
I don't really see the issue of charging at rest stops, truckers already fill up with diesel at truckstops. There's no reason it has to be an involved process, just have a charger at each parking spot, hop out and plug it in then get back in the truck and rest. I still think trucks should be a low priority to electrify but that's no reason to make up phony reasons why it won't work.
-
There are plenty of solutions for people who can't charge at home - e.g. in the UK, in some areas every other lamppost on the street has a chargepoint built in
I have an issue with this statement as it gets banded about by the EV fanboys to shut up anyone who says they can't charge up at home. It might work in some areas but its not a solution open to all.
Agreed. Public charging is horribly expensive as well. I'm 80% sure my first non-ICE car will be powered by hydrogen because that is better suitable & cheaper for my use compared to BEV. But first long haul trucking needs to accellerate implementing hydrogen fueling stations. Long haul trucks typically have ranges from 1200km to 2500km on a single tank. There is no way to match that using batteries.
Nobody needs that much range on one charge, due to driver time limitations, provided there is sufficiently fast charging.
You should add condition "guaranteed access on demand to such charging".
But that's much like saying nobody needs their own car if public transport arrives every 10minutes at the expected time.
-
I may as well take my old ICE vehicle to Costco for gas and get 5 dozen eggs while I'm at it.
Gee, you sure your cholesterol is not high? ;)
-
Hydrogen is DOA for cars. It’s simply another hydrocarbon , has safety storage and distribution issues . It’s merely petrol under another name
Thd industry has chosen its next tech its the BEV ALL major car companies are in transiston to a complete BEV future
Thd debate is long over. As a 5 year EV owner with 276,000km on my EV. BEVs ldelivers the solution , it’s a better car then it’s ice equivalent
Hence certainly by 2035 personal private transport will be Bev , commercial will take longer but will arrive with battery trucks etc.
With ranges now approaching 600 km , increasing people don’t need nightly charging no more then they fill up every day today. The average daily car distance in the UK is 14 km, Many many people don’t do daily marathon drives every day
The charge solution isvt lampposts etc it’s large scale high power “ electric filling stations” and that’s the way it’s going , low power charging has little future as batteries get bigger , hence expect multi station EV charging with high power chargers called “ esso “ etc.
Given the performances I think we’ll see acceleration. Limits on EVs soon they blow ice cars off the road
The future is mapped out , it’s just a matter of time now
-
Hydrogen is DOA for cars. It’s simply another hydrocarbon
Well, it's actually not. :-DD
-
Don’t matter it’s a dead duck going nowhere thd car industry isn’t interested
-
The average daily car distance in the UK is 14 km,
That seems low and doesn’t match the data I found in searching. Do you have a different source?
https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/cheap-car-insurance/average-car-mileage-uk (https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/cheap-car-insurance/average-car-mileage-uk) says ~20 miles/32 km per day.
-
The average daily car distance in the UK is 14 km,
That seems low and doesn’t match the data I found in searching. Do you have a different source?
https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/cheap-car-insurance/average-car-mileage-uk (https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/cheap-car-insurance/average-car-mileage-uk) says ~20 miles/32 km per day.
At 32km you’re backing my point , BEV range is now exceeding many people’s car requirements hence I know several id6 cars owners that only charge once a week for example
-
Hydrogen is DOA for cars. It’s simply another hydrocarbon
Well, it's actually not. :-DD
Agreed. The whole world is buzzing with hydrogen from renewable sources... History repeats itself. 100+ years ago BEVs already existed and the current BEVs still have the same issues with range and long charging times. And just like oil based fuels, hydrogen has the potential to avoid those issues.
'It works for me so it must work for everyone' isn't a strong argument. The same goes for average distance travelled. Arguing that way is just stupid. It is like saying the average person on the world eats half a slice of bread a day so everyone should be able to do with eating half a slice of bread a day.
-
Just like Betamax car companies have made their mind up it’s a BEV future
The bread analogy is apt it’s shows that people postulate edge cases as if they are mainstream when in fact average use cases are far more apt and point to real usage patterns
-
Hydrogen itself has no carbon. ;D
But sure, the whole cycle has to be considered, from production to distribution, to storage. And things get a bit less pretty there.
Then hydrogen can either be used in fuel cells to power electric motors, or directly in appropriate engines. I have no definite certainty about which approach is best at this point, although I do not doubt some people already have those certainties, based on dodgy studies. A detail here, anyway.
EV-based transportation is not viable if we think of it as a 1 to 1 replacement of what we have now. I've been saying this all along, this will probably never happen. Switching to 100% EVs will mean fewer vehicles on the road, whether we use hydrogen or not. I know people usually don't want to hear that, and well, they can keep dreaming.
-
You make a statement with no backup. Bevs are outselling ICE in many marketplaces , the consumer has made their mind up and it’s BEVs , the car companies see the writing on the wall
So the technical arguments ate moot the industry and consumers have decided
The is no evidence to back your claim that Bev will mean fewer private vehicles , in fact the opposite looks like being the case
Equally as advanced technology gets applied to road transport it will change anyway so it’s not a case of 1:1 replacement no more then cars duplicated horses ( they didn’t ) fundementalky usage patterns will change and AI etc will cause major usage shifts etc.
-
Regarding large trucks, often times the trailer is owned by some company and the tractor / prime mover is owned by a private individual. One option might be to have batteries and maybe even a drive motor in the trailer, and while the trailer is sitting around in a yard or being loaded it could be on charge. The driver could pull in to the destination, swap trailers, and be off straight away. What’s more, if the trailer battery had sufficient capacity the truck and trailer could go that much further than if powered by truck batteries alone. And the trailer owner could likely negotiate better rates seeing they are providing some of the required energy. Maybe even some degree of redundancy if in the unlikely chance the truck breaks down.
-
Hydrogen is DOA for cars. It’s simply another hydrocarbon
Well, it's actually not. :-DD
Agreed. The whole world is buzzing with hydrogen from renewable sources... History repeats itself. 100+ years ago BEVs already existed and the current BEVs still have the same issues with range and long charging times. And just like oil based fuels, hydrogen has the potential to avoid those issues.
'It works for me so it must work for everyone' isn't a strong argument. The same goes for average distance travelled. Arguing that way is just stupid. It is like saying the average person on the world eats half a slice of bread a day so everyone should be able to do with eating half a slice of bread a day.
The evidence is Bev owners are generally happy with their choice and find their solution works. As a “ solution” permeates through society , habits change to accommodate the new “ reality “ so convergence occurs , when was the last time you saw horse rings outside a shop !! , things change as society adopts solutions and the old arguments fall away , Co is itself has shown many people the fallacy of travel at all costs so even that has to factored in to future usage patterns
-
Regarding large trucks, often times the trailer is owned by some company and the tractor, / prime mover is owned by a private individual. One option might be to have batteries and maybe even a drive motor in the trailer, and while the trailer is sitting around in a yard or being loaded it could be on charge. The driver could pull in to the destination, swap trailers, and be off straight away. What’s more, if the trailer battery had sufficient capacity the truck and trailer could go that much further than if powered by truck batteries alone. And the trailer owner could likely negotiate better rates seeing they are providing some of the required energy. Maybe even some degree of redundancy if in the unlikely chance the truck breaks down.
Battery tech will meet the needs of commercial usage it willl just take time , shipping is getting so expensive that societal change is needed anyway and that will also change usage patterns. Just in time for example has proven to be highly problematic by covid and is likely to change shipping patterns from smaller high frequency shipping to larger less regular less time sensitive consignments
-
Thd debate is long over. As a 5 year EV owner with 276,000km on my EV. BEVs ldelivers the solution , it’s a better car then it’s ice equivalent
Hence certainly by 2035 personal private transport will be Bev , commercial will take longer but will arrive with battery trucks etc.
The future is mapped out , it’s just a matter of time now
That's a ridiculous set of assertions based on your own personal experience. I've had an EV for longer than you, but I don't assume everyone else is in the same situation.
I have another vehicle, ICE gasoline, that is 20 years old and still going. This is not at all rare in the area that I live. They are still selling ICE vehicles and people are buying them--even people that can afford EVs in many cases. Even if you phased out the manufacture of ICE vehicles entirely over the next seven years--a goal I think is absolutely impossible--you will still have ICE vehicles on the road in 2050 unless the fuel supply collapses.
Also, actual BEV adoption rates are low single digit percentages (most studies mix in hybrids as 'electrified) in the US and globally, although there are few areas that are much higher due to local policy. The current BEV penetration rates are not even close to what they were in 1900. Tesla is outsold in the US by niche brands like Jeep and Subaru, let alone the large brands. So yeah, it's just a matter of a lot of time--and figuring out how to manufacture a few hundred million battery packs!
-
You make a statement with no backup. Bevs are outselling ICE in many marketplaces ,
They are in Norway.
Since you object to people making statements without backup, in what many other marketplaces is this the case?
-
I think you're wildly optimistic about how much spare capacity there is.
And once again, "miles" or "kilometres" is a completely meaningless way to express the charge in a battery. Miles on the flat? Miles uphill? What about ambient temperature, variations in the mass of the load?
Not super-accurate, but certainlly a long way from "meaningless"
These factors can be avaraged to give a figure that is meaningful enough for most purposes. Flat vs. uphill makes little difference as much of what you spend going uphill comes back on the way down via regen braking.
Can you push energy into the battery as fast as you can pull it out? If not then regen braking will only be that efficient for short durations (e.g. start stop in cities) or on gentle hills.
I wouldn't trust a Tesla salesman to give an answer. In my experience they can't even manage to turn on a screen demister, simply parrot the company line about "typical" range, and spout incoherent DoubleSpeak about whether or not Teslas are self-driving. I doubt other salesmen are any better.
With modern BEVs and near future models the edge cases of unsuitability are diminishing fast. The real situations of unsuitability therefore fade away. In early Bev stages people were obsessed with “ range “ but this is because people utterly mis analyse their car needs typically the reality is Bev owners rarely have range issues
Hence one take with a grain of salt claims BEVs will “ never suit “ sone drivers this has proven to be largely untrue in practice
-
I think you're wildly optimistic about how much spare capacity there is.
And once again, "miles" or "kilometres" is a completely meaningless way to express the charge in a battery. Miles on the flat? Miles uphill? What about ambient temperature, variations in the mass of the load?
Not super-accurate, but certainlly a long way from "meaningless"
These factors can be avaraged to give a figure that is meaningful enough for most purposes. Flat vs. uphill makes little difference as much of what you spend going uphill comes back on the way down via regen braking.
Can you push energy into the battery as fast as you can pull it out? If not then regen braking will only be that efficient for short durations (e.g. start stop in cities) or on gentle hills.
I wouldn't trust a Tesla salesman to give an answer. In my experience they can't even manage to turn on a screen demister, simply parrot the company line about "typical" range, and spout incoherent DoubleSpeak about whether or not Teslas are self-driving. I doubt other salesmen are any better.
With modern BEVs and nezf future models the edge cares if unsuitability are diminishing fast. The real situations of unsuitability therefore fade away. In early Bev stages people were obsessed with “ range “ but this is because people utterly mis analyse their car needs typically the reality is Bev owners rarely have range issues
Hence one mixf take sign a grain of salt claims BEVs will “ never suit “ sone drivers this has proven to be largely untrue in practice
Tesla outsells all other premium ice brands in us for example and several EU countries have bend outselling equivalent Ice market segments
-
You make a statement with no backup. Bevs are outselling ICE in many marketplaces ,
They are in Norway.
Since you object to people making statements without backup, in what many other marketplaces is this the case?
Google it
“ The tide has turned in the electrification of the German auto market, with plugin electric vehicles taking the majority of sales for the first time in December. Plugins took 55.4% of the month’s passenger auto sales, with full electrics taking a third (33.2%) and plugin hybrids taking over a fifth (22.2%). Plugless hybrids took 12.8%, leaving less than a third of sales for combustion-only autos (31.8%).”
-
BEVs were ~1 in 3 in one additional market, not “many”. Understood.
-
BEVs were ~1 in 3 in one additional market, not “many”. Understood.
Google various sales figures BEV growth is huge
-
I presume that is the same speed up hill and down dale :)
What would the power meter show going at the same speed on the flat with zero wind?
Indeed.
On the flat, at 70 mph with no head or tailwind, about 20%. The power meter at 100% represents around 80kW. (It's got weird mapping as the whole car has 150kW and it goes up to 140%, but we'll ignore "sport mode" for now.) So you need roughly 18kW to maintain that speed.
This gives you an idea of efficiency for an EV at motorway speeds. In ideal conditions, 60kWh would get you 3.3 hours of driving, or 233 miles - equivalent to 3.8 miles per kWh. However, once you add variability - hills, stopping, acceleration, plus other consumers, mostly heating/AC, you'll find the figure drops. A 60kWh car can usually do about 210 miles on the motorway consistently.
I suspect for some time 60kWh batteries will be the standard for EVs.
David MacKay ouitlined the relevant physics; see https://withouthotair.com/cA/page_256.shtml and the surrounding pages (download the pdf if you prefer).
The actual energy consumption of the car will be the energy dissipation
in equation (A.2), cranked up by a factor related to the inefficiency of
the engine and the transmission. Typical petrol engines are about 25%
efficient, so of the chemical energy that a car guzzles, three quarters is
wasted in making the car’s engine and radiator hot, and just one quarter
goes into “useful” energy:
<equation>
Let’s check this theory of cars by plugging in plausible numbers for motorway
driving. Let v = 70 miles per hour = 110 km/h = 31 m/s and
A = cdAcar = 1 m2. The power consumed by the engine is estimated to be
roughly
<equation>
If you drive the car at this speed for one hour every day, then you travel
110 km and use 80 kWh of energy per day.
So, making the assumptions he stated in the reference, he gets 80kW generated by an ICE assuming a 25% efficiency. That translates to 20kW from a perfectly efficient engine, which is surprisingly close to your figure od 18kW :)
-
Hydrogen is DOA for cars. It’s simply another hydrocarbon , has safety storage and distribution issues . It’s merely petrol under another name
Ask hydrogen devotees the energy density of fuel (i.e. J/m3), and get them to define the volume of a hydrogen fuel tank relative to a petrol/diesel fuel tank. Make sure they don't have an "insert magic here" clause in their statements :)
I like to point out there are far more hydrogen bonds in a litre of petrol/diesel than there are in a litre of liquid hydrogen.
The average daily car distance in the UK is 14 km, ...
Statisticians drown in lakes with an average depth of 15cm :)
Hint: since we are numerate engineers, we know the mean value conceals more than it illuminates. At least use the median and 95th percentile.
-
Yeah, too optimistic, by at least factor of two. My case, pretty much life-long, is a slightly miserable trudge, 32 miles each way...up to more normal 38 miles one way, I'm afraid.
That's not the "164 miles every 6 days" being quoted here. Far from it, at over 200 miles 'per six days', (which is weird, I guess more assumptions).
That time, regardless of vehicle, amounts to a subsidy to industry and a major source of life-style stress, (even featured in a movie; 'Office Space', as mind-numbing 7:00 am crawl / too fast situations evolve).
The asfalt and shear space, dedicated to traffic flow still there. What happened, to mass transit ? Bus lines got cut back, over the last decade. Cut back, or (bus) lines altogether eliminated (bay area).
-
You make a statement with no backup. Bevs are outselling ICE in many marketplaces ,
They are in Norway.
Since you object to people making statements without backup, in what many other marketplaces is this the case?
Not yet the case in the UK but we're not far from it. EVs (including PHEVs) already outsell diesel and their combined volume is the same as hybrid (of any fuel type). The growth in sales looks likely to tip in favour of EVs by about 2025 or so (https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/comment/electric-vehicle-switch-test-governments-net-zero-approach). Put simply, people do not want to buy a vehicle they feel will be obsolete in the next 10-15 years.
-
Yeah, too optimistic, by at least factor of two. My case, pretty much life-long, is a slightly miserable trudge, 32 miles each way...up to more normal 38 miles one way, I'm afraid.
That's not the "164 miles every 6 days" being quoted here. Far from it, at over 200 miles 'per six days', (which is weird, I guess more assumptions).
The statistic I quoted and calculated for, was based on the UK average. Americans drive more than the British, for lots of reasons, including the US just being less dense (although urbanisation is comparable - both countries have a similar percentage of their population living within cities, approximately 75%.) For the US, you'd of course need more chargers, but then it's very common to have a driveway there, as well as garage space, so I suspect the need for on street charging will be less than that in the UK or Europe. I suspect the US will be one of the last countries in the Western world to have a majority of its vehicles become electric though the demand for electric pickup trucks (whilst I'm no fan of the pickup truck culture) is a good sign.
-
EVs (including PHEVs) already outsell diesel and their combined volume is the same as hybrid (of any fuel type)...
...people do not want to buy a vehicle they feel will be obsolete in the next 10-15 years.
Combining any other type of vehicle with EV sales, including long-range PHEVs like the Volt, is grossly misleading IMO. Abolutely any use case fulfilled by an ICE vehicle, including zero access to charging, can be managed by a PHEV and there are tax credits and incentives in many cases to reduce the cost. I've nothing against PHEVs, but 100% BEV vehicles need to be analyzed in their own category if you want any meaningful analysis of consumer preferences and behavior.
As far as obsolescence, who do you think feels more obsoleted right now--the owner of a 2010 Nissan Leaf or a 2010 Honda Accord ICE?
-
Vehiclular obsolescence :-DD
Never heard such BS.
Tell that to the few that still drive 1930's Model A's.
Or the chap that visited us last week with a 60's Fairlane 500 289 powered.
-
David MacKay ouitlined the relevant physics; see https://withouthotair.com/cA/page_256.shtml and the surrounding pages (download the pdf if you prefer).
So, making the assumptions he stated in the reference, he gets 80kW generated by an ICE assuming a 25% efficiency. That translates to 20kW from a perfectly efficient engine, which is surprisingly close to your figure od 18kW :)
Mmm, I do love MacKay's book. Another interesting calculation I did which I was surprised worked so well was, on the basis of this power consumption at one speed, what is the top speed of the Golf GTE Mk7 (with battery depleted and engine at full bore). The engine is 148hp or about 110kW. So knowing P ∝ kV3, I calculate k = 0.0525 for my car (power in watts). This calculates to a top speed of 128 mph. And... looking at the specifications: rated top speed 134 mph continuously.
Then back calculate this for the Golf GTI Mk7 with a 227 hp engine and presumably similar drivetrain and aerodynamic losses. That comes out around 147 mph, the vehicle has a rated top speed of 155 mph. There probably a slight deviation from a simple power law, or the 18kW figure is a low side estimate.
It's nice when maths just... works out.
Of course, that won't help when plod pulls you over for such liberal use of the accelerator. Maybe an EV is better for maintaining the licence, given they tend to top out below 100 mph. Autobahn aficionados need not apply.
EVs (including PHEVs) already outsell diesel and their combined volume is the same as hybrid (of any fuel type)...
...people do not want to buy a vehicle they feel will be obsolete in the next 10-15 years.
Combining any other type of vehicle with EV sales, including long-range PHEVs like the Volt, is grossly misleading IMO. Abolutely any use case fulfilled by an ICE vehicle, including zero access to charging, can be managed by a PHEV and there are tax credits and incentives in many cases to reduce the cost. I've nothing against PHEVs, but 100% BEV vehicles need to be analyzed in their own category if you want any meaningful analysis of consumer preferences and behavior.
As far as obsolescence, who do you think feels more obsoleted right now--the owner of a 2010 Nissan Leaf or a 2010 Honda Accord ICE?
Mmm, but both EVs and PHEVs require some form of charging infrastructure; PHEVs ideally want as much charging as they can get with their tiny battery packs, so you can consider a combined statistic as representing demand of one kind or another for charging infrastructure. Since there are no taxation advantages any more for PHEVs in the UK, these vehicles will be purchased by people who want an EV but aren't brave enough to go fully electric yet. But, yes, if you want to look at the stats independently, you can still see that battery-electric only will be, if growth rates continue as they are (and looking at other countries there's no reason to think that'll change) beating all other vehicle types by 2025. We're clearly on the exponential now.
As for obsolete Leaf - no, I don't think the Leaf is particularly obsolete. I wouldn't buy one, if only because Nissan can't build a battery pack that lasts a decent amount of time but Chademo is still a supported connector and the type 1 charging connector for AC charging is fully backwards compatible with type 2 with a simple cable. Given the really poor battery retention on pretty much all Leaf's from 24 to 40kWh (seriously Nissan, what the hell?) and the serious issues with "rapidgate" for the 40kWh models which prevent more than 2-3 rapid charging sessions in any one day, I think road tripping in any Leaf is a particularly brave adventure. But that's nothing to do with obsolescence, that's just really bad design!
-
But that's nothing to do with obsolescence, that's just really bad design!
If the car can't be practically used due to the condition of the battery pack and that battery pack is cost-prohibitive to replace, your Leaf may well feel obsolete even if you have some other definition for the word. Even if the battery pack is in OK shape, you have a car with a 60-70 mile range which also feels pretty obsolete by modern standards. On the other hand, most 2010 Accords will still function as intended and are generally on-par with most modern offerings.
b/t/w, if I understand it correctly, this website essentially says that BEV penetration in the UK is ~16% of last years sales and ~2% of the total current vehicle population. That's a trend, but as I pointed out above, in 1900 BEV penetration was 30%. We're a long way from ICE extinction.
-
You make a statement with no backup. Bevs are outselling ICE in many marketplaces ,
They are in Norway.
Since you object to people making statements without backup, in what many other marketplaces is this the case?
Not yet the case in the UK but we're not far from it. EVs (including PHEVs) already outsell diesel and their combined volume is the same as hybrid (of any fuel type). The growth in sales looks likely to tip in favour of EVs by about 2025 or so (https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/comment/electric-vehicle-switch-test-governments-net-zero-approach). Put simply, people do not want to buy a vehicle they feel will be obsolete in the next 10-15 years.
That's unconvincing.
You can play that statistic any way you want, e.g. people that
- can afford a car at the moment have sufficient spare money to pay the "excess" cost
- buy an EV know how they will charge it
- buy an EV have an ICE car for when the EV won't cut it
- are prepared to be bleeding edge early adopters
so that's the low-hanging fruit, which won't continue for people without dedicated off-street parking with charging facilities and a second car as a "workaround".
The chasm has yet to be crossed.
(https://miro.medium.com/max/1200/0*KIXz2tAVqXVREkyd.png)
-
hear 75% of public EV chargers in USA are un useable at any moment.....defective, software issues, loss of payment system,
In some areas you drive, run low, get to a,EV charge, line to wait, wait in que Finally charger will not work or incompatible to your car.
Jon
-
Yeah, too optimistic, by at least factor of two. My case, pretty much life-long, is a slightly miserable trudge, 32 miles each way...up to more normal 38 miles one way, I'm afraid.
That's not the "164 miles every 6 days" being quoted here. Far from it, at over 200 miles 'per six days', (which is weird, I guess more assumptions).
The statistic I quoted and calculated for, was based on the UK average.
Yeah, riiiiight... and Tesla employees have an average net worth of >$2m? (Musk worth $140bn, 70k employees).
Your number is based on the UK mean, which can disguise all sorts of phenomena if the distribution isn't normal. So, what's the median and 95th percentile mileage?
-
I think that our problem is that we tried to find a new method instead of trying to find a solution that could reuse what we current have with minimal conversion.
Where's the Synthetic Fuels?
https://www.bosch.com/stories/synthetic-fuels/ (https://www.bosch.com/stories/synthetic-fuels/)
https://jalopnik.com/five-synthetic-fuels-that-could-replace-gasoline-and-di-1849446204/slides/3 (https://jalopnik.com/five-synthetic-fuels-that-could-replace-gasoline-and-di-1849446204/slides/3)
Although it is true that EVs being a success. I live in Shenzhen, and all Bus and Taxis are EV powered. Even construction dump trucks are now EV powered too, with some construction companies already using trucks made by BYD. But in China EVs are heavily subsidised by the Government (or were, subsidies ended in 31 December 2022 for normal road cars).
EV Road scooters and rental bikes are common. In Zhongshan, a city without a Metro infrastructure I used a EV bikes for a month there working that I could rent and would pay 10RMB per 20min of use. It made 90% of my transport per day since the BUS public transport infrastructure is mediocre at best.
-
Where's the Synthetic Fuels?
same place as the ever lasting lamp,in the hands of those with the most to lose
-
Agreed. The whole world is buzzing with hydrogen from renewable sources... History repeats itself. 100+ years ago BEVs already existed and the current BEVs still have the same issues with range and long charging times. And just like oil based fuels, hydrogen has the potential to avoid those issues.
'It works for me so it must work for everyone' isn't a strong argument. The same goes for average distance travelled. Arguing that way is just stupid. It is like saying the average person on the world eats half a slice of bread a day so everyone should be able to do with eating half a slice of bread a day.
The majority of hydrogen available today comes from cracking fossil fuels. Producing it from renewable energy is very inefficient.
BEVs existed 100+ years ago but they were primitive. Battery technology was in its infancy, there were no inverters or microcontrollers or any of the things that make modern EVs practical. Gasoline engines got ahead pretty quickly but now ICE technology has pretty fully matured, there is nowhere else to go. BEV technology has in the last 15 years or so caught up and in many ways surpassed it.
It really takes some serious mental gymnastics to make a claim that hydrogen cars are anything but dead. You have to pretend that tens of millions of cars that are out there already don't exist, and a few thousand hydrogen cars are the future. That's like claiming LED lighting will never catch on and induction lamps or some new refinement of incandescent is the future. How can you even make such a claim with a straight face? Even wanting something badly to be true does not make it true. Hydrogen is dead, within a decade I would wager that even Toyota will give up. We are probably close to the peak number of hydrogen filling stations that will exist in the world and within my lifetime they will all be gone.
-
Where's the Synthetic Fuels?
same place as the ever lasting lamp,in the hands of those with the most to lose
Ever lasting lamp is trivial if you don't care about either efficiency or cost.
You can have long life, high efficiency or low cost, pick any two.
-
The charge solution isvt lampposts etc it’s large scale high power “ electric filling stations” and that’s the way it’s going , low power charging has little future as batteries get bigger , hence expect multi station EV charging with high power chargers called “ esso “ etc.
That's nonsense. Tesla themselves have said most people will do most of their charging at home. Being able to plug in your car like a mobile phone and have a full charge in the morning is the single biggest advantage of EVs, the one my EV driving friends all rave about the most, and easily the most compelling reason I would consider owning one. Having to go off and find fuel for my car is a necessary evil with gasoline but I have electricity piped right into my house, why on earth would I ever go off and get it from a more expensive source while putting more wear on the expensive batteries by rapid charging? High power public chargers are a backup plan, to accommodate people that can't charge at home/work/other destinations, and to ease range anxiety and transition from the "petrol mentality" where you drive your car until it's almost empty then go out and fill it up to full again. That isn't how most EV drivers operate, they plug in their car regularly whenever it's convenient to do so.
-
If the car can't be practically used due to the condition of the battery pack and that battery pack is cost-prohibitive to replace, your Leaf may well feel obsolete even if you have some other definition for the word. Even if the battery pack is in OK shape, you have a car with a 60-70 mile range which also feels pretty obsolete by modern standards. On the other hand, most 2010 Accords will still function as intended and are generally on-par with most modern offerings.
b/t/w, if I understand it correctly, this website essentially says that BEV penetration in the UK is ~16% of last years sales and ~2% of the total current vehicle population. That's a trend, but as I pointed out above, in 1900 BEV penetration was 30%. We're a long way from ICE extinction.
Depends on what it costs. If I were still commuting to work by car a Leaf would be ideal for me, 50 miles is ample range for most people's daily commute.
My car holds enough gasoline for about 250-300 miles depending on how I drive it. Currently I fill it up about once every 3-4 weeks, it's been a long time since I drove more than 50 miles in a day. Some people do, and for those that is not a workable solution, but they are a small minority and there are other other cars on the market that better meet those needs.
-
No matter how you wish it...
38 miles each way, approx. 2/3 of those Santa Clara County job employees have to go, daily.
That is 38 X 2 = 76 miles MINIMUM per day, no store trip or friends / or relatives, just home to work and back.
I've seen (clever) maps made by a troublesome fellow (too political), maps to show;
Relative RENT, for 1 bed apartment, vs. distance (to INTEL, at the time...it doesn't matter). That map-diagram showed the extreme value, in matters of personal time, vs. cash 'equivalent' of shortening commute. We are taking about market forces, here, and that personal aspect weighs heavy, on individual choices...i.e. a 'distance tolerance' effect, while many of those / us commuting sort through the options.
But, yeah, better give up on that ideal, 30 mile total (daily).
-
No matter how you wish it...
38 miles each way, approx. 2/3 of those Santa Clara County job employees have to go, daily.
That is 38 X 2 = 76 miles MINIMUM per day, no store trip or friends / or relatives, just home to work and back.
I've seen (clever) maps made by a troublesome fellow (too political), maps to show;
Relative RENT, for 1 bed apartment, vs. distance (to INTEL, at the time...it doesn't matter). That map-diagram showed the extreme value, in matters of personal time, vs. cash 'equivalent' of shortening commute. We are taking about market forces, here, and that personal aspect weighs heavy, on individual choices...i.e. a 'distance tolerance' effect, while many of those / us commuting sort through the options.
But, yeah, better give up on that ideal, 30 mile total (daily).
The maths for number of street chargers doesn't particularly matter for car dependent America. Every driveway will have a charger, many workplaces will too. I'll take a reasonable bet that city dwellers also use their cars less than the more rural/suburban users. Yes some US towns/cities will need on street charging and charging for apartment blocks, but the density required will surely be much less than most countries except in metropolises like NYC. You're making a problem out of nothing in the real world - if you have a driveway you can do a 200 mile round trip every day without even considering charging with almost every EV, and some of the newer ones with 100kWh+ batteries can achieve over 300 miles. With the cost of batteries falling precipitously (they are at around 1/6th what they cost in 2010) it's quite likely that 60-100kWh will become the standard.
If the car can't be practically used due to the condition of the battery pack and that battery pack is cost-prohibitive to replace, your Leaf may well feel obsolete even if you have some other definition for the word. Even if the battery pack is in OK shape, you have a car with a 60-70 mile range which also feels pretty obsolete by modern standards. On the other hand, most 2010 Accords will still function as intended and are generally on-par with most modern offerings.
You could call it obsolete if you want, but even as designed the 70 mile range of the Leaf (typically they will go about 50-55 miles now) was never a car to go road tripping in. Those vehicles are really short distance commuter/shopping/school run type cars, they do well going to and from destinations entirely within their battery range. If you have to stop to charge, you're going to need to wait over an hour. But you can still use these for their mostly-intended use case, even with a degraded battery pack. So it's maybe obsolete in that 200 miles is now the standard for an EV but not obsolete in that you can't charge it.
I would call a diesel/petrol car banned by a pollution mandate (e.g. ULEZ zone in London) 'obsolete' because it cannot practically be used in such an area, unless you can afford the daily 'fine' (£12.50 in London).
-
Agreed. The whole world is buzzing with hydrogen from renewable sources... History repeats itself. 100+ years ago BEVs already existed and the current BEVs still have the same issues with range and long charging times. And just like oil based fuels, hydrogen has the potential to avoid those issues.
'It works for me so it must work for everyone' isn't a strong argument. The same goes for average distance travelled. Arguing that way is just stupid. It is like saying the average person on the world eats half a slice of bread a day so everyone should be able to do with eating half a slice of bread a day.
The majority of hydrogen available today comes from cracking fossil fuels. Producing it from renewable energy is very inefficient.
What you are missing is that hydrogen is THE KEY ingredient for energy storage. Again: the entire world is moving towards hydrogen production (from wind + solar) and storage. In the next decade hydrogen made from renewable sources will be available in abundance. And cheap. Forecasts say that by 2050 hydrogen can be sold to consumers for US $5 per kilo. Even today it is cheaper to run a car from hydrogen compared to running a BEV from public charging. In every serious article about renewable energy, you'll find hydrogen being part of the solution. Now try to convince me again hydrogen is dead... Hydrogen cars are going to be what the LED lamps are today: a truly better solution compared to what we had. BEVs are the CCFL lamps we used to have as a temporary solution to have more efficient light bulbs.
-
... - if you have a driveway you can do a 200 mile round trip every day without even considering charging with almost every EV, a...
What's the range when the temperature is -5C, or -10C on the driveway overnight (i.e. not in a garage)?
-
Agreed. The whole world is buzzing with hydrogen from renewable sources... History repeats itself. 100+ years ago BEVs already existed and the current BEVs still have the same issues with range and long charging times. And just like oil based fuels, hydrogen has the potential to avoid those issues.
'It works for me so it must work for everyone' isn't a strong argument. The same goes for average distance travelled. Arguing that way is just stupid. It is like saying the average person on the world eats half a slice of bread a day so everyone should be able to do with eating half a slice of bread a day.
The majority of hydrogen available today comes from cracking fossil fuels. Producing it from renewable energy is very inefficient.
What you are missing is that hydrogen is THE KEY ingredient for energy storage. Again: the entire world is moving towards hydrogen production (from wind + solar) and storage. In the next decade hydrogen made from renewable sources will be available in abundance. And cheap. Forecasts say that by 2050 hydrogen can be sold to consumers for US $5 per kilo. Even today it is cheaper to run a car from hydrogen compared to running a BEV from public charging. In every serious article about renewable energy, you'll find hydrogen being part of the solution. Now try to convince me again hydrogen is dead... Hydrogen cars are going to be what the LED lamps are today: a truly better solution compared to what we had. BEVs are the CCFL lamps we used to have as a temporary solution to have more efficient light bulbs.
Hydrogen is one possible ingredient for energy storage. Water is another - and one that is proven to work at a grid scale, and is used at grid scale.
What is the volume of a hydrogen tank compared with that of a petrol/diesel tank? (Hint: petrol/diesel 34MJ/l, compressed hydrogen (700 bar!) 5MJ/l. Hence a 40l tank becomes a 300l tank!)
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/olumetric-and-gravimetric-energy-densities-of-common-fuels_tbl2_235777492 (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/olumetric-and-gravimetric-energy-densities-of-common-fuels_tbl2_235777492)
Metal embrittlement is a difficult topic for hydrogen.
Insurance for storing a hydrogen car in a garage? There are already some problems reported with insuring EVs in garages!
-
... - if you have a driveway you can do a 200 mile round trip every day without even considering charging with almost every EV, a...
What's the range when the temperature is -5C, or -10C on the driveway overnight (i.e. not in a garage)?
Less. Between 10-25%. Do you want a more specific example - specify the make and model. ICE cars experience a fuel economy degradation at cold temperatures too.
One thing that I do not miss with my (PH)EV is the lack of any need to deice the car. Pre-heated, ice free from my phone within 15 minutes. The most I had to do recently was brush the snow off the exposed surfaces.
-
I would call a diesel/petrol car banned by a pollution mandate (e.g. ULEZ zone in London) 'obsolete' because it cannot practically be used in such an area, unless you can afford the daily 'fine' (£12.50 in London).
If you commute into central London, you wouldn't use a car - time and car parking are prohibitive (£45/day is typical)
If you live in the ULEZ with a car, £12.50/day is small change.
-
... - if you have a driveway you can do a 200 mile round trip every day without even considering charging with almost every EV, a...
What's the range when the temperature is -5C, or -10C on the driveway overnight (i.e. not in a garage)?
Less. Between 10-25%. Do you want a more specific example - specify the make and model. ICE cars experience a fuel economy degradation at cold temperatures too.
That degredation can be overcome in <60s.
Batteries would take several hours at a medium charge rate. Even longer if the batteries cannot be charged so fast when they are cold.
One thing that I do not miss with my (PH)EV is the lack of any need to deice the car. Pre-heated, ice free from my phone within 15 minutes. The most I had to do recently was brush the snow off the exposed surfaces.
Where that is regularly a problem, e.g. Canada, you plug ICE cars in overnight.
-
If you commute into central London, you wouldn't use a car - time and car parking are prohibitive (£45/day is typical)
If you live in the ULEZ with a car, £12.50/day is small change.
ULEZ is anywhere within the North and South Circular roads, not including those roads itself. It's a pretty big area to have to pay over a tenner a day to drive in, and not everyone who lives in that area is rich. (You may have more of a point if you talk about the congestion charge as that's almost all zone 1).
I know a few people not very happy with it, but ultimately it's one of those taxes that's necessary but never going to be pleasing for those who have to pay it. The whole point of it is to strongly discourage the usage of non ULEZ-compliant vehicles.
-
That degredation can be overcome in <60s.
Not true. Tyres are less efficient at lower temperatures, air is denser which is harder to push through, engines on a stop-start cycle can do that less often due to catalytic and coolant temperatures dropping out of ideal ranges. If it's raining, this has an impact too, of a few percent (mostly tyres), and if you are in a colder climate you probably have winter tyres on your car for part of the year which has less efficient compound ("grippier" but worse for economy). There is a slight countering benefit in that colder air is better for an engine, but it doesn't make up for the other costs. In general, all vehicles are less efficient at lower temperatures; on my hybrid I measure (ignoring all electric consumption) about a 15% difference between hot (~30C) and cold economy (~0C) on long highway runs, with conditions otherwise equal.
Batteries would take several hours at a medium charge rate. Even longer if the batteries cannot be charged so fast when they are cold.
Again, not true, at least not for any car with a liquid-cooled (heated?) battery pack. Tesla's can heat the battery in 15 minutes, but they only bother with this when a supercharger is en route because otherwise it's wasted energy compared to the efficiency benefit it provides. The biggest disadvantage to a cold battery is losing regen braking, and reduced acceleration. These are inconveniences but in colder weather, you should probably be driving more carefully anyway.
Where that is regularly a problem, e.g. Canada, you plug ICE cars in overnight.
It's a problem in any country that goes below 0C in the winter. The UK is comparably warm in this respect but we still experience weeks of this type of weather. Nothing quite beats getting into a warm, defrosted car whilst watching your neighbour scrape ice off their windscreen. The most inconvenient thing about my car is the mirrors don't de-ice at the same time as the rest of the car, I have to turn the car on to do that.
Block heaters are to do with maintaining start performance, you don't get any particular benefit in terms of pre-heating the cabin or de-icing windows. You still need to get the coolant to >70C to start having enough benefit to de-ice windows and warm the cabin, and even then you still need to wait for that to actually warm the car enough to get ice off it.
But that's a good point: any country that does have block heaters has the EV charging infrastructure practically done! 120V charging is enough for the average ("mean") user if used overnight.
-
I'm mostly concerned with heating of the pack from the atmosphere. Specifically heat from the hot AU summers damaging the pack. Doesn't sound like air cooled battery packs are a wise choice here in AU and therefore I won't be buying an electric car anytime soon.
AFAIK the (early?) Nissan Leafs are the only BEVs out there that have battery packs without thermal management. And these fail regulary in hot climates; then again the Leaf is one of the best selling BEV out there so it could be less of a problem when expressed in a percentage. All other BEVs from respectable brands have proper thermal management (active cooling / heating) in their battery packs.
-
That degredation can be overcome in <60s.
Not true. Tyres are less efficient at lower temperatures, air is denser which is harder to push through, engines on a stop-start cycle can do that less often due to catalytic and coolant temperatures dropping out of ideal ranges. If it's raining, this has an impact too, of a few percent (mostly tyres), and if you are in a colder climate you probably have winter tyres on your car for part of the year which has less efficient compound ("grippier" but worse for economy). There is a slight countering benefit in that colder air is better for an engine, but it doesn't make up for the other costs. In general, all vehicles are less efficient at lower temperatures; on my hybrid I measure (ignoring all electric consumption) about a 15% difference between hot (~30C) and cold economy (~0C) on long highway runs, with conditions otherwise equal.
Please do not snip the context in order to make your strawman argument. That is widely regarded as bad form.
For reference, here is what my statement was referring to, with my added emphasis...
... - if you have a driveway you can do a 200 mile round trip every day without even considering charging with almost every EV, a...
What's the range when the temperature is -5C, or -10C on the driveway overnight (i.e. not in a garage)?
Less. Between 10-25%. Do you want a more specific example - specify the make and model. ICE cars experience a fuel economy degradation at cold temperatures too.
That degredation can be overcome in <60s.
And with an ICE the range degredation can be overcome in <60s - all you have to do is fill up 10-25% of the tank.
Batteries would take several hours at a medium charge rate. Even longer if the batteries cannot be charged so fast when they are cold.
Again, not true, at least not for any car with a liquid-cooled (heated?) battery pack. Tesla's can heat the battery in 15 minutes, but they only bother with this when a supercharger is en route because otherwise it's wasted energy compared to the efficiency benefit it provides. The biggest disadvantage to a cold battery is losing regen braking, and reduced acceleration. These are inconveniences but in colder weather, you should probably be driving more carefully anyway.
If you are spending energy keeping the batteries warm, then I agree.
Public superchargers for N vehicles will for the foreseeable future remain rare, due to the problems with supplying N*50kW through the distribution system. For domestic installations they would require extra infrastructure back to the substation, as the person that bought my parents' house has discovered.
-
These are inconveniences but in colder weather, you should probably be driving more carefully anyway.
WTF? Outdoor temperature does not determine my speed. I usually do 120km/h on the highway, whether is is 21deg outside, and even when it is -20deg outside.
-
Please do not snip the context in order to make your strawman argument. That is widely regarded as bad form.
For reference, here is what my statement was referring to, with my added emphasis...
... - if you have a driveway you can do a 200 mile round trip every day without even considering charging with almost every EV, a...
What's the range when the temperature is -5C, or -10C on the driveway overnight (i.e. not in a garage)?
Less. Between 10-25%. Do you want a more specific example - specify the make and model. ICE cars experience a fuel economy degradation at cold temperatures too.
That degredation can be overcome in <60s.
And with an ICE the range degredation can be overcome in <60s - all you have to do is fill up 10-25% of the tank.
Well - I thought you were referring to the warming of the engine in 60 seconds - which is a reasonable time for a modern ICE with electronic thermostat bypass - so I defend myself, your statement was ambiguous. My points still stand, all vehicles experience a range loss in colder temps. Is that more of a hassle for EV users? Sure, I agree. How much of a hassle? Well, it will depend on the type of journey, of course. I can count on one hand the number of times I've driven more than 200 miles in the past year, but others will make this a monthly or weekly occurrence.
I would argue that having to stop now-and-then for charging, while inconvenient, is outweighed by never having to refuel for the majority of journeys, for the average user. How long does an EV take to charge at home? About 30 seconds... 15 seconds to plug in, 15 seconds to unplug. ;)
-
I'm mostly concerned with heating of the pack from the atmosphere. Specifically heat from the hot AU summers damaging the pack. Doesn't sound like air cooled battery packs are a wise choice here in AU and therefore I won't be buying an electric car anytime soon.
AFAIK the (early?) Nissan Leafs are the only BEVs out there that have battery packs without thermal management. And these fail regulary in hot climates; then again the Leaf is one of the best selling BEV out there so it could be less of a problem when expressed in a percentage. All other BEVs from respectable brands have proper thermal management (active cooling / heating) in their battery packs.
All Leaf's from 24 to 62kWh are not even air cooled batteries, purely passive metal plate cooling. Absolutely terrible design. Especially bad combined with the terrible chemistry Nissan used on at least the 24 and 30kWh cars. There genuinely should be a recall on these vehicles, most 24kWh cars are already scrap due to very unhealthy batteries. Meanwhile original Model S and Roadster remain with >85% capacity, so it definitely is possible to build a long life battery... just not for Nissan.
It's not all due to lack of cooling though. e-Golf is an uncooled battery (fan does blow air through pack though unlike Leaf) but lifespan is good. They used Panasonic cells in that vehicle though. In my GTE, the battery is glycol cooled, probably due to the higher C-rate charge and discharge.
These are inconveniences but in colder weather, you should probably be driving more carefully anyway.
WTF? Outdoor temperature does not determine my speed. I usually do 120km/h on the highway, whether is is 21deg outside, and even when it is -20deg outside.
Driving more carefully: less acceleration, longer braking distances. A Model 3 with LFP does 0-60 in 8s in -20C, but 5s in 20C weather, because battery is power limited. Still plenty to power car at 120km/h, but will take fractionally longer to get to that speed.
You'll also find ICE cars accelerate a bit worse in colder weather, so nothing new here.
Edit: corrected typo
-
You'll also find ICE cars accelerate a bit worse in colder weather, so nothing new here.
No. Air is more dense when cold so the engine gets more oxygen per air volume and thus can deliver more power. My (gasoline) car has a better fuel economy when it is cold compared to driving when it is warm. If your car shows a 15% difference in fuel economy depending on outside temperature, then something is broken on it.
-
You'll also find ICE cars accelerate a bit worse in colder weather, so nothing new here.
No. Air is more dense when cold so the engine gets more oxygen per air volume and thus can deliver more power. My (gasoline) car has a better fuel economy when it is cold compared to driving when it is warm. If your car shows a 15% difference in fuel economy depending on outside temperature, then something is broken on it.
No. Fuel economy is a function of far more than just engine efficiency, as I stated above. And I've measured the economy on cruise control on two identical routes. Around 50 mpg in the summer, versus 42 mpg in the winter. If your car gets more efficient in the winter, I'd question the accuracy of the fuel gauge!
In terms of acceleration, the problem you will have once you get below 10s to 60 acceleration is maintaining traction, which tyres are really bad at when cold. You will also find turbocharger function is worse when cold, because it can't spool up as fast with heavier dense air, so you get much worse 'turbo-lag'. A naturally aspirated engine may do better, but they're pretty uncommon now.
-
Please do not snip the context in order to make your strawman argument. That is widely regarded as bad form.
For reference, here is what my statement was referring to, with my added emphasis...
... - if you have a driveway you can do a 200 mile round trip every day without even considering charging with almost every EV, a...
What's the range when the temperature is -5C, or -10C on the driveway overnight (i.e. not in a garage)?
Less. Between 10-25%. Do you want a more specific example - specify the make and model. ICE cars experience a fuel economy degradation at cold temperatures too.
That degredation can be overcome in <60s.
And with an ICE the range degredation can be overcome in <60s - all you have to do is fill up 10-25% of the tank.
Well - I thought you were referring to the warming of the engine in 60 seconds - which is a reasonable time for a modern ICE with electronic thermostat bypass - so I defend myself, your statement was ambiguous.
I really don't see how you could have thought that; see above!
Maybe read more slowly?
My points still stand, all vehicles experience a range loss in colder temps. Is that more of a hassle for EV users? Sure, I agree. How much of a hassle? Well, it will depend on the type of journey, of course. I can count on one hand the number of times I've driven more than 200 miles in the past year, but others will make this a monthly or weekly occurrence.
I would argue that having to stop now-and-then for charging, while inconvenient, is outweighed by never having to refuel for the majority of journeys, for the average user. How long does an EV take to charge at home? About 30 seconds... 15 seconds to plug in, 15 seconds to unplug. ;)
I suspect you live in an urban or suburban area and in the southern parts of the UK, maybe with usable public transport.
If you lived in a rural area or an area where towns are few and far between or where public transport is infrequent, then I doubt your driving would be like that.
And contour lines also make a difference :)
And it takes infinite time to recharge an EV at home, when there is a power cut. Or, if as proposed in some quarters, the grid system is able to suck power out of your EV's battery in order to make the grid "more resilient".
-
I suspect you live in an urban or suburban area and in the southern parts of the UK, maybe with usable public transport.
If you lived in a rural area or an area where towns are few and far between or where public transport is infrequent, then I doubt your driving would be like that.
And it takes infinite time to recharge an EV at home, when there is a power cut. Or, if as proposed in some quarters, the grid system is able to suck power out of your EV's battery in order to make the grid "more resilient".
Town of ~30k pop, about an hour and a half from London. So southern, but definitely more rural than say an exurb of London. Public transport here is crap, I have used only the trains regularly, but you have to drive to the train station as the buses are not reliable enough to get there.
Do you remember the petrol shortage we had last year? Having a PHEV I needed to go hunting for petrol. But it was possible to charge at home, then drive out late at night with my essentially empty petrol tank and queue for petrol. That wasn't fun; if I had a fully electric car I wouldn't have worried about that one bit, but I guess it's the advantage of having a car with partial electric driving.
The longest power cut I've had was about 20 minutes long a few years back, but either way, I'm convinced that availability of petrol and electricity are both around 99.9%, so are a non issue for either technology. If you're REALLY paranoid about that, go and buy a petrol genset and charge your EV off that for emergencies. But I doubt it will get much use. Given an EV under *average usage* will last a week between charges, we'd have to have a really bad power cut for an EV to be useless (and petrol stations need electricity to pump too, so you'd better hope they are not impacted.) At which point, I'd probably be worrying a lot more about... I dunno, the fridge and freezer's contents, or how I'm going to do my job, or how the boiler is going to work for showers and heating, or how I light the house, or how many candles I have left.
-
You'll also find ICE cars accelerate a bit worse in colder weather, so nothing new here.
No. Air is more dense when cold so the engine gets more oxygen per air volume and thus can deliver more power. My (gasoline) car has a better fuel economy when it is cold compared to driving when it is warm. If your car shows a 15% difference in fuel economy depending on outside temperature, then something is broken on it.
No. Fuel economy is a function of far more than just engine efficiency, as I stated above. And I've measured the economy on cruise control on two identical routes. Around 50 mpg in the summer, versus 42 mpg in the winter. If your car gets more efficient in the winter, I'd question the accuracy of the fuel gauge!
Again, that difference is huge and indicates something is broken. Such a difference in fuel consumption is not normal at all!
In terms of acceleration, the problem you will have once you get below 10s to 60 acceleration is maintaining traction, which tyres are really bad at when cold.
If you have tires like that, change them immediately. Those are not safe. I'm using Dunlop Blueresponse tires and notice no difference between warm or cold weather where it comes to grip. This means they'll keep the car on the road in all cirumstances. I value my life above anything else. What you describe reminds of driving around on Michelin Energy tires (which are utter crap).
-
If you have tires like that, change them immediately. Those are not safe. I'm using Dunlop Blueresponse tires and notice no difference between warm or cold weather where it comes to grip. This means they'll keep the car on the road in all cirumstances. I value my life above anything else. What you describe reminds of driving around on Michelin Energy tires (which are utter crap).
We're talking about -20C here... it will get worse for sure. I used to put proper winter tyres on my car (Michelin's, not eco ones). Normally the car does 6.8s to 60 in warm and it definitely got slower due to traction control in colder weather, probably not 10s to 60 but a few seconds at least. You could also feel the torque steer more, with the ESP system applying braking on the wheels to keep the car straight having to work harder. Winter tyres have compound that is optimised for colder weather, but they can only do so much when the road is covered in ice crystals, which it will almost certainly be at anything sub -5C. I'm lucky to have not had to drive in anything much below that, but I'd be amazed if your winter tyres (even the best brand) in the cold could manage the same acceleration figure as summer tyres at 30C. There's a very good reason they don't hold F1 in the winter, in Europe :).
-
These are inconveniences but in colder weather, you should probably be driving more carefully anyway.
WTF? Outdoor temperature does not determine my speed. I usually do 120km/h on the highway, whether is is 21deg outside, and even when it is -20deg outside.
Driving more carefully: less acceleration, longer braking distances. A Model 3 with LFP does 0-60 in 8s in -20C, but 5s in 20C weather, because battery is power limited. Still plenty to power car at 120km/h, but will take fractionally longer to get to that speed.
You'll also find ICE cars accelerate a bit worse in colder weather, so nothing new here.
Edit: corrected typo
WTF? Since when under normal street driving conditions you are using maximum acceleration and maximum braking power? So much so that you observe slight timing differences always accelerating from 0-60s. If you are not in a racing environment, such things are mute.
When talking about EV viability, why in the world are we getting into drag racing specs for regular street cars and street driving?
-
I suspect you live in an urban or suburban area and in the southern parts of the UK, maybe with usable public transport.
If you lived in a rural area or an area where towns are few and far between or where public transport is infrequent, then I doubt your driving would be like that.
And it takes infinite time to recharge an EV at home, when there is a power cut. Or, if as proposed in some quarters, the grid system is able to suck power out of your EV's battery in order to make the grid "more resilient".
Town of ~30k pop, about an hour and a half from London. So southern, but definitely more rural than say an exurb of London. Public transport here is crap, I have used only the trains regularly, but you have to drive to the train station as the buses are not reliable enough to get there.
If you are where I suspect, I wouldn't call that rural unless you go NE for some unfathomable reason :) For travelling on public transport, especially to/in London, I use a Brompton bike. (Not electric, since they are heavy enough without that!)
Do you remember the petrol shortage we had last year? Having a PHEV I needed to go hunting for petrol. But it was possible to charge at home, then drive out late at night with my essentially empty petrol tank and queue for petrol. That wasn't fun; if I had a fully electric car I wouldn't have worried about that one bit, but I guess it's the advantage of having a car with partial electric driving.
What's your verdict on PHEVs? My 2003 Toyota will need replacing sometime, and I ought to understand the tradeoffs.
The longest power cut I've had was about 20 minutes long a few years back, but either way, I'm convinced that availability of petrol and electricity are both around 99.9%, so are a non issue for either technology. If you're REALLY paranoid about that, go and buy a petrol genset and charge your EV off that for emergencies. But I doubt it will get much use. Given an EV under *average usage* will last a week between charges, we'd have to have a really bad power cut for an EV to be useless (and petrol stations need electricity to pump too, so you'd better hope they are not impacted.) At which point, I'd probably be worrying a lot more about... I dunno, the fridge and freezer's contents, or how I'm going to do my job, or how the boiler is going to work for showers and heating, or how I light the house, or how many candles I have left.
I grew up revising for school exams by candlelight; I remember what power cuts are like.
We have escaped power cuts this winter by the skin of our teeth: there hasn't been a blocking high pressure sitting on top of us for weeks.
When planned cuts occur, they will start with 3hours/day (plus up to an extra hour for reconnection to occur), increasing to 6-9hours/day and then to 24hours/day in 18 steps. FFI see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electricity-supply-emergency-code (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electricity-supply-emergency-code) This winter "Programme Yarrow" war planned for us "losing" 40% of the electricity supply. That would have meant very long and frequent cuts. FFI: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/nov/01/government-tests-energy-blackout-emergency-plans-as-supply-fears-grow (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/nov/01/government-tests-energy-blackout-emergency-plans-as-supply-fears-grow)
I considered a petrol genny, but they were too expensive and childhood experience with petrol lawnmowers taught me not to rely on rarely used petrol engines. Instead I spent £200 on a pure-sine UPS which will be sufficient for gas central heating and freezers for cuts of a few hours. My brother got a lithium battery equivalent of petrol genny, but I distrust fully charged non-name Li batteries, and I wasn't prepared to fork out £500. Lighting is easy: 12V LED strips will run for a very long time from a car battery.
Maybe the electricity supply will be back to normal (i.e. pre-Ukraine) next winter, but I doubt it.
-
WTF? Since when under normal street driving conditions you are using maximum acceleration and maximum braking power? So much so that you observe slight timing differences always accelerating from 0-60s. If you are not in a racing environment, such things are mute.
Exactly. It's a non issue that EVs accelerate worse in colder weather... which is my point... other factors determine that you're not going to be driving like a nutter in such conditions (or at least you won't be doing it for long...)
-
Normally the car does 6.8s to 60 in...
I know 12-14yo kids people that suddenly become very alert if it takes more than 5s to get to 60. But they are trained (and retrained annually) in what to do when that happens :)
-
What's your verdict on PHEVs? My 2003 Toyota will need replacing sometime, and I ought to understand the tradeoffs.
Put it this way: been fun to own one for four years but I would not buy one right now.
In theory best of both worlds. Electric for short journeys. Petrol for longer ones. If you can make the electric work for you (you "have" to use home charging IMO) then it's great.
Cost-wise on the used market my car is about £10k. So for an "EV" that can do 90% of your driving on electric it's excellent value (comparable 200+ mile range EVs are more like £17-25k). However I would say it's only worth buying one if you have charging at all your major destinations. For instance, I used to commute 12 miles to work and had charging there and at home. So all of my commute was electric. I was getting 2,000 miles to a tank of fuel. When I migrated south, I couldn't get such a close home, and no charging at work. So I've been using my car as a true hybrid for the last 2 years, charging only at one end giving a partial benefit to economy, but not an amazing one. It returns around 50-70 mpg in such a configuration (90 mile round trip, ~20 miles electrified), so as good as most diesel cars, but it has 204 hp, so merging onto the dual carriageway (very short left hand turn) is easy :).
If you really want to use the EV function, you ideally use public charging too. So the 7kW spots in parking garages etc. Those can be mixed in reliability and it's frustrating to have to use petrol on the way back if you could have done in on electric had that bloody BP Pulse charger actually bothered to work. But I suppose it doesn't matter that much, if you have petrol, it just means it costs/pollutes more, which may or may not matter to you. Public charging is also more expensive than home charging, but still cheaper than petrol for AC charging around here. Most PHEVs don't use rapid chargers, 3kW AC is a typical limit, so 2-3 hours charging time is normal.
In theory the wear and tear on the battery is worse because it's so small. But the battery in my car replaced when it was 3 years old (due to recall, not failure, just after I bought it) and it is still holding up well, doing approximately the same range as when new - now 4 years old. It must have over 1,000 cycles on it already.
I would expect these cars will become more of a maintenance liability as they get older... the GTE's for instance have a triple clutch gearbox and I've heard this extra clutch can fail, meaning the engine can't start... that can be a £2k bill for instance. Most of the older models will be going out of battery warranty too. So maybe not for someone who's coming from legendary Toyota reliability.
-
IMHO the hybrids from Toyota are the best choice when looking for a second hand car. I looked at a whole lot of hybrids and these seem to be the most reliable and least costly to maintain.
-
IMHO the hybrids from Toyota are the best choice when looking for a second hand car. I looked at a whole lot of hybrids and these seem to be the most reliable and least costly to maintain.
Just paid 230 EUR for the yearly maintenance, APK of my 12 year old Prius. I was considering to replace it with a Mercedes C class plug-in, but the maintenance is 1200 EUR/year, which is more than what I spend on fuel and tax each year. So thx but no thanks, I will probably drive this car until it falls apart (which it doesn't). Only parts that needed replacing over it's lifetime was the airco compressor, and the 12V battery, breaks (went rusty) and windshield vipers. Meanwhile I know people that spent more on repairing their 3 year old Tesla, than me on my car during it's entire lifetime.
All this "EV will break the power grid" is a bunch of nonsense. It was taught in the university, that renewable energy cannot get more than 5% of the total, and the "entire grid will collapse". The professor came to the class and told us that it's not feasible, there will be blackouts, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. And look at us now, the lights are on.
-
What's your verdict on PHEVs? My 2003 Toyota will need replacing sometime, and I ought to understand the tradeoffs.
Put it this way: been fun to own one for four years but I would not buy one right now.
In theory best of both worlds. Electric for short journeys. Petrol for longer ones. If you can make the electric work for you (you "have" to use home charging IMO) then it's great.
Cost-wise on the used market my car is about £10k. So for an "EV" that can do 90% of your driving on electric it's excellent value (comparable 200+ mile range EVs are more like £17-25k). However I would say it's only worth buying one if you have charging at all your major destinations. For instance, I used to commute 12 miles to work and had charging there and at home. So all of my commute was electric. I was getting 2,000 miles to a tank of fuel. When I migrated south, I couldn't get such a close home, and no charging at work. So I've been using my car as a true hybrid for the last 2 years, charging only at one end giving a partial benefit to economy, but not an amazing one. It returns around 50-70 mpg in such a configuration (90 mile round trip, ~20 miles electrified), so as good as most diesel cars, but it has 204 hp, so merging onto the dual carriageway (very short left hand turn) is easy :).
I don't see much advantage to PHEVs except in urban driving where regenerative braking might help and the ICE can be kept running at optimum speed.
If you really want to use the EV function, you ideally use public charging too. So the 7kW spots in parking garages etc. Those can be mixed in reliability and it's frustrating to have to use petrol on the way back if you could have done in on electric had that bloody BP Pulse charger actually bothered to work.
That's the classic problem with public charging points, and one that puts me off all EVs.
I would expect these cars will become more of a maintenance liability as they get older... the GTE's for instance have a triple clutch gearbox and I've heard this extra clutch can fail, meaning the engine can't start... that can be a £2k bill for instance. Most of the older models will be going out of battery warranty too. So maybe not for someone who's coming from legendary Toyota reliability.
I choose cars based on two things: are they comfortable to sit in, and are they reliable. I chose my last car in 2006 (a 2004 Mazda 2), and inherited the 2003 Toyoto "van equivalent".
-
IMHO the hybrids from Toyota are the best choice when looking for a second hand car. I looked at a whole lot of hybrids and these seem to be the most reliable and least costly to maintain.
Just paid 230 EUR for the yearly maintenance, APK of my 12 year old Prius. I was considering to replace it with a Mercedes C class plug-in, but the maintenance is 1200 EUR/year, which is more than what I spend on fuel and tax each year. So thx but no thanks, I will probably drive this car until it falls apart (which it doesn't). Only parts that needed replacing over it's lifetime was the airco compressor, and the 12V battery, breaks (went rusty) and windshield vipers. Meanwhile I know people that spent more on repairing their 3 year old Tesla, than me on my car during it's entire lifetime.
I replaced the oil/wipers on my Mazda, and had it serviced once every 5 years. Only thing that went wrong was that the front coil spring snapped while it was sitting in a drive. Twice (2 *£200 to replace); go figure! So 230EUR/year seems very expensive to me. It would still be on the road after 120k miles if some cretin hadn't driven into it while it was parked.
Toyota exhaust is finally giving problems w.r.t. rust. Replacement would be £1000 - after 19 years. Did once have a sensor fail; the recovery bloke said "don't see many of these (Toyotas)".
-
All this "EV will break the power grid" is a bunch of nonsense. It was taught in the university, that renewable energy cannot get more than 5% of the total, and the "entire grid will collapse". The professor came to the class and told us that it's not feasible, there will be blackouts, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. And look at us now, the lights are on.
Actually Tennet, the company that controls the electricity grid in the NL has put out a warning last week that they expect electricity shortages within a few years from now.
-
All this "EV will break the power grid" is a bunch of nonsense. It was taught in the university, that renewable energy cannot get more than 5% of the total, and the "entire grid will collapse". The professor came to the class and told us that it's not feasible, there will be blackouts, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. And look at us now, the lights are on.
Actually Tennet, the company that control the electricity grid in the NL has put out a warning last week that they expect electricity shortages within a few years from now.
Did they specifically highlight EVs as a concern?
-
All this "EV will break the power grid" is a bunch of nonsense. It was taught in the university, that renewable energy cannot get more than 5% of the total, and the "entire grid will collapse". The professor came to the class and told us that it's not feasible, there will be blackouts, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. And look at us now, the lights are on.
Actually Tennet, the company that control the electricity grid in the NL has put out a warning last week that they expect electricity shortages within a few years from now.
Did they specifically highlight EVs as a concern?
No, that is not their concern as they only concern themselves with sourcing electricity to distribute. But it is logical to conclude that you won't be able to charge your BEV during a blackout (or pay an insanely high price).
-
All this "EV will break the power grid" is a bunch of nonsense. It was taught in the university, that renewable energy cannot get more than 5% of the total, and the "entire grid will collapse". The professor came to the class and told us that it's not feasible, there will be blackouts, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. And look at us now, the lights are on.
Actually Tennet, the company that control the electricity grid in the NL has put out a warning last week that they expect electricity shortages within a few years from now.
I think it has more to do with shutting down power plants without building new ones. And going with the "everything is bad" attitude. Gas, bad because Groningen will sink to the ocean (import?). Coal bad because it's coal, phase out by 2030. Nuclear bad because the soviets' managed to blow up one. The country haven't built a single power plant for the past 10 years, only wind. A smart planner would build a new generation gas fired plants, that are 5% more efficient than the plants built in the 90s and save countless amount of CO2 with that, instead of waiting for miracles to happen.
Now they figure out that nuclear is fine again. It takes a decade to build a plant in this century. Cannot wait to pay an EUR/kWh to import it from Germany. Oh wait, we are already there.
-
No, that is not their concern as they only concern themselves with sourcing electricity to distribute. But it is logical to conclude that you won't be able to charge your BEV during a blackout.
Right, but a great deal of EVs charge overnight when electricity is cheaper. Will there be overnight blackouts? Or is this more of a peak capacity / load shedding issue?
Blackouts are a big problem, but more of a problem for immediate use of electricity, which affects petrol pumps too. (Of course, you could drive further away to get petrol...but the same applies for a fast charger.) A blackout means you can't charge an EV or refuel with petrol, but both vehicles store some level of energy. They will usually announce any rolling blackouts well in advance.
It's sad that even such a possibility exists but doesn't change EV's as an option for me.
-
I think it has more to do with shutting down power plants without building new ones. And going with the "everything is bad" attitude. Gas, bad because Groningen will sink to the ocean (import?). Coal bad because it's coal, phase out by 2030. Nuclear bad because the soviets' managed to blow up one. The country haven't built a single power plant for the past 10 years, only wind. A smart planner would build a new generation gas fired plants, that are 5% more efficient than the plants built in the 90s and save countless amount of CO2 with that, instead of waiting for miracles to happen.
Now they figure out that nuclear is fine again. It takes a decade to build a plant in this century. Cannot wait to pay an EUR/kWh to import it from Germany. Oh wait, we are already there.
No need to build new nuclear as long as Russia keeps the gas going... oh.
EU's overreliance on Russian gas will sting, I hope lessons are taken from this. Why the policy with Nord Stream 2 was continued after Crimea and actions in Donbas will continue to baffle me. Thankfully it appears the Dutch, Norwegians and other LNG sources are picking up enough to keep supply up for now. The spot price is now <60EUR/MWh *merely* ~3x higher than it was pre-COVID. How will next winter look - well gas futures are already lower than last year's winter so at least a little more positive.
This is the other advantage of EVs. Oil comes from only a few countries, many of which are politically unstable (the "resource curse" is worth looking up if not familiar). Electricity can be generated from many sources, from dirty coal, to less dirty gas, to solar, nuclear and wind. Having that diversity is really crucial.
-
Oil comes from many countries. The US is the world's biggest oil producer and there are several other countries in the top 10 that are very stable.
-
No, that is not their concern as they only concern themselves with sourcing electricity to distribute. But it is logical to conclude that you won't be able to charge your BEV during a blackout.
Right, but a great deal of EVs charge overnight when electricity is cheaper. Will there be overnight blackouts? Or is this more of a peak capacity / load shedding issue?
If you bother to read the official references for the UK,
- yes there will be scheduled overnight blackouts
- yes it is a peak capacity issue
- yes it is a load shedding issue
- and it is also none of those. No gas/wind => no electricity until more supplies arrive
Blackouts are a big problem, but more of a problem for immediate use of electricity, which affects petrol pumps too.
Now you are struggling with a very poor argument!
A few messages back you suggested that petrol powered generators are a solution to some issues. ICE cars would function just as well.
It's sad that even such a possibility exists but doesn't change EV's as an option for me.
Amateurs think about how things work. Professionals also think about how things will fail.
-
If you bother to read the official references for the UK,
- yes there will be scheduled overnight blackouts
- yes it is a peak capacity issue
- yes it is a load shedding issue
- and it is also none of those. No gas/wind => no electricity until more supplies arrive
Man! Your attitude :o! Chill. It's just an internet discussion.
I have actually read the load shedding spec for the UK's ESO, it is (to a casual observer) random at the lower levels distributed by postcode alpha (not actually related to postcodes though) and then going towards having less electricity at each step. It has been suggested in the worst winter scenario we may enter shedding level 1 or 2. I suspect we are past that risk now, unless we have an extremely cold January. However, even in that case, I don't really see the issue for EVs. Yes, you may not be able to charge in a blackout... but it's a 3 hour period. Charge a bit later? Or a bit earlier? The blackouts, if they did happen, will be announced in advance as they are due to capacity and not random failures. I think it's not really a big deal unless you get to the point where you have ~25% outage time or more, at which point the whole UK economy more or less grinds to a halt, we're looking at a three day week, so why are we so worried about charging, I'm more worried about where I'm going to get my food or toilet paper.
Also, I was replying to nctnico, who is in the Netherlands. So the UK's ESO shedding plan isn't even applicable!
Blackouts are a big problem, but more of a problem for immediate use of electricity, which affects petrol pumps too.
Now you are struggling with a very poor argument!
A few messages back you suggested that petrol powered generators are a solution to some issues. ICE cars would function just as well.
Amateurs think about how things work. Professionals also think about how things will fail.
If you actually bothered to read what I said ( ::)) the suggestion for a petrol generator was in case one is paranoid that they will not be able to charge their EV, they could always retain that as a backup. However, I don't think that would be needed for all but the worst case scenarios.
ICE vehicles work fine except for the killing the planet/biosphere thing, plus the high ownership and running cost, and the local air pollution, and the inevitable supply issues with oil in the very long term. Steam engines work fine too. Not very convincing nowadays though are they.
-
Tennet, the company that controls the electricity grid in the NL has put out a warning last week that they expect electricity shortages within a few years from now.
At least you've got a couple of years to prepare, the uk press has been promising blackouts since the middle of last year
bad because Groningen will sink to the ocean
Thats me convinced,t'is one of my favourite dutch citys.
-
Did they specifically highlight EVs as a concern?
They mention it, but it's not really their main concern. Coal closure between 2025 and 2030 is the big one, the rest is just fucking around in the margins.
They say they want more European interconnection, but at the end of the day everyone will just want to tap Scandinavian hydro during a dunkelflaute and there's not enough to go around.
-
What you are missing is that hydrogen is THE KEY ingredient for energy storage. Again: the entire world is moving towards hydrogen production (from wind + solar) and storage. In the next decade hydrogen made from renewable sources will be available in abundance. And cheap. Forecasts say that by 2050 hydrogen can be sold to consumers for US $5 per kilo. Even today it is cheaper to run a car from hydrogen compared to running a BEV from public charging. In every serious article about renewable energy, you'll find hydrogen being part of the solution. Now try to convince me again hydrogen is dead... Hydrogen cars are going to be what the LED lamps are today: a truly better solution compared to what we had. BEVs are the CCFL lamps we used to have as a temporary solution to have more efficient light bulbs.
No I'm not missing it, and no it isn't, hydrogen is dead, period. How many hydrogen filling stations do you have in your country? There is only one state in mine that has any at all and I am not aware of more being planned. The only reason there are any hydrogen cars on the road at all is that California offers enormous government subsidies for building alternative fuel cars. Have you not noticed that absolutely no car companies besides Toyota are even talking about hydrogen? They are literally all shifting to BEV or PHEV, all of them. You have your head in the sand to a greater degree than anyone else on this forum, you are obsessed with hydrogen to the point that you are in denial of the reality around you. It's dead.
-
ULEZ is anywhere within the North and South Circular roads, not including those roads itself. It's a pretty big area to have to pay over a tenner a day to drive in, and not everyone who lives in that area is rich. (You may have more of a point if you talk about the congestion charge as that's almost all zone 1).
I know a few people not very happy with it, but ultimately it's one of those taxes that's necessary but never going to be pleasing for those who have to pay it. The whole point of it is to strongly discourage the usage of non ULEZ-compliant vehicles.
All it would do for me is discourage me from ever going into that area. I'll take my money elsewhere and spend it in areas that don't heavily tax me for going there. This kind of thing is one of the reason I loathe urban environments so much, taxes, tolls and paying for parking are completely foreign concepts to me. They put a toll on the 520 bridge when they rebuilt it ~15 years ago and I have not driven on it since.
-
As for buying a Tesla. Don't make me vomit.
It's unfortunate that your prejudice overrides your ability to consider even trying one. you should try driving one before you knock them, it's quite obvious that you haven't.
-
You'll also find ICE cars accelerate a bit worse in colder weather, so nothing new here.
Mine accelerates considerably better in cold weather. Cold air is more dense, the intercooler is much more efficient when the ambient air going through it is cold, and lower intake air temperature allows more timing advance before the onset of detonation. I don't know if modern cars have that advantage but in my 1990 Volvo it is very noticeable.
-
As for buying a Tesla. Don't make me vomit.
It's unfortunate that your prejudice overrides your ability to consider even trying one. you should try driving one before you knock them, it's quite obvious that you haven't.
My prejudice is the, ahem, "hopeful" statements that lead the unwary optimist to believe that the cars are capable of driving safely (beta).
More prosaically, my prejudice is that the salesman who know how to demonstrate the car can't even turn on the windscreen demister while the car is stationary. As for being able to turn it on safely while driving, don't make me laugh.
That needn't apply to other EVs in general, of course.
-
All it would do for me is discourage me from ever going into that area.
Dont work if you need to access that area with a van full of kit
-
My prejudice is the, ahem, "hopeful" statements that lead the unwary optimist to believe that the cars are capable of driving safely (beta).
More prosaically, my prejudice is that the salesman who know how to demonstrate the car can't even turn on the windscreen demister while the car is stationary. As for being able to turn it on safely while driving, don't make me laugh.
That needn't apply to other EVs in general, of course.
I have zero interest in any kind of self driving tech. I also do hate the touchscreen interface in the Tesla, however beyond that the driving experience is SO good (I spent a few weeks driving one so I have direct experience) that I could forgive the terrible interface. I mean modern cars in general are crap, they're all hideous, they all have those horrible touchscreens in the dash, at least the Tesla doesn't have a gigantic fake grill on the front like most cars do now. Look closely and you'll see the actual air intake for the radiator is a small slot somewhere in the expanse of an enormous black plastic grill. It looks idiotic to me.
-
All it would do for me is discourage me from ever going into that area.
Dont work if you need to access that area with a van full of kit
I'm not sure why I'd ever be in that situation but if I am it will be because my employer is sending me there, and in that case they can pay the fee.
-
My prejudice is the, ahem, "hopeful" statements that lead the unwary optimist to believe that the cars are capable of driving safely (beta).
More prosaically, my prejudice is that the salesman who know how to demonstrate the car can't even turn on the windscreen demister while the car is stationary. As for being able to turn it on safely while driving, don't make me laugh.
That needn't apply to other EVs in general, of course.
I have zero interest in any kind of self driving tech. I also do hate the touchscreen interface in the Tesla, however beyond that the driving experience is SO good (I spent a few weeks driving one so I have direct experience) that I could forgive the terrible interface. I mean modern cars in general are crap, they're all hideous, they all have those horrible touchscreens in the dash, at least the Tesla doesn't have a gigantic fake grill on the front like most cars do now. Look closely and you'll see the actual air intake for the radiator is a small slot somewhere in the expanse of an enormous black plastic grill. It looks idiotic to me.
For clarity, you snipped the context. I was responding to your statements:
As for buying a Tesla. Don't make me vomit.
It's unfortunate that your prejudice overrides your ability to consider even trying one. you should try driving one before you knock them, it's quite obvious that you haven't.
I think my response is justified, and that you know you have chosen to flip to a different subject.
I have no reason to doubt your position on that different subject.
-
ULEZ is anywhere within the North and South Circular roads, not including those roads itself. It's a pretty big area to have to pay over a tenner a day to drive in, and not everyone who lives in that area is rich. (You may have more of a point if you talk about the congestion charge as that's almost all zone 1).
I know a few people not very happy with it, but ultimately it's one of those taxes that's necessary but never going to be pleasing for those who have to pay it. The whole point of it is to strongly discourage the usage of non ULEZ-compliant vehicles.
All it would do for me is discourage me from ever going into that area. I'll take my money elsewhere and spend it in areas that don't heavily tax me for going there. This kind of thing is one of the reason I loathe urban environments so much, taxes, tolls and paying for parking are completely foreign concepts to me. They put a toll on the 520 bridge when they rebuilt it ~15 years ago and I have not driven on it since.
God forbid your luxury privilege cost you money.
-
All it would do for me is discourage me from ever going into that area. I'll take my money elsewhere and spend it in areas that don't heavily tax me for going there. This kind of thing is one of the reason I loathe urban environments so much, taxes, tolls and paying for parking are completely foreign concepts to me. They put a toll on the 520 bridge when they rebuilt it ~15 years ago and I have not driven on it since.
Then it has had the intended effect. Great!
There are two likely outcomes from someone who has a non ULEZ vehicle:
) They stop driving into ULEZ zone and find some other way to get there or avoid it altogether
) They buy a ULEZ compliant vehicle (which includes petrol cars up to 19 years old!) and use that instead of their current vehicle
Taxes are sticks, used correctly they can do good. The air quality in central London is horrid, every time I go there my respiration flares up (I do have a particularly sensitive respiratory tract, mind). You can almost taste the pollution. It is better than it used to be (EV's, hybrids and cleaner petrol vehicles, as well as congestion charge have all helped), but it is already known that most of these pollutants have no safe level, just like lead has no safe level, so we should eliminate as much of it as quickly as we can from the environment.
The outcome of ULEZ will be similar to the influence of CARB in California. CARB being remarkably successful in changing overall fuel economy and making manufacturers fit better emissions controls even for the 80's.
-
What you are missing is that hydrogen is THE KEY ingredient for energy storage. Again: the entire world is moving towards hydrogen production (from wind + solar) and storage. In the next decade hydrogen made from renewable sources will be available in abundance. And cheap. Forecasts say that by 2050 hydrogen can be sold to consumers for US $5 per kilo. Even today it is cheaper to run a car from hydrogen compared to running a BEV from public charging. In every serious article about renewable energy, you'll find hydrogen being part of the solution. Now try to convince me again hydrogen is dead... Hydrogen cars are going to be what the LED lamps are today: a truly better solution compared to what we had. BEVs are the CCFL lamps we used to have as a temporary solution to have more efficient light bulbs.
No I'm not missing it, and no it isn't, hydrogen is dead, period. How many hydrogen filling stations do you have in your country? There is only one state in mine that has any at all and I am not aware of more being planned. The only reason there are any hydrogen cars on the road at all is that California offers enormous government subsidies for building alternative fuel cars. Have you not noticed that absolutely no car companies besides Toyota are even talking about hydrogen? They are literally all shifting to BEV or PHEV, all of them. You have your head in the sand to a greater degree than anyone else on this forum, you are obsessed with hydrogen to the point that you are in denial of the reality around you. It's dead.
Open your eyes for once and look outside your box towards the future. Again, hydrogen is going to be abundant in the near future. How much sense does it make to convert hydrogen into electricity only to lug the energy along in heavy batteries? Not much... Hydrogen filling stations are only a matter of time. The question is not IF they get installed but WHEN they get installed. If you'd read up about the subject you'd know many car manufacturers have hydrogen vehicles ready to go into production: BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai, Nikola, Renault (part of Stellantis which a produces brands like Peugeot, Chrysler, Fiat, Citroen, DS, Opel), Nissan, Volkswagen, Ford, etc, etc. The list goes on and on... Actually it is surprising how many car manufacturers are preparing themselves for selling hydrogen vehicles.
You may have had a point 5 years ago when only Toyota seemed to be serious about hydrogen but it is moot today. Hydrogen for cars is happening. All those car manufacturers are not going to invest money into creating production ready models that they will never sell. Mark my words: BEVs are like CCFL bulbs: a nice stop-gap solution but obsolete in 25 years.
-
Gee, 25 years is at least 3 car changes away....
-
Gee, 25 years is at least 3 car changes away....
Indeed. I'll probably skip the BEV alltogether because by the time I'm through my next two hybrid cars, there will be plenty of cars on hydrogen.
-
What you are missing is that hydrogen is THE KEY ingredient for energy storage. Again: the entire world is moving towards hydrogen production (from wind + solar) and storage. In the next decade hydrogen made from renewable sources will be available in abundance. And cheap. Forecasts say that by 2050 hydrogen can be sold to consumers for US $5 per kilo. Even today it is cheaper to run a car from hydrogen compared to running a BEV from public charging. In every serious article about renewable energy, you'll find hydrogen being part of the solution. Now try to convince me again hydrogen is dead... Hydrogen cars are going to be what the LED lamps are today: a truly better solution compared to what we had. BEVs are the CCFL lamps we used to have as a temporary solution to have more efficient light bulbs.
No I'm not missing it, and no it isn't, hydrogen is dead, period. How many hydrogen filling stations do you have in your country? There is only one state in mine that has any at all and I am not aware of more being planned. The only reason there are any hydrogen cars on the road at all is that California offers enormous government subsidies for building alternative fuel cars. Have you not noticed that absolutely no car companies besides Toyota are even talking about hydrogen? They are literally all shifting to BEV or PHEV, all of them. You have your head in the sand to a greater degree than anyone else on this forum, you are obsessed with hydrogen to the point that you are in denial of the reality around you. It's dead.
Open your eyes for once and look outside your box towards the future. Again, hydrogen is going to be abundant in the near future.
How much sense does it make to convert hydrogen into electricity only to lug the energy along in heavy batteries? Not much...
Way more sense than converting electricity to hydrogen, compressing it in heavy tanks, transporting it by road to a filling station, putting it in a car, where a fuel cell containing expensive metals like platinum converts it back to electricity with maybe 30% end-to-end efficiency.
Compare that to sending energy down existing wires, right to the home of the users, where they can not only fill up while they sleep, but potentially also use their cars as a backup supply and help stabilise the grid.
-
Indeed. I'll probably skip the BEV alltogether because by the time I'm through my next two hybrid cars, there will be plenty of cars on hydrogen.
I think you'll be waiting a while - perhaps as long as farriers have waited for horses to come back into fashion. But good luck with that.
-
The outcome of ULEZ will be similar to the influence of CARB in California. CARB being remarkably successful in changing overall fuel economy and making manufacturers fit better emissions controls even for the 80's.
CARB is a shining example of California style nuttery created by useful idiots,, second maybe to Prop 65 which has resulted in annoying warning labels on absolutely everything. Take gas cans for example, that regulation came from CARB and spread nationwide. Now our portable gas cans are terrible, they don't vent properly so while being designed to reduce spillage and vented vapors in practice the result is nozzles that glug and splash fuel all over the place. I finally modified or threw away any cans I had with CARB compliant nozzles, I was spilling more fuel on the ground than was going into the tanks.
Some of the emissions controls are nice, but some of it is worthless. The EGR systems on diesel engines dramatically reduce fuel economy and are notorious for clogging up and requiring expensive repairs, most mechanically inclined people delete them. I would love to abolish CARB or at least scale it back.
-
What you are missing is that hydrogen is THE KEY ingredient for energy storage. Again: the entire world is moving towards hydrogen production (from wind + solar) and storage. In the next decade hydrogen made from renewable sources will be available in abundance. And cheap. Forecasts say that by 2050 hydrogen can be sold to consumers for US $5 per kilo. Even today it is cheaper to run a car from hydrogen compared to running a BEV from public charging. In every serious article about renewable energy, you'll find hydrogen being part of the solution. Now try to convince me again hydrogen is dead... Hydrogen cars are going to be what the LED lamps are today: a truly better solution compared to what we had. BEVs are the CCFL lamps we used to have as a temporary solution to have more efficient light bulbs.
No I'm not missing it, and no it isn't, hydrogen is dead, period. How many hydrogen filling stations do you have in your country? There is only one state in mine that has any at all and I am not aware of more being planned. The only reason there are any hydrogen cars on the road at all is that California offers enormous government subsidies for building alternative fuel cars. Have you not noticed that absolutely no car companies besides Toyota are even talking about hydrogen? They are literally all shifting to BEV or PHEV, all of them. You have your head in the sand to a greater degree than anyone else on this forum, you are obsessed with hydrogen to the point that you are in denial of the reality around you. It's dead.
Open your eyes for once and look outside your box towards the future. Again, hydrogen is going to be abundant in the near future.
How much sense does it make to convert hydrogen into electricity only to lug the energy along in heavy batteries? Not much...
Way more sense than converting electricity to hydrogen, compressing it in heavy tanks, transporting it by road to a filling station, putting it in a car, where a fuel cell containing expensive metals like platinum converts it back to electricity with maybe 30% end-to-end efficiency.
Compare that to sending energy down existing wires, right to the home of the users, where they can not only fill up while they sleep, but potentially also use their cars as a backup supply and help stabilise the grid.
Now start to make a cost comparison and you'll see hydrogen is the cheaper option. Efficiency doesn't matter. Cost does.
Platinum is also a non-issue. The amount of platinum in mass produced fuel cells is on par with the amount used in catalythic converters which are already installed on cars. Some brokers that deal in platinum thought they could get rich quick due to large amounts of platinum they imagined would be needed in fuels cells but they where mistaken and lost. It looks like the less platinum is used, the better the fuel cells performs.
-
Open your eyes for once and look outside your box towards the future. Again, hydrogen is going to be abundant in the near future. How much sense does it make to convert hydrogen into electricity only to lug the energy along in heavy batteries? Not much... Hydrogen filling stations are only a matter of time. The question is not IF they get installed but WHEN they get installed. If you'd read up about the subject you'd know many car manufacturers have hydrogen vehicles ready to go into production: BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai, Nikola, Renault (part of Stellantis which a produces brands like Peugeot, Chrysler, Fiat, Citroen, DS, Opel), Nissan, Volkswagen, Ford, etc, etc. The list goes on and on... Actually it is surprising how many car manufacturers are preparing themselves for selling hydrogen vehicles.
In which reality? Can I have some of whatever you're smoking? Hydrogen car sales have already peaked and started to decrease.
https://insideevs.com/news/629973/us-hydrogen-fuel-cell-car-sales-2022q4/
A grand total of 15,000 hydrogen powered cars have been sold worldwide. 15 thousand, that's it, in 15 years.
Volkswagen alone sold over 325,000 BEVs in 2022 alone.
Tesla sold 46,025 Model Y BEVs in October of last year. That is 3 times as many cars in *one month* of a single model from a single manufacture than have been sold in total over the entirety of the last *15 years* of hydrogen cars from all manufactures combined. EV sales are increasing by leaps and bounds and there are *millions* of them on the road today. The vast majority of hydrogen cars in the world are in the state of California where the government has been dumping billions of dollars into subsidies to make it happen, market penetration elsewhere is zero. I just can't even comprehend how a rational person could look at this data and say "Yep, hydrogen is clearly the future!" That is some stunning cognitive dissonance. You're clearly intelligent, so this is really confusing to me. This puts the "Linux is going to take over the entire consumer desktop/laptop market any day now!" crowd to shame. I'd bet on nuclear fusion powered cars being the future before I'd bet on HFC.
-
Take gas cans for example, that regulation came from CARB and spread nationwide. Now our portable gas cans are terrible, they don't vent properly so while being designed to reduce spillage and vented vapors in practice the result is nozzles that glug and splash fuel all over the place.
The most recent CARB (California Air Resources Board) gas cans aren't too bad. But yes, I spilled many gallons trying to pour from the first/second/third/fourth-generation CARB-compliant cans. Wasn't CARB also responsible for that MTBE gasoline additive? Horrible.
-
Maybe I'm on to something. I'm an engineer and I simply look at what car manufacturers are working on from an engineering perspective. The information is all there on internet. 2022 is buzzing with announcements / press releases showing hydrogen powered cars AND governments are choosing to use hydrogen for energy transport & storage 'en masse'. It doesn't take a genius to connect the obvious dots. I don't care about what is being sold or popular right now; what is sold right now is already old technology. It is about where new technology is heading.
Most of it all, I'm not going to say or claim that several big car companies are investing in dead-end technology. These people aren't stupid; making cars is their bread and butter.
-
The most recent CARB (California Air Resources Board) gas cans aren't too bad. But yes, I spilled many gallons trying to pour from the first/second/third/fourth-generation CARB-compliant cans. Wasn't CARB also responsible for that MTBE gasoline additive? Horrible.
They may have finally got it right but I've never used one that worked worth a crap. I finally bought a NATO jerry can "potable water" storage can and never looked back. It seals tightly and doesn't leak or smell, even if I leave it on its side in the back of my car, I can store it inside the house and it doesn't smell at all. The nozzle that attaches is sturdy and flows nicely, it's not compliant, hence being sold as a water jug but it works better than any fuel container I've used.
CARB also is responsible for the big bulky fuel cap with a silly afterthought lanyard that came with my Honda generator, the original purchaser was in CA. I removed the lanyard because it got in the way of filling and replaced the cap with the much more compact and less cumbersome 49 state model. CARB is one of those organizations that was created by well meaning people but it has far too broad of a reach and resulted in a lot of really bone headed stuff that makes sense to the emotionally driven "do something, anything!" crowd.
-
Tesla sold 46,025 Model Y BEVs in October of last year.
Amazing.
Now let’s compare to a third world country.
In 2021, before sanctions, Volkswagen Group sold 199,200 cars in Russia. Among those there were 6,262 Porsches, 330 Bentleys and 200 Lamborghinis.
Tesla sold 650 vehicles in Russia in the same year. That’s all Tesla models.
That’s despite the fact that electricity in Russia is dirt cheap: 3.7-5.05 RUB per kWh or 5.5-7.5 US cents delivered.
-
How is that surprising that EV sales are blooming, at least in Europe and the US, when they are heavily promoted, subsidized, and people are threatened to see ICE banned within only years from now (at least in Europe.) Duh.
How does that show that it's viable as a replacement? "Viable" and "the only option available" is not exactly the same thing. My take on this is about the numbers. Just crunch numbers, it won't add up on a large scale, based on current, and foreseeable numbers. Sure one can always forecast a great future full of cheap hydrogen, amazing new batteries and nuclear fusion, but *this* is pure speculation.
With that said, yes Tesla cars are great - they have a few issues to iron out, but I'm sure that will improve, Tesla is still young as a carmaker. As purely a user, if you can afford one and can do with the constraints of charging and whatnot, they are a great option. That's certainly and obviously not for everyone.
It's interesting to be debating EVs in times when electricity prices have gone through the roof and blackouts are threatening all over the place.
-
Amazing.
Now let’s compare to a third world country.
In 2021, before sanctions, Volkswagen Group sold 199,200 cars in Russia. Among those there were 6,262 Porsches, 330 Bentleys and 200 Lamborghinis.
Tesla sold 650 vehicles in Russia in the same year. That’s all Tesla models.
That’s despite the fact that electricity in Russia is dirt cheap: 3.7-5.05 RUB per kWh or 5.5-7.5 US cents delivered.
How many hydrogen powered cars were sold in Russia during that time? That was my point, no EV vs ICE. How much does gasoline cost in Russia? How much do cars themselves cost? I know very little about that part of the world. If gasoline and cars that use it are relatively cheap then it seems obvious it will remain popular there.
-
How is that surprising that EV sales are blooming, at least in Europe and the US, when they are heavily promoted, subsidized, and people are threatened to see ICE banned within only years from now (at least in Europe.) Duh.
How does that show that it's viable as a replacement? "Viable" and "the only option available" is not exactly the same thing. My take on this is about the numbers. Just crunch numbers, it won't add up on a large scale, based on current, and foreseeable numbers. Sure one can always forecast a great future full of cheap hydrogen, amazing new batteries and nuclear fusion, but *this* is pure speculation.
With that said, yes Tesla cars are great - they have a few issues to iron out, but I'm sure that will improve, Tesla is still young as a carmaker. As purely a user, if you can afford one and can do with the constraints of charging and whatnot, they are a great option. That's certainly and obviously not for everyone.
It's interesting to be debating EVs in times when electricity prices have gone through the roof and blackouts are threatening all over the place.
Bev sales are booming because people see them as a viable alternative , that’s the primary reason in markets sales subsidies are small or merely partially overcone the price increase over ice in no sense can current BEVs be regarded as cost effective to buy. That’s yet to come
There is no serious evidence that grid blackouts will come to pass most are merely warnings or chicken little style shouting. Let’s wait and see shall we !!!
The future is undoubtably non hydrocarbon and Bev offers the best current alternative that’s evident from car companies largely deciding to switch to Bev production you can’t drive a version of a car if it’s not made
Most people in my experience who predict Bev doom have never driven or owned a bev and their criticism is often theoretical or semi “ ideological “ it’s not grounded in experience
In my country data centres are way more a treat to the grid then BEVs that been made clear by thd grid operator
BEVs offers cost effective alternative to ice in fact it’s a Superior driving experience hence we have a good alternative and it’s only going to improve with time
By the way fuel prices have climbed more than electricity in many markets further encouraging people to look at BEVs people can generate electricity themselves also they can’t make petrol !!!
-
Amazing.
Now let’s compare to a third world country.
In 2021, before sanctions, Volkswagen Group sold 199,200 cars in Russia. Among those there were 6,262 Porsches, 330 Bentleys and 200 Lamborghinis.
Tesla sold 650 vehicles in Russia in the same year. That’s all Tesla models.
That’s despite the fact that electricity in Russia is dirt cheap: 3.7-5.05 RUB per kWh or 5.5-7.5 US cents delivered.
How many hydrogen powered cars were sold in Russia during that time? That was my point, no EV vs ICE. How much does gasoline cost in Russia? How much do cars themselves cost? I know very little about that part of the world. If gasoline and cars that use it are relatively cheap then it seems obvious it will remain popular there.
Russia is irrelevant anyway the way it’s going it’s a pariah country and a complete outlier it’s irrelevant
-
Tesla sold 46,025 Model Y BEVs in October of last year.
Amazing.
Now let’s compare to a third world country.
In 2021, before sanctions, Volkswagen Group sold 199,200 cars in Russia. Among those there were 6,262 Porsches, 330 Bentleys and 200 Lamborghinis.
Tesla sold 650 vehicles in Russia in the same year. That’s all Tesla models.
That’s despite the fact that electricity in Russia is dirt cheap: 3.7-5.05 RUB per kWh or 5.5-7.5 US cents delivered.
The Leaf was by far the biggest Bev seller in Russia 360,000 in 3022 alone way beyond Tesla
-
[..]The question is not IF they get installed but WHEN they get installed. If you'd read up about the subject you'd know many car manufacturers have hydrogen vehicles ready to go into production: BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai, Nikola, Renault (part of Stellantis which a produces brands like Peugeot, Chrysler, Fiat, Citroen, DS, Opel), Nissan, Volkswagen, Ford, etc, etc. The list goes on and on... Actually it is surprising how many car manufacturers are preparing themselves for selling hydrogen vehicles.
How many of these manufacturers have built anything more than a prototype?
How many of these manufacturers are working on Hydrogen ICE instead of fuel cells, which is even less likely to go anywhere for a number of reasons?
How many of these manufacturers also have significant EV investments? (besides Nikola, I think they all do; Nikola has gravity-assisted trucks instead.)
-
The Leaf was by far the biggest Bev seller in Russia 360,000 in 3022 alone way beyond Tesla
Nissan sold whopping 131 Leafs in Russia in 2021, before exiting the market last year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1082346/russia-ev-car-fleet-by-model/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1082346/russia-ev-car-fleet-by-model/)
-
[..]The question is not IF they get installed but WHEN they get installed. If you'd read up about the subject you'd know many car manufacturers have hydrogen vehicles ready to go into production: BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai, Nikola, Renault (part of Stellantis which a produces brands like Peugeot, Chrysler, Fiat, Citroen, DS, Opel), Nissan, Volkswagen, Ford, etc, etc. The list goes on and on... Actually it is surprising how many car manufacturers are preparing themselves for selling hydrogen vehicles.
How many of these manufacturers have built anything more than a prototype?
How many of these manufacturers are working on Hydrogen ICE instead of fuel cells, which is even less likely to go anywhere for a number of reasons?
How many of these manufacturers also have significant EV investments? (besides Nikola, I think they all do; Nikola has gravity-assisted trucks instead.)
How many LED lamp manufacturers have also manufactured CCFL and incandescent lamps?
-
How many LED lamp manufacturers have also manufactured CCFL and incandescent lamps?
Well Philips released plenty of LED lamps when cheap CCFLs were about, they were like $50 each though so the power efficiency benefit didn't really make sense. IIRC the first was released in around 2007 with that weird external phosphor which makes the bulb yellow when off. (This didn't prove that popular with consumers but it does look kinda neat to have a yellow bulb light up white.)
At the same time you did have some weird competing technologies, like RF stimulated fluro bulbs and EEFL based lamps. It took a dramatic fall in the price of LEDs for the CCFL to die out. A bit like what is happening with batteries...
What we have here is more the opposite to the CCFL situation: EVs are more expensive than ICE, but more efficient per mile and usually cheaper to run. Hydrogen is much more expensive than EV and ICE to buy, but costs more to run than a typical diesel and much more than an EV. Also, more difficult to refuel with only a few filling stations available. So why would anyone choose the more expensive hydrogen car?
You say there are loads of hydrogen cars on the drawing board, but why are Toyota pretty much the only ones to vaguely commercialise this tech... meanwhile all the European marques are pushing EVs like mad.
-
I probably shouldn't have mentioned 2030 as it's not really relevant to the points I'm trying to make.
I can't afford a usable electric car. I can barely afford to run my existing car. My daily cost me £1250 a little over 2 years ago, and that's the sort of budget I'm likely to be limited to when I need to get another. A new car of any description is simply out of the question, and would be for anyone else on the tools here. Good luck finding an EV for that money. As a council worker, I'm public sector, and like much of the public sector workforce, over the last 12 years or so, I've had a 25-30% real-terms pay cut. Yes, I have seen the figures; it's not an exaggeration.
The infrastructure isn't there. To get there, is going to be very expensive, and very disruptive (lots of roadworks, everywhere). Charging points in lamp-posts is a joke; if all of them get used at once, hell if even a significant proportion get used at once, it'll trip the local supply. Most of those lights are running on a supply that was designed to power 400W (at most, and usually a lot less) lamps, not 10kW chargers, and even though most have been "upgraded" to LED (another contentious issue, for a different thread), the spare capacity is either quite small, or not there at all, as they've been altered to account for lower power.
The reality is that the infrastructure in this country is a long way from being able to support a 100% EV transport system, and all I'm seeing (at least in terms of local city/town/village infrastructure) to move us in that direction is baby steps at best.
Bundle up all of the infrastructure problems and leave them to capitalists. Provide some incentive for buying EVs (tax rebate, no highway tax, lower maintenance costs, lower operating costs) and the market will self-adjust. It always does.
I have been using an EV for about 9 years and it has worked out fine. I'm retired so my 125 mile commute (round trip) is no longer a factor. The small battery charger that comes with the vehicle has always been adequate. When I had solar on my other house, my operating costs for the EV were around $0.05/mile.
Will the EV work in every situation? No, of course not. But there are a lot of people who have a vehicle for 5 years and only have 10k miles. They use the vehicle for grocery shopping and trips to the mall (fewer due to COVID) and rely on Amazon for everything else.
The big planned maintenance item for an EV is rotating the tires and checking the windshield wiper solution. Sometimes it might be useful to replace the internal air filter. That's it! Of particular importance: No smog test!
Tax the hell out of ICE vehicles and see what happens!
-
H2 for cars can't take off on itself, the bootstrap costs are too huge. If trucking first carries the burden of jumpstarting the mass production of fuel cells and a widespread LH2 refueling network, then some consumer cars might start piggybacking off trucking infrastructure.
LH2 will require a change of mindset due to boil off, but I could see some consumer light truck manufacturers taking the dive once the infrastructure is in place any way. Maybe you could have a small battery and a LH2 tank, with the LH2 boil off recharging the battery so you always have some power to get to the fuel station?
-
I don't know about all EVs but I can tell you my first, a 2014 Chevy Spark EV, was sporty. With over 400 ft-lbs of torque, it was solidly in the muscle car class. Hint: Never drag race while driving an ICE against an EV. True story: Chevy downgraded the performance in 2015 (to 327 ft-lbs) - they had built a high performance car and it was bought by low performance drivers. Some people didn't know how to get up on the wheel and drive!
My current Chevy Bolt has a 'Sporting Mode' where performance gets outrageous. Shut down the traction control and hang on, things are going to get exciting! And it only has 266 ft-lbs of torque.
Now they're talking about 800+ horsepower for a performance EV. That must be awesome! The boss of Dodge was showing off a prototype of a new EV Charger that had more horsepower than any ICE version ever produced. I KNOW how fast the early '70s Charger would run with a 440 Magnum engine (slightly modified) and that won't hold a candle to the new EV version.
Speed is good but torque is more fun! What an awesome time to be young!
I should have kept the Spark EV...
-
Here's a UK example of the capitalism I mentioned above:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1722259/electric-vehicle-smart-charging-plan-government-ofgem-drivers-save-1000-year (https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1722259/electric-vehicle-smart-charging-plan-government-ofgem-drivers-save-1000-year)
The idea is to charge vehicles when utility electric rates could be low (daylight and/or wind is available) and use the vehicle batteries to power a residence (or whatever) when the cost of utility electric is high. Optimize as required.
Tesla builds a Power Wall battery set to go along with their solar panels
https://www.tesla.com/solarpanels (https://www.tesla.com/solarpanels)
https://www.tesla.com/solarroof (https://www.tesla.com/solarroof)
The solar roof approach is much more pleasing than the solar panels.
Public utilities need to rethink their business models.
-
The solar roof approach is much more pleasing than the solar panels.
Until you realise that such solar panels are less effective at cooling themselves and thus have a lower performance.
Tesla's powerwall is horribly expensive. Like 40 to 50 eurocents per kWh. If you value your money, look somewhere else for battery storage. Using a BEVs battery as grid storage is the worst idea ever. It is like using your ICE car as a generator. Or a battery to crank an engine as a traction battery. It is not build for such a purpose and will cause excessive wear / be more expensive. Only a total idiot would allow using a BEV for grid storage so the power company can wear out a battery for free. The power company would need to pay you ball park 50 to 60 eurocents per kWh to make using a BEV for grid storage worthwhile. They'll need to charge that amount to somebody else + transport costs (another 8 to 15 cents per kWh) + their own profit margin on top to make that happen.
-
I want one of these
https://aptera.us/
It's designed with efficiency in mind and does 10 miles per KW.
I'll make do with my Ebike until then. I can do 100 miles on my 1KW of batteries with pedal assist.
-
Many respected auto industry figures think Toyota’s strategy is wrong anyway
“ onda’s CEO, Toshihiro Mibe, believes Toyota should stop pursuing hydrogen combustion, hinting that it should perhaps focus on pure-EVs. The Honda boss says his company researched it until around a decade ago as a means of automotive propulsion, but found that it was not feasible for use in cars.”
It’s the Betamax of next gen cars
-
Using a BEVs battery as grid storage is the worst idea ever. It is like using your ICE car as a generator. Or a battery to crank an engine as a traction battery. It is not build for such a purpose and will cause excessive wear / be more expensive. Only a total idiot would allow using a BEV for grid storage so the power company can wear out a battery for free.
It isn't for free - they pay for the usage, you're effectively renting them capacity.
The charge/discharge rates involved are very low compared to normal driving and DC charging, so heating is minimal, and UK real-world trials have shown negligible degredation. Lithium Ion batteries don't like sitting at high SoC for long periods, so gentle cycling can at least partially offset this.
-
hydrogen combustion
Mirai uses fuel cells though?
-
V2G is in its Infancy with only a few trials being run
V2H looks like being a better bet why buy a storage battery wren one is sitting idle in the drive !!
In general all this stuff is very niche and edge case it’s far far from mainstream nor likely to be
I attended a lecture by a noteworthy US professor on V2G none of the financial numbers made any sense
Hence I think it’s a solution looking for a problem.
-
Tax the hell out of ICE vehicles and see what happens!
Despite a lot of lip service about being "green", my state does exactly the opposite and there is a $150 annual EV tax. On top of that, the price of the license tabs is determined by the value of the car, which is assessed using a very optimistic model developed for ICE cars, so EVs in general are vastly overvalued and have very expensive annual licensing fees. It's totally backwards.
I see no reason to tax the hell out of either one, the market is already shifting to EV due to much lower operating costs. Just let the free(ish) market do its thing, it's working.
-
Using a BEVs battery as grid storage is the worst idea ever. It is like using your ICE car as a generator. Or a battery to crank an engine as a traction battery. It is not build for such a purpose and will cause excessive wear / be more expensive.
I used to do exactly that back before I had a portable inverter generator. I had a 1.5kW inverter that I would connect to the battery in my car and idle it in the driveway to provide emergency power. The fuel consumption was modest and wear on the car negligible since it was only done during power outages when I needed heat and to keep the refrigerator cold. I don't think I'd use an EV battery for grid storage though unless it was similarly an emergency, the battery is the one component of the car that is most likely to wear out and the most expensive one to replace.
-
The solar roof approach is much more pleasing than the solar panels.
Until you realise that such solar panels are less effective at cooling themselves and thus have
Tesla's powerwall is horribly expensive. Like 40 to 50 eurocents per kWh. If you value ya lower performance.
All true TODAY... Just wait, things will change. Battery technology will improve and things that look unworkable today will be commonplace tomorrow.
Every time there is a stiff breeze, we lose power. We've had 4 outages ranging from 2 to 36 hours this winter alone. We're thinking of a generator. Maybe a Power Wall doesn't look so bad as a substitute for an expensive generator. Sure, it's more costly but there isn't the 'add fuel in a downpour' to deal with.
I haven't priced any of the alternatives.
-
I want one of these
https://aptera.us/
It's designed with efficiency in mind and does 10 miles per KW.
I'll make do with my Ebike until then. I can do 100 miles on my 1KW of batteries with pedal assist.
That looks frightening. Having been rear ended multiple times by fullsized cars and one time by a semi truck (lorry) that was travelling at near highway speed when it hit the car behind me while we were stopped, very small lightweight cars make me nervous. I notice they've made it 3-wheeled so it is legally considered a motorcycle and exempt from all of the car safety regulations.
That does illustrate a part of that law that I think is totally silly. There should be an exempt class of 4 wheeled vehicles so they don't have to exploit that loophole.
-
hydrogen combustion
Mirai uses fuel cells though?
Yes. But there are also some hydrogen ICE vehicles planned. In the end it all comes down to cost. Problem with burning hydrogen in an ICE is that it will likely cause NOx to form.
-
Tax the hell out of ICE vehicles and see what happens!
Despite a lot of lip service about being "green", my state does exactly the opposite and there is a $150 annual EV tax. On top of that, the price of the license tabs is determined by the value of the car, which is assessed using a very optimistic model developed for ICE cars, so EVs in general are vastly overvalued and have very expensive annual licensing fees. It's totally backwards.
I see no reason to tax the hell out of either one, the market is already shifting to EV due to much lower operating costs. Just let the free(ish) market do its thing, it's working.
Taxation is often used to change behaviour no different here with EV. Encourage changeovers via time limited tax incentives isnt a bad idea no more then I can claim all tax back on buying a bicycle ( cycle to work scheme )
Petrol cars have benefitted fro hidden subsidies for years
-
The big planned maintenance item for an EV is rotating the tires and checking the windshield wiper solution.
Tires and suspension are the biggest maintenance cost items on any car. Over the course of 260k km I spend close 5k euro on suspension parts and tires. But the problem is that these aren't big ticket items except for doing the shock absorbers. Money spend on timing belt, clutch, water pump and oil are just noise in comparison. That BEVs are cheaper to run is an outright myth. They are heavier so have more wear on the suspension and need more expensive tires.
Tax the hell out of ICE vehicles and see what happens!
That has been tried in the NL for decades and it doesn't work. It just drives inflation up. There are more cars on the road every year.
-
Heres hoping that electricity companies as they are now will someday go extinct.
I was a huge fan of Reamped. They cut out the cost of call centers and physical presence and returned the savings onto the customer. It was successful until electricity prices skyrocketed last year.
I have no real complaints about electric companies as they are now in my area. There's only one electric utility in a region here so you don't have to choose between multiple companies to work with. The service is pretty reliable and the price has only increased modestly in the past decade or so, going from 8c to 10c/kWh.
-
looks like EV's could be phase out in wyoming if these idiots get there way
https://wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2023/SJ0004
-
looks like EV's could be phase out in wyoming if these idiots get there way
https://wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2023/SJ0004
Straight out of the lobbyists playbook that bill! Hahaha...
Oil and gas creates jobs... er, yeah, so does electricity production.
EV's can't be charged on highways... why is that a reason to ban them? (I mean, they clearly can, too, but even if they couldn't, let the consumer decide.)
Critical minerals can't be recycled... oh and you can totally recycle gasoline?
EV charging would increase load on the grid (despite us saying there's never going to be enough chargers) ... sounds like a job creator to me?
EV proliferation will be detrimential to gas vehicles... how, exactly? They aren't going around and deflating the tyres of gas vehicles at night.
:palm:
-
looks like EV's could be phase out in wyoming if these idiots get there way
https://wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2023/SJ0004
Makes sense. Looks like the perfect place for large scale solar for hydrogen production >:D It seems they got that idea by themselves as well already. :-DD
-
Taxation is often used to change behaviour no different here with EV. Encourage changeovers via time limited tax incentives isnt a bad idea no more then I can claim all tax back on buying a bicycle ( cycle to work scheme )
Petrol cars have benefitted fro hidden subsidies for years
Uh, well, except they're doing exactly the opposite and taxing the EVs. The reasoning is because they don't pay the fuel tax that is supposed to maintain the roads, but if we're going to try to switch people to EV we're going to need something besides a fuel tax.
-
looks like EV's could be phase out in wyoming if these idiots get there way
https://wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2023/SJ0004
That's just silly political games in response to other legislation trying to phase out gas cars. If people just left it alone and let the market decide rather than trying to force things this sort of ridiculousness wouldn't happen.
I did laugh at the name though, Senator Boner :-DD
-
Taxation is often used to change behaviour no different here with EV. Encourage changeovers via time limited tax incentives isnt a bad idea no more then I can claim all tax back on buying a bicycle ( cycle to work scheme )
Petrol cars have benefitted fro hidden subsidies for years
Uh, well, except they're doing exactly the opposite and taxing the EVs. The reasoning is because they don't pay the fuel tax that is supposed to maintain the roads, but if we're going to try to switch people to EV we're going to need something besides a fuel tax.
An occasional misinformed country is doing that today but most advanced countries are subsiding BEVs to a lesser or greater extent. Ultimately motoring whether Bev or. Not will be taxed there is no future where private transport is getting cheaper !!! ( sadly )
-
An occasional misinformed country is doing that today but most advanced countries are subsiding BEVs to a lesser or greater extent. Ultimately motoring whether Bev or. Not will be taxed there is no future where private transport is getting cheaper !!! ( sadly )
Well, not quite, it's a specific state, not a country. It's just ironic that it's one of the states that talks the most about being "green" and progressive that is taxing EVs, not one of the conservative states.
-
Way more sense than converting electricity to hydrogen, compressing it in heavy tanks, transporting it by road to a filling station, putting it in a car, where a fuel cell containing expensive metals like platinum converts it back to electricity with maybe 30% end-to-end efficiency.
Compare that to sending energy down existing wires, right to the home of the users, where they can not only fill up while they sleep, but potentially also use their cars as a backup supply and help stabilise the grid.
No. Filling up the tanks during the summer and using it all year round. Importing the gas from huge Australian solar farms, gigantic ships bringing fuel all across the globe. Offshore windfarms making gas on site. Power to gas will keep the industry going for then next half a century. House hating systems and power plants keep on working on this fuel, without replacing the entire infrastructure everywhere at the same time. I don't think it will be hydrogen, I think its methane but otherwise nctnico is right. Oh, and existing petrol cars converted to LNG becoming near zero emission with power to gas.
-
Well Philips released plenty of LED lamps when cheap CCFLs were about, they were like $50 each though so the power efficiency benefit didn't really make sense. IIRC the first was released in around 2007 with that weird external phosphor which makes the bulb yellow when off. (This didn't prove that popular with consumers but it does look kinda neat to have a yellow bulb light up white.)
I have a bunch of those, I was paying $40 each at the time and they were the first practical LED bulbs I owned. A few are still in service though I've retired most of them due to poor efficiency. They're 12.5 watts for 800 lumens and most bulbs now are around 8W for that same output and run cooler so they are better suited to enclosed fixtures. The tri-lobe Philips remote phosphor bulbs were very innovative at the time though. They were WAY better than CFL though, instant on, dimmable, better light quality, initially I started replacing CFLs as they failed but eventually I ended up replacing all of them as LED bulb prices came down. It was a technology I believed in and wanted to succeed so I didn't mind paying a premium as an early adopter.
-
No. Filling up the tanks during the summer and using it all year round. Importing the gas from huge Australian solar farms, gigantic ships bringing fuel all across the globe. Offshore windfarms making gas on site. Power to gas will keep the industry going for then next half a century. House hating systems and power plants keep on working on this fuel, without replacing the entire infrastructure everywhere at the same time. I don't think it will be hydrogen, I think its methane but otherwise nctnico is right. Oh, and existing petrol cars converted to LNG becoming near zero emission with power to gas.
If they could synthesize methane using electricity that would be great but I don't know if that's even feasible? Certainly it's not going to appease the crowd that wants to ban fossil fuels since methane from a non-fossil source is still the same stuff that we are already burning in heating systems, cook stoves and power plants. LNG is feasible for cars and is probably a good option for things like semi trucks and buses, but I think for passenger cars we've already reached the tipping point for BEV and it's unlikely to go the other way back toward ICE. Engines are complex and maintenance intensive, most people that have lived with electric aren't going to want to go back to that.
-
If people just left it alone and let the market decide rather than trying to force things this sort of ridiculousness wouldn't happen.
but if we're going to try to switch people to EV we're going to need something
What happened to liberalism and Adam Smith’s invisible hand in just 3 minutes?
-
I've only spot read this listing so these comments may be redundant.
Several here are complaining about vehicle costs of EVs and infrastructure costs to support them, and suggesting hydrogen as the solution. What makes anyone think that installing a hydrogen infrastructure from the ground up is going to be cheaper than upgrading the electrical grid? Unless you count the land and building at existing petrol sales sites there is exactly zero existing hydrogen infrastructure. All the tanks, pipelines, transport trucks (if that proves necessary and practical) and dispensing systems have to be invented and installed. I see no reason to see this as a low cost infrastructure option. You can argue that a hydrogen vehicle would be comparable in cost or perhaps slightly lower in cost than a current ICE. But that assumes that the reduced fuel management and emission control costs exceed the increased tankage costs. There will be some emissions controls if air is used to combust the hydrogen, just as there are on current ICEs to control oxides of nitrogen. That comparable cost won't happen in the first years of availability. The whole issue will not be known until we produce quantities of hydrogen cars comparable to current ICE cars.
Comments about high density urban settings making charging difficult are correct, but may be aiming at the totally wrong solution. In those environments any kind of vehicle is probably not the best option. While they allow for occasional long trips the answer there is probably the same as that given by EV proponents to drivers who like most people travel short distances most of the time but occasionally finds very long range desirable. Rent a vehicle for those occasions.
-
If people just left it alone and let the market decide rather than trying to force things this sort of ridiculousness wouldn't happen.
but if we're going to try to switch people to EV we're going to need something
What happened to liberalism and Adam Smith’s invisible hand in just 3 minutes?
You've either misunderstood my quote or deliberately pulled it out of context to alter its meaning.
Currently we rely on a fuel tax to pay for road maintenance. EVs don't use fuel so obviously we're going to need something besides a fuel tax to pay for the roads, yes? Currently that is an additional $150 annual EV tax, but that is not an ideal solution since it has no connection to how much a person drives, which the fuel tax does. Now what does any of that have to do with liberalism or free market capitalism? Taxes are a necessary evil, roads cost money, ideally we want to tax people based on how much they use the roads. Currently EVs break that structure.
-
the level of social engineering suggested is unavailable. control freaks.
electricity is already expensive , who would call for more tax just to sell more of it.
is this an EV cult? technology sells its itself. we have choice.
-
Currently we rely on a fuel tax to pay for road maintenance. EVs don't use fuel so obviously we're going to need something besides a fuel tax to pay for the roads, yes? Currently that is an additional $150 annual EV tax, but that is not an ideal solution since it has no connection to how much a person drives, which the fuel tax does. Now what does any of that have to do with liberalism or free market capitalism? Taxes are a necessary evil, roads cost money, ideally we want to tax people based on how much they use the roads. Currently EVs break that structure.
It's one hell of a mess here.
New ICE vehicles got lumbered with additional taxes of some arbitrary sliding scale based of fuck knows what penalising many tradespeople as their normal runaround is not available in an EV and in some cases these 'fit for purpose' vehicles new price increased between $5-10k allow subsidization of EV's and them hybrid things.
If the frustration that taxing 'fit for purpose' vehicles wasn't enough EV's are currently getting a totally free ride contributing NOTHING back towards maintaining roading infrastructure ! Not one cent !
But we do have a perfectly fit for purpose road user charges system (RUC) for all diesel vehicles as diesel fuels in NZ are exempt from excise taxes for roading infrastructure. This for small vehicles works with a mileage charge based on GVW or for larger tucks etc axle loadings and configurations.
To further complicate matters, here in NZ where the bulk of our power comes from renewables, namely hydro, and our winters cannot be described as severe but 3 times in 2022 our national grid operator warned power retailers to reduce usage or brownouts or cuts would follow.
And still our gubbermint blindly pushes EV's pissing off so many tradies and risking potentially overloading the NZ grid while these EV bludgers contribute zip to NZ roading infrastructure.
Just tonights news proudly proclaimed NZ had reached the dizzying heights of 25% of new sales were EV's and little wonder why, they are getting a free ride on the rest of us ! :rant:
Sadly these children that run this place have rocks in their heads if someone as dumb as I can see the bigger picture stemming from recent facts they seem totally blind to. :-//
-
If people just left it alone and let the market decide rather than trying to force things this sort of ridiculousness wouldn't happen.
but if we're going to try to switch people to EV we're going to need something
What happened to liberalism and Adam Smith’s invisible hand in just 3 minutes?
You've either misunderstood my quote or deliberately pulled it out of context to alter its meaning.
Currently we rely on a fuel tax to pay for road maintenance. EVs don't use fuel so obviously we're going to need something besides a fuel tax to pay for the roads, yes? Currently that is an additional $150 annual EV tax, but that is not an ideal solution since it has no connection to how much a person drives, which the fuel tax does. Now what does any of that have to do with liberalism or free market capitalism? Taxes are a necessary evil, roads cost money, ideally we want to tax people based on how much they use the roads. Currently EVs break that structure.
Here the dept of finance has already released a discussion document. They favour a move away from car taxes based on engine or fuel and prefer a road pricing strategy those that use roads more pay more
Bev usage will be taxed that’s for sure
-
My local plumber uses a Nissan ev200 Bev van seems quite pleased , one of the local courier companies also has switched to Bev the national post office is phasing in Bev vans
The trade can find solutions
-
My local plumber uses a Nissan ev200 Bev van seems quite pleased , one of the local courier companies also has switched to Bev the national post office is phasing in Bev vans
The trade can find solutions
Dream on.
Not all business is done on hard pavements in the city.
Take a rural contractor, he doesn't just require 4wd, it's a must ! And he needs carry 500kg and tow 1-2 ton...every day !
This ^^^ is just basic everyday life here and the tools (wheels) we need to just do our jobs are being taxed unfairly, so much so there have been nationwide protests and still these children that run this place don't give a stuff.
You've got a gas guzzler so we must penalize you for that !
Thank gawd there's an election here later this year and we can send these fuckwits back to kindergarten where hopefully second time around they might learn something.
-
the level of social engineering suggested is unavailable. control freaks.
electricity is already expensive , who would call for more tax just to sell more of it.
is this an EV cult? technology sells its itself. we have choice.
Depends on where you are. I pay 10.1c/kWh, that's pretty cheap really, my average electricity bill is under $50/mo.
-
My local plumber uses a Nissan ev200 Bev van seems quite pleased , one of the local courier companies also has switched to Bev the national post office is phasing in Bev vans
The trade can find solutions
Dream on.
Not all business is done on hard pavements in the city.
Take a rural contractor, he doesn't just require 4wd, it's a must ! And he needs carry 500kg and tow 1-2 ton...every day !
This ^^^ is just basic everyday life here and the tools (wheels) we need to just do our jobs are being taxed unfairly, so much so there have been nationwide protests and still these children that run this place don't give a stuff.
You've got a gas guzzler so we must penalize you for that !
That gawd there's an election here later this year and we can send these fuckwits back to kindergarten where hopefully second time around they might learn something.
Firstly trade users have generous business tax allowances to offset vehicle costs, hence the real level of business tax is low , in my country it’s 12.5% .
Hence the Bev trade argument is nonsense. If a Bev suits it’s suiys and increasing as battery tech improves it will suit more and more non personal situations
Just like smoking and cancer the debate is over. For several reasons burning dino juice in a 19th bag of bolts engine is “ over “ face the facts. Your approach is like climate deniers , persisting in an argument that’s clearly is over
I was on a gov working group ( I was secretary of a Bev ngo ) on Bev adoption , in reality the grid arguments are all
Completely obercomable over the typical 20-30 year changeover timescales the charging issue is simply not an issue once you dig into the real issues
The car industry has decided that there’s no future in Ice engines . Deal with it just like steam engines ICE is a dodo
All these issues raised are akin to “ miss miss thd cat ate my homework “ when you look at the times scales. Look at the transition process and look at the big changes coming in societies attitude to frivolous personal car journeys , there’s no doubt that tranisition to electric vehicles is underway and unstoppable
Trivial makey up arguments will simply fall by the way side as more and more people convert to a Bev future
-
No. Filling up the tanks during the summer and using it all year round. Importing the gas from huge Australian solar farms, gigantic ships bringing fuel all across the globe. Offshore windfarms making gas on site. Power to gas will keep the industry going for then next half a century. House hating systems and power plants keep on working on this fuel, without replacing the entire infrastructure everywhere at the same time. I don't think it will be hydrogen, I think its methane but otherwise nctnico is right. Oh, and existing petrol cars converted to LNG becoming near zero emission with power to gas.
I think this is most likely to be part of the future, but given EVs can be charged at virtually any time, they will remain dominant. You would only need to store around 1-2 weeks of gas to produce electricity if you had a well-sized renewable energy supply (~2-3x normal demand.) Europe stores a huge amount of gas presently because the formerly operational pipelines to Russia would never be able to support peak winter demands. That can be avoided with production within the continent.
The stored gas would be used for power generation and legacy heating (where heating is not yet replaced with heat pumps, like old houses.) Power to gas for methane is one candidate but it might be more efficient to use ammonia as it can be used for fertilisation. Ammonia is also liquid at a higher temperature than methane so it may be more practical/cheaper to transport it longer distances, and like hydrogen fuel it burns without any carbon dioxide so there is never the question of carbon balance, it is just neutral to start with. But unlike hydrogen there is no need to desalinate water in its production.
Whatever the gas used, ideally the majority of the gas would be produced on site to maximise efficiency. So you might see a wind farm near the coast of a country, with a production facility of some kind of synthetic gas on land, storing that gas deep underground. The facility could, ideally, be reversible or well connected to the grid, so it can either directly produce electricity from the stored gas or export that gas. At the same time, pricing signals drop the cost of electricity to a low level, encouraging users of EVs and other time-shiftable load (aluminum smelting for instance) to utilise the cheap electricity. It's always going to be more efficient to use that electricity immediately than to produce fuel.
Edit: typos, typos, typos.
-
No. Filling up the tanks during the summer and using it all year round. Importing the gas from huge Australian solar farms, gigantic ships bringing fuel all across the globe. Offshore windfarms making gas on site. Power to gas will keep the industry going for then next half a century. House hating systems and power plants keep on working on this fuel, without replacing the entire infrastructure everywhere at the same time. I don't think it will be hydrogen, I think its methane but otherwise nctnico is right. Oh, and existing petrol cars converted to LNG becoming near zero emission with power to gas.
If they could synthesize methane using electricity that would be great but I don't know if that's even feasible? Certainly it's not going to appease the crowd that wants to ban fossil fuels since methane from a non-fossil source is still the same stuff that we are already burning in heating systems, cook stoves and power plants. LNG is feasible for cars and is probably a good option for things like semi trucks and buses, but I think for passenger cars we've already reached the tipping point for BEV and it's unlikely to go the other way back toward ICE. Engines are complex and maintenance intensive, most people that have lived with electric aren't going to want to go back to that.
Yes, they are already building plants with 500MW capacity, 2TW ones are under planning. Round trip efficiency is about 70-80%, but it's seasonal storage. Plus, you know, just get more cheap solar.
Germany is investing a lot into this technology. The numbers change from year to year, but I think the recent plans are 200BEUR in the next 5 years.
-
Just like smoking and cancer the debate is over. For several reasons burning dino juice in a 19th bag of bolts engine is “ over “ face the facts. Your approach is like climate deniers , persisting in an argument that’s clearly is over
You face the facts !
I care little what working junkets/groups you've been on when living in some other reality when your input into the future changes how professionals with decades of careful selection of tools (vehicles) to accomplish tasks in the most efficient way !
These efficiencies are still not met with EV's and it will be a while until they can be and most likely not with current technologies.
Still the world is being steered by do gooders with little sense or knowledge of how the world outside a city really operates. ::)
We could debate the Paris Accord where it firmly state any remedy imposed on rural food production is not to impact on it. Please offer an EV solution that meets Article 2 and not impose higher costs on the rural sector.
-
No. Filling up the tanks during the summer and using it all year round. Importing the gas from huge Australian solar farms, gigantic ships bringing fuel all across the globe. Offshore windfarms making gas on site. Power to gas will keep the industry going for then next half a century. House hating systems and power plants keep on working on this fuel, without replacing the entire infrastructure everywhere at the same time. I don't think it will be hydrogen, I think its methane but otherwise nctnico is right. Oh, and existing petrol cars converted to LNG becoming near zero emission with power to gas.
If they could synthesize methane using electricity that would be great but I don't know if that's even feasible? Certainly it's not going to appease the crowd that wants to ban fossil fuels since methane from a non-fossil source is still the same stuff that we are already burning in heating systems, cook stoves and power plants. LNG is feasible for cars and is probably a good option for things like semi trucks and buses, but I think for passenger cars we've already reached the tipping point for BEV and it's unlikely to go the other way back toward ICE. Engines are complex and maintenance intensive, most people that have lived with electric aren't going to want to go back to that.
Yes, they are already building plants with 500MW capacity, 2TW ones are under planning. Round trip efficiency is about 70-80%, but it's seasonal storage. Plus, you know, just get more cheap solar.
You appear to be confusing power (MW) with energy (MWh). We already have a 1700MW plant - but it can only supply that for 5 hours.
That's the largest pumped storage in the UK, but a 30GWh plant is planned for 2030.
-
Just like smoking and cancer the debate is over. For several reasons burning dino juice in a 19th bag of bolts engine is “ over “ face the facts. Your approach is like climate deniers , persisting in an argument that’s clearly is over
You face the facts !
I care little what working junkets/groups you've been on when living in some other reality when your input into the future changes how professionals with decades of careful selection of tools (vehicles) to accomplish tasks in the most efficient way !
These efficiencies are still not met with EV's and it will be a while until they can be and most likely not with current technologies.
Still the world is being steered by do gooders with little sense or knowledge of how the world outside a city really operates. ::)
We could debate the Paris Accord where it firmly state any remedy imposed on rural food production is not to impact on it. Please offer an EV solution that meets Article 2 and not impose higher costs on the rural sector.
Before anybody bothers to reply to MadScientist, they may find it beneficial to look at his other posts (via the profile).
Here's one I read 5mins ago; IMNSHO there are many others.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/(discharged)-super-capacitor-in-checked-luggage-on-airplane/msg4645081/#msg4645081 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/(discharged)-super-capacitor-in-checked-luggage-on-airplane/msg4645081/#msg4645081)
-
No. Filling up the tanks during the summer and using it all year round. Importing the gas from huge Australian solar farms, gigantic ships bringing fuel all across the globe. Offshore windfarms making gas on site. Power to gas will keep the industry going for then next half a century. House hating systems and power plants keep on working on this fuel, without replacing the entire infrastructure everywhere at the same time. I don't think it will be hydrogen, I think its methane but otherwise nctnico is right. Oh, and existing petrol cars converted to LNG becoming near zero emission with power to gas.
If they could synthesize methane using electricity that would be great but I don't know if that's even feasible? Certainly it's not going to appease the crowd that wants to ban fossil fuels since methane from a non-fossil source is still the same stuff that we are already burning in heating systems, cook stoves and power plants. LNG is feasible for cars and is probably a good option for things like semi trucks and buses, but I think for passenger cars we've already reached the tipping point for BEV and it's unlikely to go the other way back toward ICE. Engines are complex and maintenance intensive, most people that have lived with electric aren't going to want to go back to that.
Yes, they are already building plants with 500MW capacity, 2TW ones are under planning. Round trip efficiency is about 70-80%, but it's seasonal storage. Plus, you know, just get more cheap solar.
You appear to be confusing power (MW) with energy (MWh). We already have a 1700MW plant - but it can only supply that for 5 hours.
That's the largest pumped storage in the UK, but a 30GWh plant is planned for 2030.
Why would I confuse it? A 500MW plant will use 500MW to generate CH4 of H2 from excess power. It's not supplying that power, it is using that power to make gas. You can pump the gas to a regular gas fired power plant to burn it later.
The upper limit of the storage capacity (the MWh) is enormous, because it can use the national gas storage tanks. The gas storage is something like 1000 TWh in Europe as I recall. And the plants need to be large because there will be a limited time that they will operate, probably only a few hours per day during summer initially. Or maybe ever. I really don't know what's the economics around battery bank vs just building bigger P2G plants. Or maybe continue to work during the night with cheap nuclear energy.
-
No. Filling up the tanks during the summer and using it all year round. Importing the gas from huge Australian solar farms, gigantic ships bringing fuel all across the globe. Offshore windfarms making gas on site. Power to gas will keep the industry going for then next half a century. House hating systems and power plants keep on working on this fuel, without replacing the entire infrastructure everywhere at the same time. I don't think it will be hydrogen, I think its methane but otherwise nctnico is right. Oh, and existing petrol cars converted to LNG becoming near zero emission with power to gas.
If they could synthesize methane using electricity that would be great but I don't know if that's even feasible? Certainly it's not going to appease the crowd that wants to ban fossil fuels since methane from a non-fossil source is still the same stuff that we are already burning in heating systems, cook stoves and power plants. LNG is feasible for cars and is probably a good option for things like semi trucks and buses, but I think for passenger cars we've already reached the tipping point for BEV and it's unlikely to go the other way back toward ICE. Engines are complex and maintenance intensive, most people that have lived with electric aren't going to want to go back to that.
Yes, they are already building plants with 500MW capacity, 2TW ones are under planning. Round trip efficiency is about 70-80%, but it's seasonal storage. Plus, you know, just get more cheap solar.
You appear to be confusing power (MW) with energy (MWh). We already have a 1700MW plant - but it can only supply that for 5 hours.
That's the largest pumped storage in the UK, but a 30GWh plant is planned for 2030.
The one with the confusion is you ;) Wh = capacity. W = power transfer. For a plant you specify W as in throughput. For storage your specify Wh as in capacity.
-
Way more sense than converting electricity to hydrogen, compressing it in heavy tanks, transporting it by road to a filling station, putting it in a car, where a fuel cell containing expensive metals like platinum converts it back to electricity with maybe 30% end-to-end efficiency.
Compare that to sending energy down existing wires, right to the home of the users, where they can not only fill up while they sleep, but potentially also use their cars as a backup supply and help stabilise the grid.
No. Filling up the tanks during the summer and using it all year round. Importing the gas from huge Australian solar farms, gigantic ships bringing fuel all across the globe. Offshore windfarms making gas on site. Power to gas will keep the industry going for then next half a century. House hating systems and power plants keep on working on this fuel, without replacing the entire infrastructure everywhere at the same time. I don't think it will be hydrogen, I think its methane but otherwise nctnico is right. Oh, and existing petrol cars converted to LNG becoming near zero emission with power to gas.
It depends a bit on how it is used. When burned, there will still be NOx emissions. AFAIK you can use natural gas in a fuell cell as well but if your feedstock is hydrogen, then why not use it directly? The way I see it synthetic natural gas could be an intermediate step to keep existing equipment running but for new installations I'm not sure how it would work out financially. OTOH natural gas is likely cheaper & easier to store compared to hydrogen. So there are definitely pros & cons to consider between synthetic natural gas and hydrogen.
-
No. Filling up the tanks during the summer and using it all year round. Importing the gas from huge Australian solar farms, gigantic ships bringing fuel all across the globe. Offshore windfarms making gas on site. Power to gas will keep the industry going for then next half a century. House hating systems and power plants keep on working on this fuel, without replacing the entire infrastructure everywhere at the same time. I don't think it will be hydrogen, I think its methane but otherwise nctnico is right. Oh, and existing petrol cars converted to LNG becoming near zero emission with power to gas.
If they could synthesize methane using electricity that would be great but I don't know if that's even feasible? Certainly it's not going to appease the crowd that wants to ban fossil fuels since methane from a non-fossil source is still the same stuff that we are already burning in heating systems, cook stoves and power plants. LNG is feasible for cars and is probably a good option for things like semi trucks and buses, but I think for passenger cars we've already reached the tipping point for BEV and it's unlikely to go the other way back toward ICE. Engines are complex and maintenance intensive, most people that have lived with electric aren't going to want to go back to that.
Yes, they are already building plants with 500MW capacity, 2TW ones are under planning. Round trip efficiency is about 70-80%, but it's seasonal storage. Plus, you know, just get more cheap solar.
You appear to be confusing power (MW) with energy (MWh). We already have a 1700MW plant - but it can only supply that for 5 hours.
That's the largest pumped storage in the UK, but a 30GWh plant is planned for 2030.
The one with the confusion is you ;) Wh = capacity. W = power transfer. For a plant you specify W as in throughput. For storage your specify Wh as in capacity.
Er, that's what I wrote! Power in MW, energy in MWh.
The "plant" is the fixed installation with several characteristics. One characteristic of the Coire Glas plant will be storing 30GWh of energy; another will be 0.7GW or 1GW power output depending on which plan is accepted.
-
BEV cars are a good idea while society and the supporting infrastructure works but leave you up shit creek without a paddle when it collapses.
Nicely ignoring all the supporting infrastructure for gas cars, which is far more difficult to replicate at home. A plug in hybrid can use either, best option for preppers. The BMW i3 had the right idea of very decent all electric range, it's just overpriced like all BMWs are.
-
BEV cars are a good idea while society and the supporting infrastructure works but leave you up shit creek without a paddle when it collapses.
Nicely ignoring all the supporting infrastructure for gas cars, which is far more difficult to replicate at home.
You have this the wrong way around. Charging at home is just a crutch due to lack of charging infrastructure. Charging at home or street level should never be a goal. It just doesn't scale well economically. Just look back at car history and you'll see why. The reason there are gas stations is that these work better compared to having a tank of gasoline in each home. You can still have a tank of gasoline at home; all you need to buy is a tank and a pump. I'm quite sure that you can find an oil company that comes over to fill it for you. However, once you get the bill (including delivery costs), you'll quickly see it is cheaper to go to a gas station. Economy of scale.
-
You can only store gasoline or diesel fuel for 6 months or something. It degrades at fast rate.
-
In the uk your only allowed to keep 30 litres of fuel at home unless you let some council bod know,then you can have 275 litres,above that you need a licence
-
You have this the wrong way around. Charging at home is just a crutch due to lack of charging infrastructure. Charging at home or street level should never be a goal. It just doesn't scale well economically. Just look back at car history and you'll see why. The reason there are gas stations is that these work better compared to having a tank of gasoline in each home. You can still have a tank of gasoline at home; all you need to buy is a tank and a pump. I'm quite sure that you can find an oil company that comes over to fill it for you. However, once you get the bill (including delivery costs), you'll quickly see it is cheaper to go to a gas station. Economy of scale.
Even if if were true that gas stations are less expensive than delivery (which IMO is a dubious claim since home heating oil and propane seem to get delivered to rural homes here without any signficant additional expense), you've overlooked the fact that most of us already have sufficient electrical capacity so the only additional requirements are a parking space and a relatively inexpensive EVSE. Without charging in my garage or driveway, I wouldn't even have considered a BEV. The EVSE is cheap, unobtrusive and safe. A large tank of gasoline and the related equipment is not going to be any of those.
-
You have this the wrong way around. Charging at home is just a crutch due to lack of charging infrastructure. Charging at home or street level should never be a goal. It just doesn't scale well economically. Just look back at car history and you'll see why. The reason there are gas stations is that these work better compared to having a tank of gasoline in each home. You can still have a tank of gasoline at home; all you need to buy is a tank and a pump. I'm quite sure that you can find an oil company that comes over to fill it for you. However, once you get the bill (including delivery costs), you'll quickly see it is cheaper to go to a gas station. Economy of scale.
Why would I *not* want to charge at home? My car spends 12 hours sitting on my drive. It's nice to have a charged battery every morning. As I said before, charging takes 30 seconds... 15 to plug in, 15 to unplug. Parallel task, I don't care how long it takes once it's there, I'm done with the car.
You can't practically do the same thing with any other technology. You could install a fuel tank under your home to refuel on demand (indeed, this is what e.g. police stations do to fill up their fleet), but good luck with that in a domestic application. Meanwhile every home has an electricity supply and you really don't need that much extra capacity to charge up for normal usage.
-
Surveys here showed that many Bev owners do not regularly charge at home they prefer fast chargers to an extent many Bev owners never bother getting night rate meters
It’s evident that many people have far lesss weekly mileage then they predict them selves. I have sister in law that only charges her Konz once a week
PhEVs are merely a short term transition tech too expensive and delivers neither one or the other Bev is the future let’s accept dino juice is over
With good fast charging infrastructure BEVs are entirely practical for a wife range of private and business uses. Already we have tow tated BEVs and increasing choice . More and more places of work have charging infrastructure too and often people use this over home charging
We used to use our Bev to do a daily 130km round trip commute with free work place charging , we saved a blooming fortune and paid for the car in three years
There’s no doubt in many proples mind BEVs are the way forward. In my case several family members are now. Bev owners and many friends have bought BEVs recently. It’s a very common sight on our roads these days and the guy first away from the lights is increasingly a Bev.
-
BEV cars are a good idea while society and the supporting infrastructure works but leave you up shit creek without a paddle when it collapses.
Nicely ignoring all the supporting infrastructure for gas cars, which is far more difficult to replicate at home.
You have this the wrong way around. Charging at home is just a crutch due to lack of charging infrastructure. Charging at home or street level should never be a goal. It just doesn't scale well economically. Just look back at car history and you'll see why. The reason there are gas stations is that these work better compared to having a tank of gasoline in each home. You can still have a tank of gasoline at home; all you need to buy is a tank and a pump. I'm quite sure that you can find an oil company that comes over to fill it for you. However, once you get the bill (including delivery costs), you'll quickly see it is cheaper to go to a gas station. Economy of scale.
Agreed the grid operator here has changed its view over the last 8 years of monitoring Bev usages , initially home charging was seen as a key factor. Increasing people are not using home charging and using local fast charger stations these are now very common and one is within reach of a lot of people
In fact I know a women that pulls out of her drive every Sunday to go to the local fast chargers and armed with a coffee and a Sunday Newspaper she passers a comfortable 30 mins yet she has a Evss in her drive
Here domestic evese is 50 % subsidised yet nearly 25% of new BEv Owners don’t bother seeking the subsidy
The other factor is that BEV owners are 4 times more likely to install PV systems and PV owners are 2x likely to be BEV owners !!!!
Arguments about “ prepping “ are so niche and frankly “ bizzzare “ as to simply deflect from the mainstream reality. In 35 years I d lost my electricity supply for 4 hours total !!!!
In my view within 10 years it will be like public smoking ie unacceptable to drive a dino juice car. You’ll be afraid to admit it in polite company !!!, you’ll go red faced when asked what you drive !!!! If it’s an ice
-
Here is how distant traveling looks like in BEV. The guy travelled 2,000 miles. Driving time was 30 hours, sitting in a car in the middle of nowhere while the car was recharged took another 8 hours. Almost a day of a lifetime wasted.
https://youtu.be/UskzfQJt2Bc
-
Here is how distant traveling looks like in BEV. The guy travelled 2,000 miles. Driving time was 30 hours, sitting in a car in the middle of nowhere while the car was recharged took another 8 hours. Almost a day of a lifetime wasted.
https://youtu.be/UskzfQJt2Bc
Yet my friend in his Tesla went from London to Spain France and and Luxembourg with no issues. That’s the reality of a proper Bev and good infrastructure
Not to mention only a complete idiot drives non stop for 30 hours. Most people find a roadside hotel , perfect for recharging your Bev too
Edge cases are just that not representative
-
You have this the wrong way around. Charging at home is just a crutch due to lack of charging infrastructure. Charging at home or street level should never be a goal. It just doesn't scale well economically. Just look back at car history and you'll see why. The reason there are gas stations is that these work better compared to having a tank of gasoline in each home. You can still have a tank of gasoline at home; all you need to buy is a tank and a pump. I'm quite sure that you can find an oil company that comes over to fill it for you. However, once you get the bill (including delivery costs), you'll quickly see it is cheaper to go to a gas station. Economy of scale.
Why would I *not* want to charge at home? My car spends 12 hours sitting on my drive.
The problem is that if everyone is doing that, you'll need to upgrade the grid connection. In the NL we have far more BEVs and in some places they can't add chargers because the grid can't handle it. THAT is where things start to become expensive and where economy of scale for single, large fast charging stations starts to kick in.
-
You can only store gasoline or diesel fuel for 6 months or something. It degrades at fast rate.
That depends. Gasoline containing ethanol goes bad after just a few months. Pure gasoline with fuel stabilizer added is good for at least a year properly stored, longer is possible but it does get a bit stale. Diesel can be stored for years in a tightly sealed can.
-
Here is how distant traveling looks like in BEV. The guy travelled 2,000 miles. Driving time was 30 hours, sitting in a car in the middle of nowhere while the car was recharged took another 8 hours. Almost a day of a lifetime wasted.
https://youtu.be/UskzfQJt2Bc
That's called an edge case. When was the last time you drove 2,000 miles non stop? Most people go their whole lives without ever doing that. If he were smart he could have spread the charging out and plugged in every time he took a break or ate food, then the charging is not just wasted time.
-
The problem is that if everyone is doing that, you'll need to upgrade the grid connection. In the NL we have far more BEVs and in some places they can't add chargers because the grid can't handle it. THAT is where things start to become expensive and where economy of scale for single, large fast charging stations starts to kick in.
Well that's a whole lot easier than installing an entire new infrastructure from scratch such as hydrogen. It's unfortunate that your grid capacity is inadequate, so far we have had no such issues here. The standard American home has a 200A 240V service which provides ample capacity. Electric resistance heat was once much more common than it is today so many homes have a lot less load than they did originally.
-
Why would I *not* want to charge at home? My car spends 12 hours sitting on my drive. It's nice to have a charged battery every morning. As I said before, charging takes 30 seconds... 15 to plug in, 15 to unplug. Parallel task, I don't care how long it takes once it's there, I'm done with the car.
You can't practically do the same thing with any other technology. You could install a fuel tank under your home to refuel on demand (indeed, this is what e.g. police stations do to fill up their fleet), but good luck with that in a domestic application. Meanwhile every home has an electricity supply and you really don't need that much extra capacity to charge up for normal usage.
Literally every EV owner I know charges almost exclusively at home, every single one of them. It is the most compelling feature these cars offer, I can't even comprehend why anyone that was able to do so wouldn't. Why would anyone want to go out of their way to plug into a charger somewhere else and pay more when they have electricity piped right into their own home enabling them to top up when they're not using the car? It's the mobile phone model, second nature to most people now, plug in the device when you set it down and it's fully charged by morning. Not everybody has the facilities to charge a car at home, that is what high powered charging stations are for, they are the crutch, not home charging.
-
That's called an edge case. When was the last time you drove 2,000 miles non stop? Most people go their whole lives without ever doing that.
Nobody said non-stop.
I travel to Florida 2,600 miles round trip every year.
It takes 2 days to reach to the destination, and 2 day to get back home. In BEV it would take 3 days in each direction.
-
That's called an edge case. When was the last time you drove 2,000 miles non stop? Most people go their whole lives without ever doing that.
Nobody said non-stop.
I travel to Florida 2,600 miles round trip every year.
It takes 2 days to reach to the destination, and 2 day to get back home. In BEV it would take 3 days in each direction.
Same here! And we do trips like that several times per year. And for those that want to eat along the highway, try to find decent food along the highway in Europe. The best food you'll find is at McDonalds or Burger King. The rest is just salty and overcooked crap. I see lots of truckers cooking their own, healthy meal using some eggs, vegetables, etc instead of eating in the highway restaurants.
-
The standard American home has a 200A 240V service which provides ample capacity. Electric resistance heat was once much more common than it is today so many homes have a lot less load than they did originally.
I doubt electrical grid would have a capacity if every home in New England would start drawing 200 Amps during evening hours.
-
Nobody said non-stop.
I travel to Florida 2,600 miles round trip every year.
It takes 2 days to reach to the destination, and 2 day to get back home. In BEV it would take 3 days in each direction.
You are a very unusual case, the vast majority of people do not do that. If you only do it once per year then a really simple solution to that is rent a gas or diesel vehicle for the trip, or plan it properly so you can stop at a supercharger at the same times you stop to get food or get out and walk around. You can add quite a few miles of range in 10-15 minutes. That's about enough time to stretch your legs, take a leak and maybe grab a snack. It's not *that* much more time than filling a fuel tank. Or just fly and get there in 6 hours instead of 2 days.
-
The problem is that if everyone is doing that, you'll need to upgrade the grid connection. In the NL we have far more BEVs and in some places they can't add chargers because the grid can't handle it. THAT is where things start to become expensive and where economy of scale for single, large fast charging stations starts to kick in.
Even relatively small villages have a fuel station, by the time you extend the grid to turn those into hyperfast chargers with megawatt connections, you could probably just have improved the village infrastructure too.
The actual wires in the ground can usually take the load if not everyone plugs in at exactly the same time, it's the distribution nodes which have to be upgraded. They have to be upgraded any way for residential solar.
-
I doubt electrical grid would have a capacity if every home in New England would start drawing 200 Amps during evening hours.
Why on earth would they be drawing 200 amps? EV charging is typically 15-30 amps, a high speed home charger is around 70 amps. When you can charge at home you don't run it down all the way before charging, you just top it up each night so you only need enough charging to cover your average amount of daily driving. This really is a complete non issue for 99% of people.
-
That's called an edge case. When was the last time you drove 2,000 miles non stop? Most people go their whole lives without ever doing that.
Nobody said non-stop.
I travel to Florida 2,600 miles round trip every year.
It takes 2 days to reach to the destination, and 2 day to get back home. In BEV it would take 3 days in each direction.
Imagine for a moment, if you will, that the car can charge without you sitting there guarding it. Perhaps when you're sleeping so that you're fit to drive?
-
Surveys here showed that many Bev owners do not regularly charge at home they prefer fast chargers to an extent many Bev owners never bother getting night rate meters
What survey? I'm quite active on a UK EV forum and from the posts on there, it seems the mainstream attitude right now is (with a few exceptions, like London) don't buy an EV if you don't have home charging, it ain't all that much fun.
There are so many EVs charging on night rates now that this can be seen in the frequency data, e.g.
https://data.nationalgrideso.com/system/system-frequency-data/r/november_2022_%E2%80%93_historic_frequency_data
Just go to page 19 for 00:30:00 onwards for any given day and watch how the frequency dips by about 0.15-0.2Hz as all the EV chargers switch on... this is all planned in with ESO, one major provider has a cheap rate starting at 00:30 to 04:30 so the capacity fills back in to supply this pretty quickly and the frequency stabilises. I've heard upwards of a GW going on at any one time (660,000 EVs in the UK * 1-in-6 charging * 7kW typ = 771MW so it seems plausible.)
Side note, this is one reason I program my off peak time to be 5 minutes later than the actual start time, feels like we need to distribute these times better. Many cars now can set the time from GPS or DAB radio, so their charging timers will be bang on accurate. Maybe a random distribution of a few minutes around the cheap period? I know my car does have random start for power interruptions, it starts between 1 and 2 minutes after AC power is applied (only if the charging cable is connected but no power is available or a charge session is interrupted by a power cut though), it doesn't seem to do that for the charging timer.
-
Why on earth would they be drawing 200 amps? EV charging is typically 15-30 amps, a high speed home charger is around 70 amps.
Most houses in my neighborhood have double and triple garages. High speed charging for all families cars would definitely require a major upgrade to 400A service.
-
Side note, this is one reason I program my off peak time to be 5 minutes later than the actual start time, feels like we need to distribute these times better. Many cars now can set the time from GPS or DAB radio, so their charging timers will be bang on accurate. Maybe a random distribution of a few minutes around the cheap period? I know my car does have random start for power interruptions, it starts between 1 and 2 minutes after AC power is applied (only if the charging cable is connected but no power is available or a charge session is interrupted by a power cut though), it doesn't seem to do that for the charging timer.
The spec for the recent Uk Smart Charging regulations includes randomisation of start times
-
Most houses in my neighborhood have double and triple garages. High speed charging for all families cars would definitely require a major upgrade to 400A service.
Why? Wouldn't it be easier to simply charge at a lower rate if you need to charge multiple cars at once? I know people that charge from a standard 15A 120V receptacle, it is adequate for them since they only need to add enough charge each day to keep up with their driving. I can't think of many situations where you'd need to be charging 3 cars at once from high powered chargers set to full power at home. I guess if you have 3 people living there that are all going to leave on road trips first thing in the morning and they've all let their cars get low on charge? In the real world you would just set all 3 cars to charge at 20 amps or so, or stagger the starting time, or set the car that needs to be ready first to the highest current and set the others to use the remaining power. Most of the high powered loads like clothes dryer, stove/oven, welder, etc are not going to be running in the middle of the night. This is not rocket science, it's just basic load management. A requirement to charge 3 cars simultaneously at maximum current is a rather extreme edge case.
-
Most houses in my neighborhood have double and triple garages. High speed charging for all families cars would definitely require a major upgrade to 400A service.
Why? Wouldn't it be easier to simply charge at a lower rate if you need to charge multiple cars at once? I know people that charge from a standard 15A 120V receptacle, it is adequate for them since they only need to add enough charge each day to keep up with their driving. I can't think of many situations where you'd need to be charging 3 cars at once from high powered chargers set to full power at home. I guess if you have 3 people living there that are all going to leave on road trips first thing in the morning and they've all let their cars get low on charge? In the real world you would just set all 3 cars to charge at 20 amps or so, or stagger the starting time, or set the car that needs to be ready first to the highest current and set the others to use the remaining power. Most of the high powered loads like clothes dryer, stove/oven, welder, etc are not going to be running in the middle of the night. This is not rocket science, it's just basic load management. A requirement to charge 3 cars simultaneously at maximum current is a rather extreme edge case.
He has a textbook case of range anxiety.
-
Why?
Because you scale capacity to the maximum current draw in the worst case scenario. It does not make sense to install two 70A fast chargers and keep a 200A service. Unless it is a dedicated service into your garage only, and the rest of the house - air conditioners, electric ranges, tumble dryer, etc. are powered from a different 200A service.
On the other hand, getting Tesla and not getting fast charger is dooming yourself into charging times of 24+ hours. It is cruelty. You could buy a better (more spacious, more luxury, less expensive - you choose) petrol car and have ability to refuel it in 5 minutes at any gas station.
-
a trolleybus system or electric highway may have some merit as do electric railways that do not have peak power times as many battery electric vehicles at fast charging stations at the same time.
the electric motors of electric railway/ trolleybus are not requiring meny times of capacity. however for battery electric vehicles 1 hr of run time is divided by charging time watts multiplied.
and so the compressing and decompressing of energy is expensive and time-consuming. eliminating the need for on vehicle energy storage makes all electric road transportation less demanding.
-
Comparison of costs of driving Tesla Model 3 vs a comparable small size passenger car VW Jetta in Massachusetts.
Model 3:
Average miles per kWh: 3.39 mi/kWh (source: https://insideevs.com/news/597460/tesla-efficiency-depends-on-driver/amp/ )
Energy to drive 100 miles: 100 mi / 3.39 mi/kWh = 29.5 kWh
Electricity generation cost in MA: 10.927c per kWh
Delivery service cost in MA: 15.046c per kWh
Total electricity cost: 25.973c per kWh
Electricity cost to drive 100 miles: 29.5 kWh * 25.973c/kWh = $7.66
2022 VW Jetta:
Fuel economy: 35 MPG (EPA Combined city/highway)
Gas to drive 100 miles: 100 miles / 35 MPG = 2.86 gallons
Today’s gas cost in MA: $3.099 per gallon
Cost to drive 100 miles in Jetta: 2.86 gal * 3.099 $/gal = $8.86
Tesla Model 3 is only 15% more cost efficient per mile than Jetta, while being 115% more expensive car (44K vs 20.5K for base models).
Edit: and this is before our state legislature figured out how to tax EV owners for road usage.
-
Because you scale capacity to the maximum current draw in the worst case scenario. It does not make sense to install two 70A fast chargers and keep a 200A service. Unless it is a dedicated service into your garage only, and the rest of the house - air conditioners, electric ranges, tumble dryer, etc. are powered from a different 200A service.
On the other hand, getting Tesla and not getting fast charger is dooming yourself into charging times of 24+ hours. It is cruelty. You could buy a better (more spacious, more luxury, less expensive - you choose) petrol car and have ability to refuel it in 5 minutes at any gas station.
Now you're getting a bit FUD-dy. A Tesla HPWC and a regular 30A Level 2 EVSE would be (barely) doable with 200A service and would be a lot of charging capacity even for a household with multiple EVs. And even a fully-depleted 100kWh Model X would only take about 15 hours to fully charge at the regular 30A EVSE. Model 3/Y, a lot less. And many larger homes now do have 400A service. If you can afford two or more large capacity EVs, the service entrance upgrade is probably within your reach.
-
Comparison of costs of driving Tesla Model 3 vs a comparable small size passenger car VW Jetta in Massachusetts.
Model 3:
Average miles per kWh: 3.39 mi/kWh (source: https://insideevs.com/news/597460/tesla-efficiency-depends-on-driver/amp/ )
Energy to drive 100 miles: 100 mi / 3.39 mi/kWh = 29.5 kWh
Electricity generation cost in MA: 10.927c per kWh
Delivery service cost in MA: 15.046c per kWh
Total electricity cost: 25.973c per kWh
Electricity cost to drive 100 miles: 29.5 kWh * 25.973c/kWh = $7.66
2022 VW Jetta:
Fuel economy: 35 MPG (EPA Combined city/highway)
Gas to drive 100 miles: 100 miles / 35 MPG = 2.86 gallons
Today’s gas cost in MA: $3.099 per gallon
Cost to drive 100 miles in Jetta: 2.86 gal * 3.099 $/gal = $8.86
Tesla Model 3 is only 15% more cost efficient per mile than Jetta, while being 115% more expensive car (44K vs 20.5K for base models).
Edit: and this is before our state legislature figured out how to tax EV owners for road usage.
It’s a mistake to assume Bev will remain cheaper to run , private transport is expensive and will remain so , owning c car is expensive that’s not going away
-
Comparison of costs of driving Tesla Model 3 vs a comparable small size passenger car VW Jetta in Massachusetts.
Model 3:
Average miles per kWh: 3.39 mi/kWh (source: https://insideevs.com/news/597460/tesla-efficiency-depends-on-driver/amp/ )
Energy to drive 100 miles: 100 mi / 3.39 mi/kWh = 29.5 kWh
Electricity generation cost in MA: 10.927c per kWh
Delivery service cost in MA: 15.046c per kWh
Total electricity cost: 25.973c per kWh
Electricity cost to drive 100 miles: 29.5 kWh * 25.973c/kWh = $7.66
2022 VW Jetta:
Fuel economy: 35 MPG (EPA Combined city/highway)
Gas to drive 100 miles: 100 miles / 35 MPG = 2.86 gallons
Today’s gas cost in MA: $3.099 per gallon
Cost to drive 100 miles in Jetta: 2.86 gal * 3.099 $/gal = $8.86
Tesla Model 3 is only 15% more cost efficient per mile than Jetta, while being 115% more expensive car (44K vs 20.5K for base models).
Edit: and this is before our state legislature figured out how to tax EV owners for road usage.
I charge at night rate for 11 €0.11 at present rates up from ( €0.087) hence Bev comparisons are often terribly inaccurate as people’s electricity rates are extremely varied
Secondly the total cost of ownership not just a fixed journey has to be computed to arrive at a realistic figure
We use night rate extensively , as we run timed water heating , dishwasher and clothes washing and drying every day along with thd bev charging , resulting in 60% of our bill is on night rate
-
Comparison of costs of driving Tesla Model 3 vs a comparable small size passenger car VW Jetta in Massachusetts.
Model 3:
Average miles per kWh: 3.39 mi/kWh (source: https://insideevs.com/news/597460/tesla-efficiency-depends-on-driver/amp/ )
Energy to drive 100 miles: 100 mi / 3.39 mi/kWh = 29.5 kWh
Electricity generation cost in MA: 10.927c per kWh
Delivery service cost in MA: 15.046c per kWh
Total electricity cost: 25.973c per kWh
Electricity cost to drive 100 miles: 29.5 kWh * 25.973c/kWh = $7.66
2022 VW Jetta:
Fuel economy: 35 MPG (EPA Combined city/highway)
Gas to drive 100 miles: 100 miles / 35 MPG = 2.86 gallons
Today’s gas cost in MA: $3.099 per gallon
Cost to drive 100 miles in Jetta: 2.86 gal * 3.099 $/gal = $8.86
Tesla Model 3 is only 15% more cost efficient per mile than Jetta, while being 115% more expensive car (44K vs 20.5K for base models).
Edit: and this is before our state legislature figured out how to tax EV owners for road usage.
It’s a mistake to assume Bev will remain cheaper to run , private transport is expensive and will remain so , owning c car is expensive that’s not going away
No one gives a shit and all they want is choice. While the convenience of an ICE vehicle remains they will remain popular. People select their cars to suit needs and if the odd long trip is part of that then who are you or anyone for that matter to say they can't make that choice.
When the right car/van/SUV/utility arrives on the market people will vote with their wallets.
-
Comparison of costs of driving Tesla Model 3 vs a comparable small size passenger car VW Jetta in Massachusetts.
The Model 3 is, at least somewhat 'semi luxury'. Maybe compare comparable vehicles? Model 3 is close to Audi A4, BMW 3 series etc. Or you could compare VW e-Golf to VW normal Golf.
Also I'm amazed you pay more for your distribution service than your actual electricity (in the sense that they charge 15c for delivery and 10c for the 'fuel'). Around here we pay much more for the energy, distribution is only <5p/kWh.
For the garage with 3 cars in it, I guess you would need a service upgrade if all cars are doing 70-80A charging. That would be applicable if everyone in the house needed their cars charged up in under 4 hours to do 300 miles. I can't think of a common use case for that. For say 100 miles usage per day the car would easily fill up on 20A charging.
This is the mentality difference between EV and petrol. You fill up as fast as you can on petrol. For an EV you don't, you fill up at the rate you really need, and only use fast charging when you're on a road trip or in an urgency/emergency.
-
Congratulations that is very difficult to do, doing laundry at 11pm at night often has me exhausted the next day because I didn't go to sleep early enough.
I have considered putting everything on timers.
Our dishwasher, dryer and washer all have timers on them. Annoyingly they aren't consistent, the washer and dryer are "finished in" so you need to do some mental arithmetic to line them up, and the dishwasher is 'starts in' but only has 3hr granularity.
-
While I welcome our new battery wielding metal lords I still don't see how it will be possible for everybody to convert over to BEV.
You are making this a joke, but it's a serious argument.
It seems impossible at the moment to switch to 100% BEV right now, there is not enough manufacturing capacity for it. Solid state battery seems delayed, and regular battery formation is time consuming, meaning that you need a very parallelized production plant to produce it. To give you an idea, an alkaline battery takes ~3 seconds to test and you have a production line which could make several a second. Compare this to an EV battery, or even a 18650, that takes several hours at elevated temperature for the formation. I've seen first hand how much time and effort it takes to make a battery manufacturing plant. We are already too late to stat to support all the countries that are banning in 2030.
This is also the Toyota argument. They said, they can either make a million hybrid cars (not even plug-in), and reduce their emissions by 30% or make tens of thousands of BEV, and reduce their emissions by 100% (though electricity comes from somewhere). So making hybrids saves 10-30 times the emissions.
Cars are getting very expensive as it is, but I wouldn't be surprised if because of supply and demand, the profit margin on them would skyrocket because of countries banning ICE.
So even if you are a BEV fan, maybe you will just not be able to afford it as your next car.
-
Comparison of costs of driving Tesla Model 3 vs a comparable small size passenger car VW Jetta in Massachusetts.
Model 3:
Average miles per kWh: 3.39 mi/kWh (source: https://insideevs.com/news/597460/tesla-efficiency-depends-on-driver/amp/ )
Energy to drive 100 miles: 100 mi / 3.39 mi/kWh = 29.5 kWh
Electricity generation cost in MA: 10.927c per kWh
Delivery service cost in MA: 15.046c per kWh
Total electricity cost: 25.973c per kWh
Electricity cost to drive 100 miles: 29.5 kWh * 25.973c/kWh = $7.66
2022 VW Jetta:
Fuel economy: 35 MPG (EPA Combined city/highway)
Gas to drive 100 miles: 100 miles / 35 MPG = 2.86 gallons
Today’s gas cost in MA: $3.099 per gallon
Cost to drive 100 miles in Jetta: 2.86 gal * 3.099 $/gal = $8.86
Tesla Model 3 is only 15% more cost efficient per mile than Jetta, while being 115% more expensive car (44K vs 20.5K for base models).
Edit: and this is before our state legislature figured out how to tax EV owners for road usage.
It’s a mistake to assume Bev will remain cheaper to run , private transport is expensive and will remain so , owning c car is expensive that’s not going away
No one gives a shit and all they want is choice. While the convenience of an ICE vehicle remains they will remain popular. People select their cars to suit needs and if the odd long trip is part of that then who are you or anyone for that matter to say they can't make that choice.
When the right car/van/SUV/utility arrives on the market people will vote with their wallets.
m
Well choice is only available if the product is made increasing ice production will disappear, major car companies have taken BEV only production. , furthermore many countries are enacting tax and legislation to make ice ownership more expensive ( or making car ownership generally more expensive including limiting city access high parking , road tolls etc ) planners favour public transport and this is also expanding in many places ( trams, metro etc)
Hence the invectives will continue to favour BEVs for a while so Ice will fade as people run out of choice and the second hand market dries up and the tax and legislative situation favours non ice.
I suspect the heyday of private automobile is over avd increasingltbit will be seen as frivolous unless absolutely necvessaey
-
resulting in 60% of our bill is on night rate
Congratulations that is very difficult to do, doing laundry at 11pm at night often has me exhausted the next day because I didn't go to sleep early enough.
I have considered putting everything on timers.
It wasn’t difficult the clothes start at 9pm at the night rate start and wash and dry and ready in the morning the dishwasher starts at 12 midnight avd the EV charging kicks off at 2am , water heating starts at 6am
Currently with that and all the free credits the gov has given to offset price hikes I have 779 euros in credit with my electricity supplier !!!!! And my average bill is €70 every 8 weeks !!!
-
While I welcome our new battery wielding metal lords I still don't see how it will be possible for everybody to convert over to BEV.
You are making this a joke, but it's a serious argument.
It seems impossible at the moment to switch to 100% BEV right now, there is not enough manufacturing capacity for it. Solid state battery seems delayed, and regular battery formation is time consuming, meaning that you need a very parallelized production plant to produce it. To give you an idea, an alkaline battery takes ~3 seconds to test and you have a production line which could make several a second. Compare this to an EV battery, or even a 18650, that takes several hours at elevated temperature for the formation. I've seen first hand how much time and effort it takes to make a battery manufacturing plant. We are already too late to stat to support all the countries that are banning in 2030.
This is also the Toyota argument. They said, they can either make a million hybrid cars (not even plug-in), and reduce their emissions by 30% or make tens of thousands of BEV, and reduce their emissions by 100% (though electricity comes from somewhere). So making hybrids saves 10-30 times the emissions.
Cars are getting very expensive as it is, but I wouldn't be surprised if because of supply and demand, the profit margin on them would skyrocket because of countries banning ICE.
So even if you are a BEV fan, maybe you will just not be able to afford it as your next car.
Toyota’s strategy has been laughed at by the industry (?see Honda ceo comments ) and the industry thinks they are totally misguided al la Betamax. Hence it’s an outlier and best ignored
Hybrids have no future as it’s essentially an ice and governments will ban ice anyway , Bev is the only workable solution we have.
BEVs are much cheaper to make than ice and low cost BEVs will be soon available making the true “ vokscar “ a reality , but equally changing public attitudes to private cars will have a huge effect especially in urban centres , for example here , new apartment blocks needs provide no private car parking if within 1km of a tram, metro or rail station . Increasing car spaces are at a premium and many urban young have decided against car ownership ( neither my adult children own cars )
Burning dino juice is over it’s just a matter of how long the transition will be certainly 2035 is overly ambitious but I think by then all most all new cars will be BEV and thd tax and legislative restrictions will make ice very unpopular if even legal at all
Hybrids end up running on ice most of the time hence they are a useless concept. Here BEVs outsell Hybrid 2:1 most from purchase cost issues and because there are Bev tax advantages , hybrid is going nowhere in the face of increasing capable BEV cars , why have two engines when the equivalent Bev is better cheaper and lower cost to run.
-
God I hope you are wrong.
Because if you are right then Toyota will fail as a company.
Toyota and many other legacy auto makers are doomed to bankrupcy or mergers.
Tesla are making much better margins while not being saddled with massive debt, and the Chinese EV makers like Nio, BYD, ORA etc. are coming to finish off legacy auto at the lower end of the market.
-
God I hope you are wrong.
Because if you are right then Toyota will fail as a company.
Which is not going to happen! Toyota is the biggest car manufacturer in the world and has a proven track record of being sensible where it comes to CO2 and pollution reduction. Of all car manufacturers Toyota is the only one that doesn't need to sell BEVs in order to meet the EU CO2 emission limits! Toyota is one of the few car manufacturers that has stopped selling diesel cars (and did that a long time ago). Anyone claiming Toyota has it wrong or will fail, is an utter idiot. To me it is clear that there are some very clever people working at Toyota that have developed a long term strategy that keeps the company healthy.
That doesn't mean other car manufacturers will fail. While the European car manufacturers seem to sit mostly on their arses, they can afford that because they have extremely deep pockets and have several technologies ready to go when needed. See how quick Volkswagen's electric cars caught up with Tesla and is outselling Tesla with a large margin nowadays.
Tesla are making much better margins while not being saddled with massive debt, and the Chinese EV makers like Nio, BYD, ORA etc. are coming to finish off legacy auto at the lower end of the market.
Tesla has slashed their prices significantly world wide so their profitability just went down the drain. Chinese car manufacturers are still behind where it comes to quality and useability. Over here the government has banned Chinese electric busses for use in public transport because they have too many problems which cause the service to be too unreliable.
-
God I hope you are wrong.
Because if you are right then Toyota will fail as a company.
History is littered with examples of companies that were huge and did not adapt to the times. Or companies that failed to adapt and lost out, despite having a competitive advantage beforehand.
In automotive the textbook case is how Toyota, Honda and Nissan became dominant across the world, because they responded to customer demands for more fuel economic vehicles. Has Toyota ever been close to bankruptcy? No, but Ford and GM both have been (GM being bailed out by the US government) and Chrysler went into Chap 11. There are lots more reasons than lack of fuel economy for this but it shows how the market can change in favour of customer demand.
-
Tesla are making much better margins while not being saddled with massive debt, and the Chinese EV makers like Nio, BYD, ORA etc. are coming to finish off legacy auto at the lower end of the market.
Tesla has slashed their prices significantly world wide so their profitability just went down the drain. Chinese car manufacturers are still behind where it comes to quality and useability.
No, if anything, Tesla slashing prices is really bad for other automakers. A brand new ID.3 with the 58kWh battery is only £5k less than a Model 3, with 302hp, autopliot (on the highway it's great), 250kW fast charging, and the supercharging network as well as standard CCS. And they offer the same warranty on the car and battery as an established manufacturer (3yr/60k on the car, 8yr/120k on the battery, VW only do 8yr/100k). Tesla is easily making 30% gross margin at the higher price and at the lower price is probably still clearing a good 15%.
It is true their stock price seems overvalued, but they are still serious competition and will not have any difficulty being profitable. Dropping the price is just stimulating demand now that supply has finally caught up.
Having sat in and driven some of the Chinese EVs whilst they aren't yet at the level of the German marques they are not far off. All plastics and interior materials feel high quality, the cars ride and drive well, the software is good, there is no badly translated English in the interfaces (just slightly idiosyncratic terms, like "Delaying charger timing" instead of "Charging times" for the off peak setting.) In fact, the MG4 user interface was (IMO) way better than the ID.3 interface, faster and more responsive and much less dependent on the touch screen. The biggest problem with these cars is that they don't have much reputation, you don't know if in a decade that manufacturer will still be around to service or repair it.
-
Now you're getting a bit FUD-dy. A Tesla HPWC and a regular 30A Level 2 EVSE would be (barely) doable with 200A service and would be a lot of charging capacity even for a household with multiple EVs. And even a fully-depleted 100kWh Model X would only take about 15 hours to fully charge at the regular 30A EVSE.
Your math does not add up.
The maximum current you can constantly draw from a 30A receptacle is 24A, at least here in the US - read National Electrical Code or talk to a licensed electrician.
So the maximum power you can draw is 240V * 24A = 5.76 kW. In the 15 hours you can add maximum 86.4 kWh, assuming zero losses and assuming CC phase.
To recharge a fully depleted 100 kWh battery would probably take 25-30 hours, considering CV phase at the end. Way longer than the claimed 15 hours.
-
Your math does not add up.
The maximum current you can constantly draw from a 30A receptacle is 24A, at least here in the US - read National Electrical Code or talk to a licensed electrician.
So the maximum power you can draw is 240V * 24A = 5.76 kW. In the 15 hours you can add maximum 86.4 kWh, assuming zero losses and assuming CC phase.
To recharge a fully depleted 100 kWh battery would probably take 25-30 hours, considering CV phase at the end. Way longer than the claimed 15 hours.
Virtually every EV charges on a fixed charging power for the entire charging cycle, besides perhaps the last few kWh. This is because the C rate is typically a fraction of the full capacity. So it's pretty reasonable to say charging_time = capacity / power. You would need around 18 hours, not 25-30 hours. This only starts to change when you get to fast charging and C rates are between 1~4 then, with the 80-100% period being a lot slower than the 0-80% period. There are even then exceptions to that, like the Audi e-Tron which charges at 80kW up to 100% because it has a very unusual chemistry which tolerates this.
For the rare case of a household having 3 EVs that all need to be charged up with 100kWh in 12 hours, then you can have 120A of service to the garage, each charger running at 32A, that would do it fine. You still don't need a 400A service.
But how many people (as a collective household!) drive 350 miles EACH in 3 cars a day? The fact you have to conceive of such unlikely scenarios to reject EVs is telling. :bullshit:
-
Your math does not add up.
The maximum current you can constantly draw from a 30A receptacle is 24A,
Who said anything about a 30A receptacle? I said a 30A EVSE, just like the one I have in my garage. It is on a 40A breaker, of course. I can easily install two of those at my house if need be because there were previously two electric water heaters. I even reused the wiring for mine since one water heater is in the garage.
As for your CV tail, now that I think of it you wouldn't typically be charging your Tesla to 100% on a regular basis, right? And you won't typically be arriving home at 0% either. So from 10% to 90% at a full 7.2kW, how long does that take? About 11 hours? But we don't have to speculate, Tesla owners have reported that it takes 14-15 hours to completely recharge a long-range X from nearly 0% to 100% at a 7.2kW Level 2 charger. It probably varies a bit with temperature and so on.
-
The Model 3 is, at least somewhat 'semi luxury'. Maybe compare comparable vehicles? Model 3 is close to Audi A4, BMW 3 series etc. Or you could compare VW e-Golf to VW normal Golf.
Model 3 looks as ugly as Toyota Corolla to my taste. YMMV.
I can't think of a common use case for that. For say 100 miles usage per day the car would easily fill up on 20A charging.
I have a friend who commutes from New Hampshire to Boston 150 miles round trip every day. Can’t really tell if he is a typical commuter. But considering the number of cars with NH license plates that I see on the roads during peak hours, I do not think my friend is alone.
-
And think about sales people and service engineers that drive to customers all day long.
-
The Model 3 is, at least somewhat 'semi luxury'. Maybe compare comparable vehicles? Model 3 is close to Audi A4, BMW 3 series etc. Or you could compare VW e-Golf to VW normal Golf.
Model 3 looks as ugly as Toyota Corolla to my taste. YMMV.
I actually agree. But if we're talking about ugly cars nothing beats the new BMW grilles...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_i4#/media/File:BMW_i4_IMG_6695.jpg
Automakers are going to have to figure out how to integrate their legacy ICE styling in with EVs that need much less cooling. BMW has clearly missed the mark; the i3 looked better to me (but even then that wasn't a great looking car.) ID.3 is also a bit ugly. What happened to just putting an electric motor and battery in a normal car? I'd love a Golf with a 60kWh battery but the only choice is ID.3. Which is not hideous but compared to the Mk7 Golf is not a good look.
I can't think of a common use case for that. For say 100 miles usage per day the car would easily fill up on 20A charging.
I have a friend who commutes from New Hampshire to Boston 150 miles round trip every day. Can’t really tell if he is a typical commuter. But considering the number of cars with NH license plates that I see on the roads during peak hours, I do not think my friend is alone.
150 miles per day at say 60 mph avg speed is 2.5 hours of commuting every day, sure they do exist, but even then an EV would accommodate that. 300-350 miles a day, maybe only for a travelling sales person kind of job rather than typical commuting.
-
I actually agree. But if we're talking about ugly cars nothing beats the new BMW grilles...
Nothing beats ugliness of BMW i3: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_i3
I guess BMW is doing this on purpose, so people would continue buying gorgeous ICE models from BMW.
-
Fueling time of hydrogen Toyota Mirai from zero to full tank (260 miles range) is 4.5 minutes: https://youtu.be/5lUkOHnjLsM
-
EVs powered by hydrogen fuel cells is the future, in my very humble opinion.
Oil reserves will eventually get depleted. 50 years from now petrol cars will be extinct. They will get extinct not because some bureaucrats decided so, but because oil supply will dry up.
While home charging at ridiculously slow rate could become acceptable to some consumers in some countries (countries where majority of car owners also own a garage, unlike in Serbia and Russia), battery energy storage is infeasible for commercial vehicles and freight trucks anywhere in the world.
Hydrogen infrastructure will grow primarily to support transition of commercial and freight transportation and from hydrocarbon fuels to hydrogen.
Once hydrogen infrastructure emerges, hydrogen passenger EVs would become abundant, and they will compete with battery powered EVs. Fast refueling times would be one of the competitive advantages.
Since both battery powered EVs and hydrogen fuel cell powered EVs share similar power train - electric motors and power electronics to drive the motors, hybrid cars would emerge, where a main hydrogen fuel cell power source would be supplemented by low capacity chemical battery for customers who get used to slow overnight charging, and perhaps a supercapacitor battery for temporary regenerative energy storage from braking.
-
Actually hydrogen fuel cell cars (FCEVs) already have a battery. This is for regenerative braking and to get a more even load on the fuel cell. In theory you could add a plug to a hydrogen fuel cell car but it isn't worth it since the electricity you charge it with will be made from hydrogen (from energy storage) in many places anyway. An additional downside is that you'd need a much bigger battery to get any sort of sensible range. All in all it doesn't make much sense to have a plug on a hydrogen fuel cell car. What would be interesting is to put a solar panel on the roof of any car with a battery though. It doesn't add much in terms of energy for an individual car, but in the large scheme of things, it adds a significant amount of electricity generation right where you need a lot of power without taking space away from areas where you can install solar panels.
-
Because you scale capacity to the maximum current draw in the worst case scenario. It does not make sense to install two 70A fast chargers and keep a 200A service. Unless it is a dedicated service into your garage only, and the rest of the house - air conditioners, electric ranges, tumble dryer, etc. are powered from a different 200A service.
That is total nonsense. Nobody with any sense would do that. It's typical to have circuits in the house that add up to significantly more than the capacity of the main breaker, homes aren't wired to support every single electrical item in the home being turned on full power all at the same time. You're just making up bizarre edge cases as reasons that EVs won't work, despite the inconvenient fact that they work just fine for lots of people, including people with multiple cars that charge from home. Nobody installs a separate dedicated circuit for their garage, that's absurd, it's very easy to set up the chargers to account for the amount of power available. Most of the time there is no reason to charge at anywhere near the maximum rate, you've got all night, what's the rush?
-
I have a friend who commutes from New Hampshire to Boston 150 miles round trip every day. Can’t really tell if he is a typical commuter. But considering the number of cars with NH license plates that I see on the roads during peak hours, I do not think my friend is alone.
That's an insane commute, but an EV is an absolute no-brainer for that friend, with that much driving it would pay for itself in savings. I drive so little that despite being a fan of EVs it makes no sense for me to buy one, I drive maybe 300 miles a month on average these days.
-
Automakers are going to have to figure out how to integrate their legacy ICE styling in with EVs that need much less cooling. BMW has clearly missed the mark; the i3 looked better to me (but even then that wasn't a great looking car.) ID.3 is also a bit ugly. What happened to just putting an electric motor and battery in a normal car? I'd love a Golf with a 60kWh battery but the only choice is ID.3. Which is not hideous but compared to the Mk7 Golf is not a good look.
Modern cars are universally hideous in my mind, I don't care for the Tesla styling but with everything else so ugly it actually starts to look ok. Even ICE cars don't need the absurdly large grills that are in fashion right now. If you look closely you'll see that the actual air intake is usually a small rectangular opening in the lower middle of the grill, the rest of the expanse is fake. It looks totally stupid IMO, grills just keep getting bigger and bigger.
-
Because you scale capacity to the maximum current draw in the worst case scenario. It does not make sense to install two 70A fast chargers and keep a 200A service. Unless it is a dedicated service into your garage only, and the rest of the house - air conditioners, electric ranges, tumble dryer, etc. are powered from a different 200A service.
Most of the time there is no reason to charge at anywhere near the maximum rate, you've got all night, what's the rush?
Efficiency. In Germany they did some testing with mains outlet chargers for various BEVs and found out that charging from a regular outlet can result in losses over 25%. Keep in mind that the BEV must be 'on' while charging, the charger has a limited efficiency and then there are wiring losses as well.
-
Efficiency. In Germany they did some testing with mains outlet chargers for various BEVs and found out that charging from a regular outlet can result in losses over 25%. Keep in mind that the BEV must be 'on' while charging, the charger has a limited efficiency and then there are wiring losses as well.
Nonsense, if the efficiency is dropping that far at low charging power then that is just piss poor engineering. I can't speak for others but there is no large efficiency drop when charging a Tesla from 120V at 13A and that is very low. When I said "low" current my example was 20A 240V, well within the capacity of a typical house to deal with the 3 cars charging at once edge case.
-
That's an insane commute, but an EV is an absolute no-brainer for that friend, with that much driving it would pay for itself in savings. I drive so little that despite being a fan of EVs it makes no sense for me to buy one, I drive maybe 300 miles a month on average these days.
I do not think he will ever give up RAM 1500. But, since he is going solar this year, maybe he can change his mind…
-
That's an insane commute, but an EV is an absolute no-brainer for that friend, with that much driving it would pay for itself in savings. I drive so little that despite being a fan of EVs it makes no sense for me to buy one, I drive maybe 300 miles a month on average these days.
I do not think he will ever give up RAM 1500. But, since he is going solar this year, maybe he can change his mind…
He commutes in a RAM? Yeah, there's no saving him.
-
I suspect the heyday of private automobile is over avd increasingltbit will be seen as frivolous unless absolutely necvessaey
:-DD
And what planet are you from ? ::)
Take a 100km drive into the country and discover what choices there are other than a privately owned car. Hint: zip !
-
I suspect the heyday of private automobile is over avd increasingltbit will be seen as frivolous unless absolutely necvessaey
:-DD
And what planet are you from ? ::)
Take a 100km drive into the country and discover what choices there are other than a privately owned car. Hint: zip !
Well, that's when one becomes necessary. For those who live and work in cities and towns, they're often only made necessary by intentional crippling of other infrastructure.
-
When I said "low" current my example was 20A 240V, well within the capacity of a typical house to deal with the 3 cars charging at once edge case.
unless your incoming supply is only 60A
-
He commutes in a RAM? Yeah, there's no saving him.
Yes
-
Efficiency. In Germany they did some testing with mains outlet chargers for various BEVs and found out that charging from a regular outlet can result in losses over 25%. Keep in mind that the BEV must be 'on' while charging, the charger has a limited efficiency and then there are wiring losses as well.
Nonsense, if the efficiency is dropping that far at low charging power then that is just piss poor engineering. I can't speak for others but there is no large efficiency drop when charging a Tesla from 120V at 13A and that is very low. When I said "low" current my example was 20A 240V, well within the capacity of a typical house to deal with the 3 cars charging at once edge case.
Just look it up instead of dismissing it off the bat. The loss when charging a Renault Zoe can be as high as 30% at low temperatures.
-
While it's true that ICE cars are not going anywhere any time soon, EVs have already shown to be practical for millions of people. I know at least half a dozen people that drive them, several have had them for quite a few years now.
It's always funny to me when I see someone predicting something will never work that has already been working for quite some time.
I only have a few issues with EVs
One is that I fear they will end up being class-divisive due to physical charging infrastructure etc
Another is the weight issue
The final one is probably just paranoia - and that's just a street of nose-to-tail cars setting ablaze with lithium fires. (Just thinking of the victoria tesla battery fire)
These have been brought up before so no need to go into detail
The fact that many people have EVs doesn't prove they work for all people or whether they are a viable.
It feels a bit premature for countries banning the sale of new ICE cars
I actually like EVs |O
Personally, I would like to see highspeed conveyer belt based transportation so there's no waiting. But that probably isn't the solution either. :-//
-
Just look it up instead of dismissing it off the bat. The loss when charging a Renault Zoe can be as high as 30% at low temperatures.
It is true that charging from an American 120V wall socket is slightly less efficient in many cases and if the temperature is below ~50F or so there is some fixed amount of power used to warm the batteries. So outdoor slow charging in the winter may take a bit longer. That doesn't have much to do with how many cars I can practically charge with "normal" electrical service (200A split-phase 240V). And even if home charging can't meet all of your needs (say I have 4 housemates and we all drive for Uber...) you still have the option of an occasional trip to the fast charger for a quick zap.
-
Efficiency. In Germany they did some testing with mains outlet chargers for various BEVs and found out that charging from a regular outlet can result in losses over 25%. Keep in mind that the BEV must be 'on' while charging, the charger has a limited efficiency and then there are wiring losses as well.
Nonsense, if the efficiency is dropping that far at low charging power then that is just piss poor engineering. I can't speak for others but there is no large efficiency drop when charging a Tesla from 120V at 13A and that is very low. When I said "low" current my example was 20A 240V, well within the capacity of a typical house to deal with the 3 cars charging at once edge case.
Just look it up instead of dismissing it off the bat. The loss when charging a Renault Zoe can be as high as 30% at low temperatures.
the Zoe ( assuming we're taking about the ones with the motor-as-inductor charger) is a very atypical example, and has notoriously poor efficiency due to a number of factors, including the need for a massive filter to handle noise from the 43kw-capable charger.
However even those losses pale into insignificance compared to Hydrogen's typical 30% electron-to-wheel efficiency.
-
Just look it up instead of dismissing it off the bat. The loss when charging a Renault Zoe can be as high as 30% at low temperatures.
Then that specific car is crap. There are plenty of other EVs on the market that offer much better efficiencies. Even 30% loss though is nothing compared to the ~75% loss for ICE, and that's once you already have the fuel in the tank.
-
Efficiency. In Germany they did some testing with mains outlet chargers for various BEVs and found out that charging from a regular outlet can result in losses over 25%. Keep in mind that the BEV must be 'on' while charging, the charger has a limited efficiency and then there are wiring losses as well.
The only reason for this really is that the car has a fixed load of about 200W for the computers, pumps, BMS etc. (This is really high for what is going on, but I think it's a legacy auto thing, when you had an ICE engine which was like 25% efficient you didn't care so much about this. Now you care a lot more.)
If you charge at 2300W (230V 10A) then this is ~10% before you've even added the loss of the charger (3-10%) and battery (~1%).
If you charge at 11000W then this loss is only ~2% so starts to become fairly negligible.
At higher loads there is the additional cost of potentially needing the HVAC and cooling fan to run though. Probably somewhere in the range of 3-5kW is most efficient.
Really the longer term solution is it should not need 200W to charge a battery, but probably requires the 12V system to be redesigned somewhat so the charging CAN bus doesn't mean that half the car's powertrain and modules also switch on. (I'm looking at you, VW. Why does the infotainment unit bus run while charging?)
-
I suspect the heyday of private automobile is over avd increasingltbit will be seen as frivolous unless absolutely necvessaey
:-DD
And what planet are you from ? ::)
Take a 100km drive into the country and discover what choices there are other than a privately owned car. Hint: zip !
Well, that's when one becomes necessary. For those who live and work in cities and towns, they're often only made necessary by intentional crippling of other infrastructure.
Trouble is, everyone that lives rural faces this every day and must deal with the consequences of legislation from those only fit to shine the seat of a chair that have zip experience of the reality of rural life.
One only imagines they see us as peasants only fit to have a horse and cart. ::)
If everyone can't embrace the technology gains of the last century and the benefits they provide then we might as well turn the clock back 100 yrs when a trip to town now just 25 mins by car was once an all day affair for my grandparents with them arising before dawn to catch the horse and attach the buggy to travel 3 miles to catch the twice/day train and return on it which by that time was dark again.
Progress is such that the local train passenger service of 100 yrs ago is no running. ::)
In those years there were few busses even in town with the main mode of urban transport a bicycle....have we gone through all the gains in the last century to return to that ?
Adopt your darn EV's if they suit your needs but don't fucking force them on everyone as for many, they are not fit for purpose !
-
I don't think most EVs have such massive losses, certainly that can be reduced. My only concrete reference point is the Tesla model Y which gains 5 miles of range per hour while drawing 13A from a 120V receptacle so ~1.5kWh for 5 miles, 330Wh/mile. It's all kind of moot anyway though since service capacity is not going to limit anyone to a 120V 15A receptacle. Some people use that because it's what they have installed and it is adequate, but virtually any house can have a larger circuit installed. If the edge case is a requirement of 2 or even 3 EVs charging simultaneously, even in a very old house that has only a 100A 240V service it should generally be ok to allocate 50 amps to EV charging during the night, that's 25 amps each for 2 cars which is going to be adequate for almost all cases. Any house with a 3 car garage and anything built after about 1975 is going to have a 200A service which is adequate for 60-100+ amps for charging, that gives 20+ amps so ~5kW each, well over the point at which large losses are an issue. Requiring more power than that is going to be an extreme edge case, maybe somebody has a family of people that all drive hundreds of miles a day in separate cars but I've never known anyone that did that.
-
Just look it up instead of dismissing it off the bat. The loss when charging a Renault Zoe can be as high as 30% at low temperatures.
Then that specific car is crap. There are plenty of other EVs on the market that offer much better efficiencies. Even 30% loss though is nothing compared to the ~75% loss for ICE, and that's once you already have the fuel in the tank.
Look at it in terms of financial loss per distance travelled. Efficiency from fuel is already offset in relative low cost.
-
Look at it in terms of financial loss per distance travelled. Efficiency from fuel is already offset in relative low cost.
On those terms there is no comparison at all, EV wins by a massive margin. Tesla Y at the 10.1c/kWh I pay, fillup around $10. Compare to a similar sized (but vastly inferior performance) SUV such as the Ford Explorer which claims 27mpg at current fuel prices of around $4.50/gal that's around $50 for the same 300 miles. That's 5 times the cost just for fuel, ignoring the much higher maintenance required. You can plug in your local energy prices for a comparison elsewhere.
If you want another comparison, calculate the hydrogen losses due to boil off, which is on top of the massive losses that occur creating and transporting the hydrogen.
-
At the moment I'm paying nearly 80 eurocent per kWh over here... even my old gas guzzling car on gasoline is cheaper compared to a BEV.
-
At the moment I'm paying nearly 80 eurocent per kWh over here... even my old gas guzzling car on gasoline is cheaper compared to a BEV.
Yes, but that's not normal is it? I don't know about the Dutch government whether they have subsidies on electricity or not, but around here it is 35p/kWh peak time, still cheaper than petrol, and in my off peak (which I only started in September of last year so it's not a legacy rate or anything) I pay 8.2p/kWh. I do nearly all of my charging on that off peak time, cost per mile is around 2-3p. Need to get over 60p/kWh for electricity to not make sense.
Energy prices are falling, so far it looks like the Putin blackmail has failed.
-
At the moment I'm paying nearly 80 eurocent per kWh over here... even my old gas guzzling car on gasoline is cheaper compared to a BEV.
Yes, but that's not normal is it?
Likely to last for at least this year. I ordered a bunch of new solar panels to put on the roof. They'll pay for themselves in less than 18 months. I don't see electricity prices going down to pre 2022 levels soon. Russian gas is much cheaper compared to importing LNG.
-
Any house with a 3 car garage and anything built after about 1975 is going to have a 200A service
Maybe were you are,but i can count on1 hand finger the number of domestic premises ive seen were anything over 125A was present,and even 125A aint that common.
-
Any house with a 3 car garage and anything built after about 1975 is going to have a 200A service
Maybe were you are,but i can count on1 hand finger the number of domestic premises ive seen were anything over 125A was present,and even 125A aint that common.
For the UK service is much smaller, but then again we also don't tend to have air conditioning or very large houses in this country. You can however usually get 32A x 2 on a standard 100A feed in the UK (~70A continuous limit) if you have a diversity device installed which caps the total input current to the mains at around 70A. This is provided by Zappi EV chargers amongst others.
-
Really the longer term solution is it should not need 200W to charge a battery, but probably requires the 12V system to be redesigned somewhat so the charging CAN bus doesn't mean that half the car's powertrain and modules also switch on. (I'm looking at you, VW. Why does the infotainment unit bus run while charging?)
Since the MPGe figures used on the window stickers in the US are based on energy used at the plug, manufacturers want to make this as efficient as practical. My Ford initially left a lot of stuff off during charging, most notably the 12VDC power supply. They had to reprogram that because the 12V batteries were going dead in some use cases and not lasting very long in others. The 'infotainment bus' (not the term Ford uses) would have to be lit up because the car communicates (or did) via its now obsolete 3G data module. Between that and the coolant pumps, it may well use 100W+ even without active heating or cooling of the battery pack.
-
Really the longer term solution is it should not need 200W to charge a battery, but probably requires the 12V system to be redesigned somewhat so the charging CAN bus doesn't mean that half the car's powertrain and modules also switch on. (I'm looking at you, VW. Why does the infotainment unit bus run while charging?)
Since the MPGe figures used on the window stickers in the US are based on energy used at the plug, manufacturers want to make this as efficient as practical. My Ford initially left a lot of stuff off during charging, most notably the 12VDC power supply. They had to reprogram that because the 12V batteries were going dead in some use cases and not lasting very long in others. The 'infotainment bus' (not the term Ford uses) would have to be lit up because the car communicates (or did) via its now obsolete 3G data module. Between that and the coolant pumps, it may well use 100W+ even without active heating or cooling of the battery pack.
That's good. I don't think the same applies here. The EU would do well to include some efficiency ratings. It's not too bad at 7kW but some people do regularly use 2.3kW "granny chargers" and those carry a fair penalty due to the behaviour of car manufacturers. A lot of the time I think it's down to many EVs being built on ICE platforms, so they're not designed with power in mind. I'd hope that more modern vehicles are more sensible about power wasted during charging.
-
At the moment I'm paying nearly 80 eurocent per kWh over here... even my old gas guzzling car on gasoline is cheaper compared to a BEV.
Yes, but that's not normal is it?
Likely to last for at least this year. I ordered a bunch of new solar panels to put on the roof. They'll pay for themselves in less than 18 months. I don't see electricity prices going down to pre 2022 levels soon. Russian gas is much cheaper compared to importing LNG.
When the electricity price was more than 1 EUR/kwh, I was seriously calculating if it's cheaper to run the house from a diesel generator than from the network. They have something like 0.4L/kwh efficiency, and diesel is like 2 EUR/L. I tell you what, the situation has nothing to do with the east, it's just extra profit for the utilities.
Check the prices yourself. https://www.epexspot.com/en/market-data (https://www.epexspot.com/en/market-data)
So why does it cost 80 cents? Cause we are sheep who pays, instead of getting the pitchforks and the torches.
-
Any house with a 3 car garage and anything built after about 1975 is going to have a 200A service
Maybe were you are,but i can count on1 hand finger the number of domestic premises ive seen were anything over 125A was present,and even 125A aint that common.
I'm talking about USA, which is where the person is that was saying EVs wouldn't work because most of the houses in his neighborhood have 3 car garages. When I was in the UK I don't recall seeing *any* houses with 3 car garages, most had no garage at all, just a single parking space. With everything being smaller and closer together along with much higher prices on energy of all types there I think it is even more unlikely to find a family with 2-3 EVs that all drive hundreds of miles a day which was the specified edge case.
-
When the electricity price was more than 1 EUR/kwh, I was seriously calculating if it's cheaper to run the house from a diesel generator than from the network. They have something like 0.4L/kwh efficiency, and diesel is like 2 EUR/L. I tell you what, the situation has nothing to do with the east, it's just extra profit for the utilities.
Check the prices yourself. https://www.epexspot.com/en/market-data (https://www.epexspot.com/en/market-data)
So why does it cost 80 cents? Cause we are sheep who pays, instead of getting the pitchforks and the torches.
No need for pitchforks, if you don't like the cost don't buy it, that's how capitalism works. If generating your own power is a better deal then do that.
-
When I was in the UK I don't recall seeing *any* houses with 3 car garages
But 3 and 4 car family's are plentiful here with the kids staying with mum and dad longer
-
When the electricity price was more than 1 EUR/kwh, I was seriously calculating if it's cheaper to run the house from a diesel generator than from the network. They have something like 0.4L/kwh efficiency, and diesel is like 2 EUR/L. I tell you what, the situation has nothing to do with the east, it's just extra profit for the utilities.
Check the prices yourself. https://www.epexspot.com/en/market-data (https://www.epexspot.com/en/market-data)
So why does it cost 80 cents? Cause we are sheep who pays, instead of getting the pitchforks and the torches.
It is the price we pay for having the fighting in Ukraine now, not further west in years to come.
Cheap at the price.
-
A lot of the time I think it's down to many EVs being built on ICE platforms, so they're not designed with power in mind.
Maybe, but mine is a straight-up conversion of an ICE model (Ford Focus--assembled on the same line) and when produced it was supposedly the most efficient production BEV on the planet. IIRC, 93%+ efficient on charging, ~4miles/kWh, which is 250Wh/mile or 156Wh/km. And that is with liquid cooling (via refrigeration if needed) and heating (via electrical resistance heating if needed) of the battery pack.
-
When I was in the UK I don't recall seeing *any* houses with 3 car garages
But 3 and 4 car family's are plentiful here with the kids staying with mum and dad longer
Each driving hundreds of miles a day?
-
When I was in the UK I don't recall seeing *any* houses with 3 car garages
But 3 and 4 car family's are plentiful here with the kids staying with mum and dad longer
Each driving hundreds of miles a day?
While they are extreme edge cases, such families exist. Tend to be general contractors, industrial farmers, agricultural buyers and such. People whose jobs take them all over the place. Having multiples in a family is no surprise. An amazing number of job types follow family lines - in fields as diverse as entertainment and the military.
-
While they are extreme edge cases, such families exist. Tend to be general contractors, industrial farmers, agricultural buyers and such. People whose jobs take them all over the place. Having multiples in a family is no surprise. An amazing number of job types follow family lines - in fields as diverse as entertainment and the military.
You can always find edge cases, but they are exactly that, edge cases and they are irrelevant in terms of general adoption. ICE powered cars aren't going anywhere any time soon, and 400 or even 600A residential service exist, people that have those very niche cases have other options. The fact that there are a handful of people for which a given solution won't work doesn't mean that it isn't a viable solution.
-
While they are extreme edge cases, such families exist. Tend to be general contractors, industrial farmers, agricultural buyers and such. People whose jobs take them all over the place. Having multiples in a family is no surprise. An amazing number of job types follow family lines - in fields as diverse as entertainment and the military.
You can always find edge cases, but they are exactly that, edge cases and they are irrelevant in terms of general adoption. ICE powered cars aren't going anywhere any time soon, and 400 or even 600A residential service exist, people that have those very niche cases have other options. The fact that there are a handful of people for which a given solution won't work doesn't mean that it isn't a viable solution.
In some countries the sale of new Petrol/Diesel Cars is due to be banned imminently. So alternatives would essentially be used vehicles.
The UK currently has about 15,000 public FAST chargers of which most are in london.
In many towns cars are parked nose-to-tail and when councils put in chargers they often only put one. I don't know if these are rapid/fast/slow chargers; it seems fast chargers are the most common installed so we may as well do the analysis on those
A 10-30 mile commute (20 to 60 miles daily) isn't uncommon.
If we assume a 200 mile range then our drivers will need to charge at least once per week.
A fast charger should charge a nissan leaf in about 6 hours. If we assume everyone is really nice & organised and charges & moves on immediately we can get 28 cars charged per week per charger or 420,000 per week for all the fast chargers currently installed.
There are currently 33 million cars in the uk.
Obviously not everyone will need to use a public charger. But a lot of people will not be able to use a private charger for a swathe of reasons; think flats/rentals (doa). I would need to spend some time to analyse the current public charger installation growth rate - but it's looking a bit woeful at first glance.
I don't believe the problem is impossible to solve. Since rapid chargers would be able to charge in 30 minutes or so. But these still need to be installed within easy access.
It's just interesting to try doing some ballpark sums on the problem
-
In my opinion banning ICE cars in the short term is stupid and will cause massive problems. EVs are already taking over, we don't need to ban anything, people should have a choice. Here the bans they are talking about allow plug-in hybrids so I suspect we'll see a lot of hybrids that have a token charger built in so they can be plugged in but I doubt most people will actually bother to do so due to the very limited amount of energy storage.
-
When the electricity price was more than 1 EUR/kwh, I was seriously calculating if it's cheaper to run the house from a diesel generator than from the network. They have something like 0.4L/kwh efficiency, and diesel is like 2 EUR/L. I tell you what, the situation has nothing to do with the east, it's just extra profit for the utilities.
Check the prices yourself. https://www.epexspot.com/en/market-data (https://www.epexspot.com/en/market-data)
So why does it cost 80 cents? Cause we are sheep who pays, instead of getting the pitchforks and the torches.
It is the price we pay for having the fighting in Ukraine now, not further west in years to come.
Cheap at the price.
I think you misunderstand. I'm pointing out, that the wholesale price of electricity is around 15-17c/KWh all around Europe, while we are being charged 4-5 times as much. Now unless distribution and other costs suddenly increased, which have nothing to do with the war, this is just marking up a product, where the customer has no choice just keep buying it. And it's done by all the power companies collectively, as I hear, all across Europe.
-
I think you misunderstand. I'm pointing out, that the wholesale price of electricity is around 15-17c/KWh all around Europe, while we are being charged 4-5 times as much. Now unless distribution and other costs suddenly increased, which have nothing to do with the war, this is just marking up a product, where the customer has no choice just keep buying it. And it's done by all the power companies collectively, as I hear, all across Europe.
The problem is governments forced energy providers to buy up huge amounts of gas at any price, this is why nat gas TTFF went as high as 300EUR/MWh at one point.
The price has cooled down now demand has returned to normal-ish, we are looking at a situation where the EU has reduced consumption by about 10% by mandate, and another 10% by demand destruction (price rationing). The amount of Russian gas missing plus the amount of new LNG is about this level. So it seems reasonable to believe that prices will remain about this level for some time.
Retail prices will fall but the energy providers are still paying off this huge bill. And they don't buy gas on the spot market but instead buy months-years long contracts.
You should enquire with your provider as to whether they offer a daily tariff based on current usage. They are about 30% cheaper than fixed rate now, in the UK, or about 3x the cost what it was before this panic (which is roughly how much natural gas is, about 55EUR/MWh vs 20EUR/MWh pre-COVID.) You lose any protection if the price goes up though, you could pay market rates.
-
In my opinion banning ICE cars in the short term is stupid and will cause massive problems. EVs are already taking over, we don't need to ban anything, people should have a choice. Here the bans they are talking about allow plug-in hybrids so I suspect we'll see a lot of hybrids that have a token charger built in so they can be plugged in but I doubt most people will actually bother to do so due to the very limited amount of energy storage.
Most industry commentators believe the ban will be extended to deal with supply issues so I wouldn’t focus on a given year
But I fully support a hard ban , leave it up to individuals and you’ll have people buying 2nd hand dino juice cars mfor years
The point is the environmental challenges are forcing regulatory Changes that needs hard laws no more then unpalatable herd reduction etc is also on the cards. This can’t be done voluntary, a carrot and stick approach is needed. Dino juice is going like asbestos , bye bye .
Hrbrufs are a transition tech , bad value , unbeccessart with newer BEVs and they are choking up public chargers when they could just fill with petrol ! They need to be banned as they are really ICE cars in disguise and the dual money allows them to cheat on the emmisions statistics and benefit in many countries fro lower tax when in fact they are using a petrol engine , it’s a ratings scam
-
Most industry commentators believe the ban will be extended to deal with supply issues so I wouldn’t focus on a given year
But I fully support a hard ban , leave it up to individuals and you’ll have people buying 2nd hand dino juice for years
The point is the environmental challenges are forcing regulatory Changes that needs hard laws no more then unpalatable herd reduction etc is also on the cards. This can’t be done voluntary, a carrot and stick approach is needed. Dino juice is going like asbestos , bye bye .
Frankly I think it's absurd we're still allowing the sale of some luxury petrol/diesel vehicles.
For instance I can walk into a dealership now and buy a 3L Range Rover petrol SUV. A horrible vehicle for many reasons, not least due to who usually drives it, but with a huge emissions profile too.
"Nobody" needs such a vehicle yet it will likely be on the roads for 15-20 years. I would like to see the >£50k price bracket be electric only with very few exceptions for e.g. work trucks and the like. At the lower end ordinary consumers can still buy a Golf, Focus etc. powered by petrol whilst EVs remain inaccessible for them for a number of reasons like not having somewhere to park and charge.
-
Most industry commentators believe the ban will be extended to deal with supply issues so I wouldn’t focus on a given year
But I fully support a hard ban , leave it up to individuals and you’ll have people buying 2nd hand dino juice for years
The point is the environmental challenges are forcing regulatory Changes that needs hard laws no more then unpalatable herd reduction etc is also on the cards. This can’t be done voluntary, a carrot and stick approach is needed. Dino juice is going like asbestos , bye bye .
Frankly I think it's absurd we're still allowing the sale of some luxury petrol/diesel vehicles.
For instance I can walk into a dealership now and buy a 3L Range Rover petrol SUV. A horrible vehicle for many reasons, not least due to who usually drives it, but with a huge emissions profile too.
"Nobody" needs such a vehicle yet it will likely be on the roads for 15-20 years. I would like to see the >£50k price bracket be electric only with very few exceptions for e.g. work trucks and the like. At the lower end ordinary consumers can still buy a Golf, Focus etc. powered by petrol whilst EVs remain inaccessible for them for a number of reasons like not having somewhere to park and charge.
I think we’ll see large personal ice transport taxed to extinction anyway it’s already heading that way. Eventually consumers get the “ hint”
-
The point is the environmental challenges are forcing regulatory Changes ..............
What environmental changes ?
Based on what science ?
Does it take into account the largest atmospheric event in 140 years ?
Who's agenda is driving this and for who's benefit ?
-
What environmental changes ?
Based on what science ?
Does it take into account the largest atmospheric event in 140 years ?
Who's agenda is driving this and for who's benefit ?
Whose agenda continues to push climate denial in the face of insurmountable evidence?
(P.S. If you're talking about the Tonga event then yes - it makes it even more likely we'll miss the 1.5C target as it added about 1-2ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere. However, humans have added about 125ppm to the atmosphere since pre-industrial times.)
-
Most industry commentators believe the ban will be extended to deal with supply issues so I wouldn’t focus on a given year
But I fully support a hard ban , leave it up to individuals and you’ll have people buying 2nd hand dino juice for years
The point is the environmental challenges are forcing regulatory Changes that needs hard laws no more then unpalatable herd reduction etc is also on the cards. This can’t be done voluntary, a carrot and stick approach is needed. Dino juice is going like asbestos , bye bye .
Frankly I think it's absurd we're still allowing the sale of some luxury petrol/diesel vehicles.
For instance I can walk into a dealership now and buy a 3L Range Rover petrol SUV. A horrible vehicle for many reasons, not least due to who usually drives it, but with a huge emissions profile too.
"Nobody" needs such a vehicle yet it will likely be on the roads for 15-20 years.
Unlikely; these things are notoriously unreliable and high maintenance. They don't do well on the second-hand market
-
In some countries the sale of new Petrol/Diesel Cars is due to be banned imminently.
I would not pay much attention to legislation that bans something in the distant future. Laws that have no immediate effect are pure political stunts of irresponsible politicians who will not be around when the ban is supposed to take effect.
Take California for example. The ban that presumably takes effect in 2035 would most likely be repelled, postponed or changed in the future. Californian power distribution cannot handle current electricity demand without widespread blackouts. Adding 17 million BEVs charging from the grid at the same time would become a disaster.
-
In my opinion banning ICE cars in the short term is stupid and will cause massive problems. EVs are already taking over, we don't need to ban anything, people should have a choice. Here the bans they are talking about allow plug-in hybrids so I suspect we'll see a lot of hybrids that have a token charger built in so they can be plugged in but I doubt most people will actually bother to do so due to the very limited amount of energy storage.
Most industry commentators believe the ban will be extended to deal with supply issues so I wouldn’t focus on a given year
But I fully support a hard ban , leave it up to individuals and you’ll have people buying 2nd hand dino juice cars mfor years
The point is the environmental challenges are forcing regulatory Changes that needs hard laws no more then unpalatable herd reduction etc is also on the cards. This can’t be done voluntary, a carrot and stick approach is needed. Dino juice is going like asbestos , bye bye .
Hrbrufs are a transition tech , bad value , unbeccessart with newer BEVs and they are choking up public chargers when they could just fill with petrol ! They need to be banned as they are really ICE cars in disguise and the dual money allows them to cheat on the emmisions statistics and benefit in many countries fro lower tax when in fact they are using a petrol engine , it’s a ratings scam
I don't think you need to be an industry commentator to predict another delay. The UK has already pushed it back 10 years from the original deadline if I'm remembering correctly.
-
I would not pay much attention to legislation that bans something in the distant future. Laws that have no immediate effect are pure political stunts of irresponsible politicians who will not be around when the ban is supposed to take effect.
Laws with no sunset date aren't always easy to turn back. Proper politicians/kleptocrats shy away from just reversing old laws, populists don't give a shit but populists don't get into power that often in the west ... it happens, but not all that often.
-
I don't think you need to be an industry commentator to predict another delay. The UK has already pushed it back 10 years from the original deadline if I'm remembering correctly.
They might still do that, but at the moment you're remembering it the wrong way round.
-
Whose agenda continues to push climate denial in the face of insurmountable evidence?
Climate change is a radical leftist ideology that impedes progress.
One thing that I learned, is that climate on the planet Earth has been always changing. There were periods when the Earth was a hot humid tropical paradise in which all forms of life thrived, and especially vegetation. Likely there also was a period called Snowball Earth when the entire planet was covered with ice.
What I also know is that life is very resilient, and it survived climate changes for hundreds millions of years.
Intelligent life is even more resilient to climate change. For example, I live in a climate zone with temperatures below freezing point during extended periods of a year where my and yours common prehistoric ancestors would not survive for a single night.
If there is an imminent threat to our civilization, it comes from humans themselves - wars, poverty, hunger, disease, and not from the climate change that we cannot control but can easily adapt to.
-
I don't think you need to be an industry commentator to predict another delay. The UK has already pushed it back 10 years from the original deadline if I'm remembering correctly.
No, it started off at 2035, was moved to 2032 and now is at 2030. However, there is a carve out, from 2030 to 2035 plug in hybrids can be sold. After that it has to be true ZEV only, so currently battery EV and hydrogen.
I really expect EV technology to have massively moved on since then. In 2010, the best EV under 40k Euros was the Leaf 24kWh. Range 75 miles, charging rate 40kW. In 2020, even ignoring inflation, 40k Euros gets you a 58kWh ID.3. If you include inflation at about 2% per annum, then the ~50kEUR segment includes cars up to the Model 3 (~180kW charging, 55kWh battery, 200 mile range), and the ~30kEUR segment includes cars that beat the original Leaf (e.g. Peugeot e-208 with 50kWh battery and 100kW charging, ~170 mile range.) Even in the sub-20k segment you have small city cars like e-Up which go further than 1st gen Leaf.
-
Climate change is a radical leftist ideology that impedes progress.
Sigh. Not everything is politics. Even right wing parties over here accept the reality of climate change. There is nothing radical or leftist about it.
One thing that I learned, is that climate on the planet Earth has been always changing. There were periods when the Earth was a hot humid tropical paradise in which all forms of life thrived, and especially vegetation. Likely there also was a period called Snowball Earth when the entire planet was covered with ice.
What I also know is that life is very resilient, and it survived climate changes for hundreds millions of years.
Not really relevant when typical changes happen over millenia. Human caused climate change is likely to raise the planet's average temperature in under 100 years. What chance is there for adaptation?
Intelligent life is even more resilient to climate change. For example, I live in a climate zone with temperatures below freezing point during extended periods of a year where my and yours common prehistoric ancestors would not survive for a single night.
I can't think of anyone mainstream suggesting humans will go extinct as a result of climate change, we will certainly adapt. However, the result of that adaptation will be we have less food, will be poorer, and more likely to die as a result of floods, extreme weather, forest fires etc. It doesn't sound like a pleasant adaptation to have to make.
If there is an imminent threat to our civilization, it comes from humans themselves - wars, poverty, hunger, disease, and not from the climate change that we cannot control but can easily adapt to.
You carefully omit that climate change has the potential to cause all of these.
-
I can't think of anyone mainstream suggesting humans will go extinct as a result of climate change, we will certainly adapt. However, the result of that adaptation will be we have less food, will be poorer, and more likely to die as a result of floods, extreme weather, forest fires etc. It doesn't sound like a pleasant adaptation to have to make.
You are watching way too many movies!
-
Sigh. Not everything is politics. Even right wing parties over here accept the reality of climate change. There is nothing radical or leftist about it..
Here in the US the climate change agenda is being pushed by Dems. Also, radical laws were passed in Dem controlled states, such as California.
Banning ICE vehicle sales and closing power generation plants are very radical measures.
Not really relevant when typical changes happen over millenia. Human caused climate change is likely to raise the planet's average temperature in under 100 years. What chance is there for adaptation?
It did not happen overnight, like with the climate change from the asteroid that killed dinosaurs. 100 years is a very long period.
Animals and plants will migrate, since the change is happening over multiple generations.
Also, more CO2 in the atmosphere is better for vegetation. It will make the planet greener.
People would not notice. Most of the temperature raises happen in colder climate zones, were local population could welcome warmer climate.
However, the result of that adaptation will be we have less food, will be poorer, and more likely to die as a result of floods, extreme weather, forest fires etc. It doesn't sound like a pleasant adaptation to have to make.
Other way around. People already have more food than they had 200 years ago, thanks to the Industrial Revolution that had excessive CO2 release as its side effects.
Were there floods, extreme weather and forest fires before people started burning coal at large scale?
You carefully omit that climate change has the potential to cause all of these.
No. Impeding economic growth and redirecting resources to initiatives that we cannot win will cause economic decline, poverty for more people, subsequent dominance of leftist ideology that killed 100 million people in last century.
We cannot win the “war” against the climate change. All reachable carbohydrates will sooner or later be excavated, burned, and cause release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Whatever millions of tons of carbon is there underground - they all will be released into the air, no matter if California bans ICE vehicle sales by 2035, or not. If Californians would not burn that carbon, somebody else in the world would burn it.
-
in my opinion I see the possibility that cheap EV's will make it on to western markets.
but do not expect anything like a Tesla Model Y.
expect golf cart type acceleration performance above the city speed limit.
also expect the bare minimum in range - sub 100km battery capacity. think inkjet printers business model!
if you want more range? that is a battery upgrade not included. also the most basic overnight charging kit.
if the vehicle can accommodate more then one motor , the second motor is an upgrade.
do not expect carbon fiber and titanium body. expect a lot of steel and plastic with some aluminum.
do not expect a full size spare tyre. that's an upgrade! at the loss of some of your cargo space.
if you want sat nav, dash cam , surround sound its an upgrade not included. but the car wiring harness may will accommodate all upgrades intended for the EV.
car center console screen may play video vehicle tutorials, video games (when not driving) , phone dock, a working FM dab radio and have a clock
that's all.
-
in my opinion I see the possibility that cheap EV's will make it on to western markets.
but do not expect anything like a Tesla Model Y.
expect golf cart type acceleration performance above the city speed limit.
That will not be acceptable. It is like saying everyone has to go back to a Nokia 3610 mobile phone. Technological progress is driven by consumer demand. Cars have evolved the same way. Anything that is not a direct replacement and/or improvement will fail in a free market.
-
in my opinion I see the possibility that cheap EV's will make it on to western markets.
but do not expect anything like a Tesla Model Y.
expect golf cart type acceleration performance above the city speed limit.
That will not be acceptable. It is like saying everyone has to go back to a Nokia 3610 mobile phone. Technological progress is driven by consumer demand. Cars have evolved the same way. Anything that is not a direct replacement and/or improvement will fail in a free market.
Nokia type 3610 mobile phone that cost less then half the price of other basic phones to operate, a half price phone plan if it was possible. it would attract attention.
don't underestimate the desirability of retro technology. the horse and cart is still a big hit with the amish, and that's the 1900's model.
-
Were there floods, extreme weather and forest fires before people started burning coal at large scale?
As I understand it, yes, and they were quite large and predate humans by a very long time.
https://daily.jstor.org/a-recipe-for-ancient-wildfires
-
What environmental changes ?
Based on what science ?
Does it take into account the largest atmospheric event in 140 years ?
Who's agenda is driving this and for who's benefit ?
Whose agenda continues to push climate denial in the face of insurmountable evidence?
(P.S. If you're talking about the Tonga event then yes - it makes it even more likely we'll miss the 1.5C target as it added about 1-2ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere. However, humans have added about 125ppm to the atmosphere since pre-industrial times.)
Best you do some more research on the Tonga event as CO2 is the least of its additions into the atmosphere warming the planet.
Are you really not aware all this planet Earths weather has been impacted by it for the last 12 months ? :-//
The last big event like this we saw was Pinatubo but as it was a land based event with different ejecta its effect on the globes temps was the opposite.
Unless these natural events can be in incorporated into this already dodgy science its calculations become even less credible.
-
One of many technical articles on the effects of the Tonga event:
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/science_snapshots/2022/Hunga_Tonga_stratosphere.php
-
Dang, all this vapor will act as a greenhouse gas and will increase temperatures, won't it?
-
Leaving aside the usual climate deniers , the conspiracy nutters and the “ alt right “ lunatics , I see nothing that suggests the title of the thread is correct. Evidence is BEV sakes are doing well public charging in progressive countries is doing ok. Tax will increase on ice users until they get the message that burning dino juice isn’t acceptable. Bev will deliver solutions over the next 30 years.
It’s looking good for private car users who will have a good alternative in BEV vehicles
-
But I fully support a hard ban , leave it up to individuals and you’ll have people buying 2nd hand dino juice cars mfor years
Well I will not vote for anyone that supports a hard ban, period. And yes, people will be buying up used ICE cars for years and values will rise. You'll have to pry mine from my cold, dead hands. I say this as someone that generally likes EVs, I absolutely loathe governments that try to throw their weight around. Governments work for the people, not the other way around. A government should fear its citizens.
-
Frankly I think it's absurd we're still allowing the sale of some luxury petrol/diesel vehicles.
For instance I can walk into a dealership now and buy a 3L Range Rover petrol SUV. A horrible vehicle for many reasons, not least due to who usually drives it, but with a huge emissions profile too.
"Nobody" needs such a vehicle yet it will likely be on the roads for 15-20 years. I would like to see the >£50k price bracket be electric only with very few exceptions for e.g. work trucks and the like. At the lower end ordinary consumers can still buy a Golf, Focus etc. powered by petrol whilst EVs remain inaccessible for them for a number of reasons like not having somewhere to park and charge.
See people with attitudes like yours make me want to go buy the biggest dirtiest truck I can find and drive it around just out of spite. You don't get to tell other people what they need, you are not in charge, even though you give the impression that you dearly wish you had the power to rule over people. This is frankly disturbing.
-
Laws with no sunset date aren't always easy to turn back. Proper politicians/kleptocrats shy away from just reversing old laws, populists don't give a shit but populists don't get into power that often in the west ... it happens, but not all that often.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. I've never been one to vote for that sort, but I will if laws start being passed that impact me negatively, and there are a lot of other people around with similar views. When people start to suffer they get angry. People don't like to be pushed around and be told what to do. You can get a lot more change through gentle encouragement than by force.
-
Frankly I think it's absurd we're still allowing the sale of some luxury petrol/diesel vehicles.
For instance I can walk into a dealership now and buy a 3L Range Rover petrol SUV. A horrible vehicle for many reasons, not least due to who usually drives it, but with a huge emissions profile too.
"Nobody" needs such a vehicle yet it will likely be on the roads for 15-20 years. I would like to see the >£50k price bracket be electric only with very few exceptions for e.g. work trucks and the like. At the lower end ordinary consumers can still buy a Golf, Focus etc. powered by petrol whilst EVs remain inaccessible for them for a number of reasons like not having somewhere to park and charge.
See people with attitudes like yours make me want to go buy the biggest dirtiest truck I can find and drive it around just out of spite. You don't get to tell other people what they need, you are not in charge, even though you give the impression that you dearly wish you had the power to rule over people. This is frankly disturbing.
I think of people with your attitude every time that I'm stuck behind a dump truck with filthy exhaust (full of particulates) on the road.
There is need for regulation of vehicles using the public highways.
-
In the NL cars that use more fuel are heavily taxed. Which means some cars are no longer on the market because nobody buys them. It is a simple system that still allows people to buy the car they want IF they have the money. The worst example is a Lada with a list price of around 15k euro that gets another 15k euro on top of the price due to emission tax.
EU wide car manufacturers must stay under a certain average amount of CO2 emission per km over all the cars they sell OR pay a hefty fine. This gives them an incentive to focus on selling efficient cars OR selling inefficient cars for a higher price.
-
Meanwhile, I'll fart to make my daily quota of methane. Thanks! :popcorn:
-
See people with attitudes like yours make me want to go buy the biggest dirtiest truck I can find and drive it around just out of spite. You don't get to tell other people what they need, you are not in charge, even though you give the impression that you dearly wish you had the power to rule over people. This is frankly disturbing.
I mean if you're talking about something that doesn't impact someone else then fine? I don't care if you smoke weed, walk down the street topless, or listen to dubstep, all things I don't particularly like... it's your choice! But if you drive a big SUV through city streets, you are creating more pollution for me to breathe in. And that's objectively harmful to my health and others. Given the vast majority of these vehicles are purchased for vanity I'd be quite happy to see every one of them disappear overnight.
The thing is, at least in Europe, we've only had them in noticeable numbers for about 15-20 years. Note that the greatest concentration of these vehicles is found in areas of rich, central London - these are four-wheel drive, five seat luxobarges. They're literally called "Chelsea Tractors" around here, after the area of London they're commonly found in. They carry no more passengers than a Ford Focus, but occupy 50% more road space and consume twice as much energy per mile (and by deduction pollute about twice as much too.) What was it that made them so necessary for the population to get? It is vanity, keeping up with the Joneses, but with a strong negative societal cost so it is morally right to ban such vehicles. By the way, whilst the electric SUVs are better than petrol ones, they still have a higher cost in that they are more dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists, take more room to park on public roads, and might produce more brake/tyre dust, so I'm still not a fan of them.
-
Dang, all this vapor will act as a greenhouse gas and will increase temperatures, won't it?
Yep, known fact for nearly 12 months but that's not all folks......
Here in NZ we have seen lower UV especially over our winter where solar installations underperformed compared to previous years.
Just that equates to a further reduction in EV range.
-
Note that the greatest concentration of these vehicles is found in areas of rich, central London - these are four-wheel drive, five seat luxobarges. They're literally called "Chelsea Tractors" around here, after the area of London they're commonly found in.
FFS, insert name of any posh suburb in the world, where have you been ?
This is nothing new and any person's right to have a vehicle that best suits their needs and budget.......then there's keeping up with the Jones', go blame them.
Smells more like green eyes.
-
But I fully support a hard ban , leave it up to individuals and you’ll have people buying 2nd hand dino juice cars mfor years
Well I will not vote for anyone that supports a hard ban, period. And yes, people will be buying up used ICE cars for years and values will rise. You'll have to pry mine from my cold, dead hands. I say this as someone that generally likes EVs, I absolutely loathe governments that try to throw their weight around. Governments work for the people, not the other way around. A government should fear its citizens.
Governments need to step in, when the ordinary citizen isn't smart enough to look after a shared resource. Tragedy of the commons. Unfortunately, your idiot politicians again turned something evident into a political debate. It amazes me that both sides of the US politics is filled with science deniers, and created a post truth society.
The movies "Just look up" and "Idiocracy" describes how we look at the US now as an outsider. Oh, and where I'm from (not NL) is run by a dictator, probably worse. Someone get me an AI overlord pls.
-
I think of people with your attitude every time that I'm stuck behind a dump truck with filthy exhaust (full of particulates) on the road.
There is need for regulation of vehicles using the public highways.
Well fortunately for you I don't drive a particularly dirty car, it's new enough to have EFI and a catalytic converter and I drive less than 2,000 miles a year. I agree with there being SOME rules to drive on public highways, but older vehicles must be grandfathered in, and you can't do sweeping changes like a hard ban that requires people to buy all new cars, people can barely afford to live as it is, and then there are this other sort who try to rule from their ivory towers and don't care what difficulty it costs.
I value clean air and water and try to do my part, and I advocate EVs for everyone they will work well for who can afford them, but some of this environmental stuff goes too far, it is a cult-like religion. The data I can find is all pretty dire and suggests that the damage has already been done, there is no point in going to massive lengths to prevent it at this point because the ball is already rolling. It also doesn't really matter, the entire Western world could stop burning fossil fuels today and places like China, India, Russia and the third world are going to take up the slack. Fact of the matter is, the fossil fuels on earth are going to be consumed by somebody one way or another until natural scarcity forces people to find other options. I'm pretty sure the next war will make most of this moot anyway, it's naive to think there will never be another massive global conflict.
-
Governments need to step in, when the ordinary citizen isn't smart enough to look after a shared resource. Tragedy of the commons. Unfortunately, your idiot politicians again turned something evident into a political debate. It amazes me that both sides of the US politics is filled with science deniers, and created a post truth society.
Just wait until a government decides that *you* are not smart enough to know what's best for you and steps in, don't think it can't or won't happen at some point. Do you honestly think the people in government are smarter than the average folks? Consider what motivates most people to get into politics, and how much it costs to run for office. Politicians are a lot like corporate CEOs, most of them are manipulative self serving sociopaths with a thirst for power and wealth. They support science and data when it furthers their agenda and ignore it when it does not. The ones making the most noise about climate stuff and fossil fuels live in their luxury mansions and fly around in their private jets burning more fuel and creating more pollution than someone like me will in a lifetime of driving around in an old car living in a suburban house and I'd like to see them live in a city apartment and rely on public transit, walking and bicycles before they try to push it on everyone else. It's not just American politicians, they are broadly similar the world over and people that think theirs are somehow different and special are mostly just exhibiting tribalism. I have no political affiliation and no party loyalty and from my vantage point I see a whole lot of the same behavior occurring on all sides, while they all point fingers at each other and claim that the other side is so much worse. It's all a bunch of nonsense.
-
Evidence is BEV sakes are doing well public charging in progressive countries is doing ok. Tax will increase on ice users until they get the message that burning dino juice isn’t acceptable.
Are you sure you did not forget to count barrels of dino juice need to manufacture a BEV? BEVs don’t grow on trees, you know.
Speaking of naturally growing own transportation. Why not consider going back to horse riding? Horse-drawn carriage is as close to a true zero emissions transportation as it can get. Cross country travel on horses would be as fast as in future economic BEVs - you ride 35 miles, then stay in a motel overnight while horses recharge.
I am sure some people would prefer natural smell of horse manure to the smell of exhaust from a Euro 7 compliant ICE vehicle, while being stuck in a traffic jam.
-
public charging in progressive countries is doing ok.
According to the telegraph i guess that makes the uk un progressive
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/the-broken-promises-betraying-electric-car-drivers/ar-AA16vIoh?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=da04a0cbeee9400c99a2f40df39d8e35 (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/the-broken-promises-betraying-electric-car-drivers/ar-AA16vIoh?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=da04a0cbeee9400c99a2f40df39d8e35)
it also appears to shoot a hole in the electric car is cheaper to run argument,from the above article
RAC data shows it is about £10 cheaper to fill up a 55-litre petrol car than using a rapid charger, while diesel is almost £3 cheaper than ultra-rapid charging.
-
To me the cost is what makes it unfeasible. They keep going up in price and this is only going to continue as they deplete the supply of minerals needed for batteries. Most people are not going to be able to afford or justify an EV.
I'd love an EV truck but every time I look at them they went up by like 10 grand. The F150 is now around 90k for the base model after you account for taxes. Even if I account for fuel savings it's still more money than I'll ever spend with my gas truck which I got for 14k.
Maybe in 10-20 years from now when there are more EVs in the used market I would consider buying a used one, but I'd be worried I end up having to change out the battery and spend like 30 grand doing that. Shops don't really want to work on these including the dealers themselves, so rather than fix an issue with the battery they just want to replace the whole thing. The industry is treating these like ipads basically. Warranty runs out and you're on your own. At least with gas vehicles dealerships and 3rd party shops are willing to actually open the hood and fix individual parts instead of telling you that you need a new engine.
At some point I do want to get setup with a proper shop and I might experiment with doing an EV swap. One advantage to that as well is no gimmicks, like cloud based stuff or app based stuff, it would be kept simple and be 100% local. Though the issue is getting the battery cells. There just are not a lot of legit places to get them from here in Canada.
-
I agree with there being SOME rules to drive on public highways, but older vehicles must be grandfathered in, and you can't do sweeping changes like a hard ban that requires people to buy all new cars, people can barely afford to live as it is, and then there are this other sort who try to rule from their ivory towers and don't care what difficulty it costs.
What about a partial grandfathering? For example, express lanes on highways that energy efficient cars (both old and new) can drive on for free, while inefficient cars must pay a toll to drive on those lanes?
-
I agree with there being SOME rules to drive on public highways, but older vehicles must be grandfathered in, and you can't do sweeping changes like a hard ban that requires people to buy all new cars, people can barely afford to live as it is, and then there are this other sort who try to rule from their ivory towers and don't care what difficulty it costs.
What about a partial grandfathering? For example, express lanes on highways that energy efficient cars (both old and new) can drive on for free, while inefficient cars must pay a toll to drive on those lanes?
Given that it's the poorer parts of society that can't afford to buy an EV, and must use an ICE vehicle for work etc, you've just invented another tax on the poor. :palm:
-
Governments need to step in, when the ordinary citizen isn't smart enough to look after a shared resource. Tragedy of the commons. Unfortunately, your idiot politicians again turned something evident into a political debate. It amazes me that both sides of the US politics is filled with science deniers, and created a post truth society.
Just wait until a government decides that *you* are not smart enough to know what's best for you and steps in, don't think it can't or won't happen at some point. Do you honestly think the people in government are smarter than the average folks? Consider what motivates most people to get into politics, and how much it costs to run for office. Politicians are a lot like corporate CEOs, most of them are manipulative self serving sociopaths with a thirst for power and wealth. They support science and data when it furthers their agenda and ignore it when it does not. The ones making the most noise about climate stuff and fossil fuels live in their luxury mansions and fly around in their private jets burning more fuel and creating more pollution than someone like me will in a lifetime of driving around :-*v :-*boffubs :-*unbfor in an old car living in a suburban house and I'd like to see them live in a city apartment and rely on public transit, walking and bicycles before they try to push it on everyone else. It's not just American politicians, they are broadly similar the world over and people that think theirs are somehow different and special are mostly just exhibiting tribalism. I have no political affiliation and no party loyalty and from my vantage point I see a whole lot of the same behavior occurring on all sides, while they all point fingers at each other and claim that the other side is so much worse. It's all a bunch of nonsense.
Maybe you need to look at your clearly flawed and failed political system. Where I’m from politicians live in ordinary semi D houses don’t have private jets and take commercial flights like everyone else. My minister for transport cycles to parliament and owns a leaf , their salaries are relatively modest , you can run for office for €100. And a few printed posters ( and people do )
I can drop into my prime ministers pub and see him having a pint with his partner he’s gay and it’s widely accepted . Politics doesn’t have to be elitest. The US system for example is now so dominated by money as to be one of the great failed systems of the world.
I’ve sat with gov working groups on Bev adoption the gov experts round the table where well informed upto fare , progressive and simply looking to develop workable solutions the people where from energy regulators , grid operators , transport regulators and local gov people. All together a clever knowledgable group but equally willing to listen to a advocacy ngo like I was representing
It’s easy to be cynical about politics but that’s a cop out attitude
-
Frankly I think it's absurd we're still allowing the sale of some luxury petrol/diesel vehicles.
For instance I can walk into a dealership now and buy a 3L Range Rover petrol SUV. A horrible vehicle for many reasons, not least due to who usually drives it, but with a huge emissions profile too.
"Nobody" needs such a vehicle yet it will likely be on the roads for 15-20 years. I would like to see the >£50k price bracket be electric only with very few exceptions for e.g. work trucks and the like. At the lower end ordinary consumers can still buy a Golf, Focus etc. powered by petrol whilst EVs remain inaccessible for them for a number of reasons like not having somewhere to park and charge.
See people with attitudes like yours make me want to go buy the biggest dirtiest truck I can find and drive it around just out of spite. You don't get to tell other people what they need, you are not in charge, even though you give the impression that you dearly wish you had the power to rule over people. This is frankly disturbing.
You exist in a “ society “ that’s effectively collectively governed. You don’t simply get to “ do what you like” you are rightly constrained by societal rules many which are laws of the land
Society is changing its views in private transport given the pollutant and environmental damage , as a result we are seeing more pedestrianisation , more urban control over cars and tax regimes that favour greener cars
Shot all you like but your dino burning days are coming to an end
-
I agree with there being SOME rules to drive on public highways, but older vehicles must be grandfathered in, and you can't do sweeping changes like a hard ban that requires people to buy all new cars, people can barely afford to live as it is, and then there are this other sort who try to rule from their ivory towers and don't care what difficulty it costs.
What about a partial grandfathering? For example, express lanes on highways that energy efficient cars (both old and new) can drive on for free, while inefficient cars must pay a toll to drive on those lanes?
Given that it's the poorer parts of society that can't afford to buy an EV, and must use an ICE vehicle for work etc, you've just invented another tax on the poor. :palm:
Some countries are now issuing distinctive registration plates to BEVs allowing them access to express lanes and into congestion controlled urban areas
Clearly govs can use a big carrot to encourage Bev adoption and equally a big stick to discourage dino juice burning gas guzzlers , certainly in progressive countries we are seeing if , the annual car tax here on a 3 litre engine is now over €1000 a Bev is €120
-
I think of people with your attitude every time that I'm stuck behind a dump truck with filthy exhaust (full of particulates) on the road.
There is need for regulation of vehicles using the public highways.
Well fortunately for you I don't drive a particularly dirty car, it's new enough to have EFI and a catalytic converter and I drive less than 2,000 miles a year. I agree with there being SOME rules to drive on public highways, but older vehicles must be grandfathered in, and you can't do sweeping changes like a hard ban that requires people to buy all new cars, people can barely afford to live as it is, and then there are this other sort who try to rule from their ivory towers and don't care what difficulty it costs.
For now I would only want to ban new ones, but in the end I would like to see all petrol/diesel powered SUVs taxed out of reasonable existence, except maybe in a museum as "once we thought this was a neat idea, we were wrong".
-
To me the cost is what makes it unfeasible. They keep going up in price and this is only going to continue as they deplete the supply of minerals needed for batteries. Most people are not going to be able to afford or justify an EV.
I'd love an EV truck but every time I look at them they went up by like 10 grand. The F150 is now around 90k for the base model after you account for taxes. Even if I account for fuel savings it's still more money than I'll ever spend with my gas truck which I got for 14k.
Maybe in 10-20 years from now when there are more EVs in the used market I would consider buying a used one, but I'd be worried I end up having to change out the battery and spend like 30 grand doing that. Shops don't really want to work on these including the dealers themselves, so rather than fix an issue with the battery they just want to replace the whole thing. The industry is treating these like ipads basically. Warranty runs out and you're on your own. At least with gas vehicles dealerships and 3rd party shops are willing to actually open the hood and fix individual parts instead of telling you that you need a new engine.
At some point I do want to get setup with a proper shop and I might experiment with doing an EV swap. One advantage to that as well is no gimmicks, like cloud based stuff or app based stuff, it would be kept simple and be 100% local. Though the issue is getting the battery cells. There just are not a lot of legit places to get them from here in Canada.
You’re making the classic mistake of projecting the status who forward
Here we seeing all the dealers geared up to service BEVs , the second tier is starting to follow suit ,third party battery replacement ships are opening.
As for battery life by 6 year old Leaf with 375,000 km remains usable with 100 mile range even though it’s lost 20% of capacity. It’s second hand value is better then an equivalent small ICE
AS BEVS predominate the service industry will change to support then we already seeing third party battery replacement shops etc and in my case Nissan BEV dealers will sell you replacement Nissan certified cells ( at a price of course )
In the winter via the app my BEV warns thd cabin, defrosts the windows and is all comfy in comparison to my frozen ice van. The Bev is way nicer to drive , faster , and has more creature comforts
-
I think of people with your attitude every time that I'm stuck behind a dump truck with filthy exhaust (full of particulates) on the road.
There is need for regulation of vehicles using the public highways.
Well fortunately for you I don't drive a particularly dirty car, it's new enough to have EFI and a catalytic converter and I drive less than 2,000 miles a year. I agree with there being SOME rules to drive on public highways, but older vehicles must be grandfathered in, and you can't do sweeping changes like a hard ban that requires people to buy all new cars, people can barely afford to live as it is, and then there are this other sort who try to rule from their ivory towers and don't care what difficulty it costs.
For now I would only want to ban new ones, but in the end I would like to see all petrol/diesel powered SUVs taxed out of reasonable existence, except maybe in a museum as "once we thought this was a neat idea, we were wrong".
Certainly within the EU that’s the plan , firstly for private non business transport dino juice will be gone by 2030. Secondly no replacement new ice cars will be on sale anyway
People seem to have trouble accepting the new reality , burning dino juice for personal transport is over , the day of the petrol engine , like a stream locomotive is coming to an end. It’s over folks get with the reality. In tandem restrictions in urban areas on all forms of motorised transport will increase , planners want cars out of city centres etc and to concentrate on trans, metros etc
The heyday of the petrolhead has passed.
-
Do you honestly think the people in government are smarter than the average folks? Consider what motivates most people to get into politics, and how much it costs to run for office. Politicians are a lot like corporate CEOs, most of them are manipulative self serving sociopaths with a thirst for power and wealth. They support science and data when it furthers their agenda and ignore it when it does not.
Well, that's the USA political system, not that in other countries.
That's the reason we have the civil service, a set of people which advise the (political) government and implement their policies as far as is possible. The top level people are extremely intelligent and powerful, with the nickname "Whitehall Mandarins".
I believe the USA also has something similar, except that there are political appointees at the top.
Having said that, in this country there is a push along the lines of "don't trust the experts", by the far-right disaster capitalists that don't like their policies being critically examined.
Summary: USA != world, but we need to be vigilant.
And that's quite enough politics.
-
Do you honestly think the people in government are smarter than the average folks? Consider what motivates most people to get into politics, and how much it costs to run for office. Politicians are a lot like corporate CEOs, most of them are manipulative self serving sociopaths with a thirst for power and wealth. They support science and data when it furthers their agenda and ignore it when it does not.
Well, that's the USA political system, not that in other countries.
That's the reason we have the civil service, a set of people which advise the (political) government and implement their policies as far as is possible. The top level people are extremely intelligent and powerful, with the nickname "Whitehall Mandarins".
I believe the USA also has something similar, except that there are political appointees at the top.
Having said that, in this country there is a push along the lines of "don't trust the experts", by the far-right disaster capitalists that don't like their policies being critically examined.
Summary: USA != world, but we need to be vigilant.
And that's quite enough politics.
Spot on. I’m tired of these arguments from US alt-right types constantly knocking governments. , maybe your system is utterly flawed. It does seem donsince trump got elected but other countries have reasonable functioning systems dcc we’re not all so snugly dismissive and dismissive . In my view such proponents have no proper alternative vision except some fanciful notion of no governentbehichnus just fairy tale stuff
Let’s leave out such political cubism from this thread
-
Given that it's the poorer parts of society that can't afford to buy an EV, and must use an ICE vehicle for work etc, you've just invented another tax on the poor. :palm:
They can drive on the slow lane(s) without paying a cent more than before.
-
Given that it's the poorer parts of society that can't afford to buy an EV, and must use an ICE vehicle for work etc, you've just invented another tax on the poor. :palm:
They can drive on the slow lane(s) without paying a cent more than before.
So your solution is to punish the people that work the hardest for the least amount money by coming late at work every day? :palm: :palm: The biggest problem of getting into renewable energy sources is to get their prices on par with the cost of oil so that the lower working class can keep on living an affordable life. If not, they'll keep voting for people that want to keep using fossil fuels. See the US state Wyoming that plans to ban electric vehicles alltogether.
-
Doesn't have to be an EV, high MPG conventional cars also qualify as "energy efficient cars".
-
So your solution is to punish the people that work the hardest for the least amount money by coming late at work every day? :palm: :palm: The biggest problem of getting into renewable energy sources is to get their prices on par with the cost of oil so that the lower working class can keep on living an affordable life. If not, they'll keep voting for people that want to keep using fossil fuels. See the US state Wyoming that plans to ban electric vehicles alltogether.
Well it sure is a problem to solve, but it could always be resolved with a revenue neutral taxation concept.
Basic idea: add something like $x to every gallon of gas, but every citizen gets an annual rebate that's equivalent to that tax on gasoline divided by the number of people in the area they live in or some other demographic.
Now (on average) no one is any worse off, and some are actually doing better than others, but suddenly you have a big incentive to reduce your usage of gasoline. This concept has been tried in Canada with some success, and is generally received with popular support. It turns out the poorest, most working class people don't drive; they take the bus, cycle, or walk to work, so this leaves them quite a bit better off. Middle class people are more or less no worse off, and the richest who drive expensive gas guzzlers pay the most and have the biggest incentives.
-
Well it sure is a problem to solve, but it could always be resolved with a revenue neutral taxation concept.
Basic idea: add something like $x to every gallon of gas, but every citizen gets an annual rebate that's equivalent to that tax on gasoline divided by the number of people in the area they live in or some other demographic.
Now (on average) no one is any worse off, and some are actually doing better than others, but suddenly you have a big incentive to reduce your usage of gasoline. This concept has been tried in Canada with some success, and is generally received with popular support.
Is this why a liter of petrol in Montreal cost as much a gallon in Texas today? Or is this new tax designed to rob middle class people who cannot afford inner city living and have to commute long distances, and redistribute to cyclists and DUI convicts would be on top of the current ridiculously high tax?
-
… duplicate
-
So your solution is to punish the people that work the hardest for the least amount money by coming late at work every day? :palm: :palm: The biggest problem of getting into renewable energy sources is to get their prices on par with the cost of oil so that the lower working class can keep on living an affordable life. If not, they'll keep voting for people that want to keep using fossil fuels. See the US state Wyoming that plans to ban electric vehicles alltogether.
Well it sure is a problem to solve, but it could always be resolved with a revenue neutral taxation concept.
Basic idea: add something like $x to every gallon of gas, but every citizen gets an annual rebate that's equivalent to that tax on gasoline divided by the number of people in the area they live in or some other demographic.
Now (on average) no one is any worse off, and some are actually doing better than others, but suddenly you have a big incentive to reduce your usage of gasoline.
It is not going to work for the simple reason that the lower class can't afford efficient cars. Simple example... I'm almost due for a new car. My options are to spend 5k euro on a similar car I have now or 10k on a way more efficient hybrid. In the long run the hybrid will be way cheaper to run due to the lower fuel costs but it requires twice the investment upfront.
-
It is not going to work for the simple reason that the lower class can't afford efficient cars. Simple example... I'm almost due for a new car. My options are to spend 5k euro on a similar car I have now or 10k on a way more efficient hybrid. In the long run the hybrid will be way cheaper to run due to the lower fuel costs but it requires twice the investment upfront.
Other ways to work on that though. For instance in Scotland if you're buying an EV under £25,000 (used or new) you can get an interest-free loan over 7 years to cover the cost. It doesn't go all the way but it certainly helps. The price of used EVs has been cratering recently due to the large numbers produced, let's hope that continues.
-
And how are you going to get a loan if you can't pay for it? That is the reality for many people that live from paycheck to paycheck. I suggest you do more research into what the lower class working people are dealing with financially before coming up with more outrageous ideas that don't work in the real world. Paying 25k back in seven years is more than many people can spend on food each month.
-
And how are you going to get a loan if you can't pay for it? That is the reality for many people that live from paycheck to paycheck. I suggest you do more research into what the lower class working people are dealing with financially before coming up with more outrageous ideas that don't work in the real world. Paying 25k back in seven years is more than many people can spend on food each month.
I didn't say it was a perfect solution but it's a good idea nonetheless.
Longer term if you're paycheque to paycheque then there are other problems than EVs on your mind - there are too many people that are in financial peril in this country and elsewhere. That's a problem even if they don't get an EV, what if the clutch packs in on their car. Something like 1 in 3 British people have less than £100 in savings, it's utterly mad.
Still, that's why banning new ICE is a good idea, there will be plenty of used ICE vehicles for some time before residuals on EVs start to meet those prices.
-
Longer term if you're paycheque to paycheque then there are other problems than EVs on your mind - there are too many people that are in financial peril in this country and elsewhere. That's a problem even if they don't get an EV, what if the clutch packs in on their car. Something like 1 in 3 British people have less than £100 in savings, it's utterly mad.
So the radical socialist’s idea of increasing tax pressure on lower middle class, is to:
1) push them below poverty line
2) then get them addicted to dole while they loose professional skills and their children get no or poor higher education
3) expect them to vote for the socialists who are in charge of dole distribution
If you feel that after such transformation the country would live happily ever after, you are making huge mistake.
The history says the the next likely steps would be:
4) your extremely smart and knowledgeable civil servants would destroy the country’s economy in a generation
5) the extremely smart and knowledgeable, but completely incompetent socialist government will be overthrown by a strong dictator, who may, depending on taste, hang the socialists on trees, shoot them on a stadium, incarcerate them in concentration camps, or poison with Novichok.
6) grandchildren of the first dole recipients could finally leave slums and make a career in military, serving as cannon fodder in wars with neighboring countries.
-
It’s already here now in many markets here there’s a good market in second hand EVs. So the lower paid can do as they always did ie buy used , that will only increase as EVs age you can get a perfectly good leaf for 9k for example
The solution is the removal of dino juice cats tuats what the EU countries are aiming at. It’s a perfectly acceptable target and over the NEXT 20 years BEVS will rise to the challenge
There’s no intrinsic reason to keep ice cars no more then we don’t make steam engines anymore. Simply cause some people may want them is not a reason to change public policy that these are environmentally damaging , some people want to smoke in pubs we now don’t allow that either
Ice is dead baby !!
-
Longer term if you're paycheque to paycheque then there are other problems than EVs on your mind - there are too many people that are in financial peril in this country and elsewhere. That's a problem even if they don't get an EV, what if the clutch packs in on their car. Something like 1 in 3 British people have less than £100 in savings, it's utterly mad.
So the radical socialist’s idea of increasing tax pressure on lower middle class, is to:
1) push them below poverty line
2) then get them addicted to dole while they loose professional skills and their children get no or poor higher education
3) expect them to vote for the socialists who are in charge of dole distribution
If you feel that after such transformation the country would live happily ever after, you are making huge mistake.
The history says the the next likely steps would be:
4) your extremely smart and knowledgeable civil servants would destroy the country’s economy in a generation
5) the extremely smart and knowledgeable, but completely incompetent socialist government will be overthrown by a strong dictator, who may, depending on taste, hang the socialists on trees, shoot them on a stadium, incarcerate them in concentration camps, or poison with Novichok.
6) grandchildren of the first dole recipients could finally leave slums and make a career in military, serving as cannon fodder in wars with neighboring countries.
I think we. An leave the dictators comment to trump and the GOP , the rest of the developed is more reasonable
Tax pressure on the poor is a fact of life typically mitigated in developed countries by subsidies on various things like health , housing , transport etc. the poor are not big loaners of cars a yeah so the effect of BEVS is not applicable
Many poor love dorky on the back of welfare entitlements so not much will change there
BEVs have no impact on the poor it’s a zero sum have for them anyway.
-
Interesting for a believer in science to use an inaccurate pejorative "dino juice" in arguments. If appears to be an appeal to emotion rather than reason.
There are two reasons to appeal to emotion rather than reason. Either the facts don't support your position, or you are too ignorant or incoherent to present the rational argument. Since I believe that EVs are at least a potentially viable solution to a real problem I am forced to conclude which of the two reasons is applicable.
-
So your solution is to punish the people that work the hardest for the least amount money by coming late at work every day? :palm: :palm: The biggest problem of getting into renewable energy sources is to get their prices on par with the cost of oil so that the lower working class can keep on living an affordable life. If not, they'll keep voting for people that want to keep using fossil fuels. See the US state Wyoming that plans to ban electric vehicles alltogether.
Well it sure is a problem to solve, but it could always be resolved with a revenue neutral taxation concept.
Basic idea: add something like $x to every gallon of gas, but every citizen gets an annual rebate that's equivalent to that tax on gasoline divided by the number of people in the area they live in or some other demographic.
Now (on average) no one is any worse off, and some are actually doing better than others, but suddenly you have a big incentive to reduce your usage of gasoline.
It is not going to work for the simple reason that the lower class can't afford efficient cars. Simple example... I'm almost due for a new car. My options are to spend 5k euro on a similar car I have now or 10k on a way more efficient hybrid. In the long run the hybrid will be way cheaper to run due to the lower fuel costs but it requires twice the investment upfront.
Most developed European nations see public transport as a solution to travel needs of the poor. Cars are typically too expensive to buy tax and run for the very poor. Bev doesn’t make this worse or better.
Hence the issues for the poor sill remain and their access to private car ownership will remain the same. What will benefit them is the renewed focus on city public transport as we see investment in rail, metro and trams systems.
We need to abandon this obsession will the “ car centric “ lifestyle future generations will have access to caf sharing schemes , better public transport and housing designed to be better supported by shops and local services. Planners I know do my now consider the “ car” as an excuse to avoid proper planning in fact they are actively against schemes that rely on private transport I know of several large scale projects turned down because of excessive car parking.
-
Interesting for a believer in science to use an inaccurate pejorative "dino juice" in arguments. If appears to be an appeal to emotion rather than reason.
There are two reasons to appeal to emotion rather than reason. Either the facts don't support your position, or you are too ignorant or incoherent to present the rational argument. Since I believe that EVs are at least a potentially viable solution to a real problem I am forced to conclude which of the two reasons is applicable.
Dino juice is often used as a term I’m well aware of thd makeup of hydrocarbons
None of that changed thd point. Must EU countries as a collective policy have d goal to eliminate hydrocarbon based road transport firstly the private car then as technology allows all ICE based transport that includes hybrids.
Just like smoking bans. Sure there are those that will be dragged screaming along but who really cares the polls show broad agreement on climate change plans in fact the youth voters want faster trnsistions
As I said the burning of hydrocarbons is going to be gradually phased out , just like smoking in public spaces or other potential polluting situations.
These policies have broad electoral support and civil servants know this.
You think the vast majority of ordinary taxpayers give a hoot that the emmisions tax on a new Range Rover is going to 1700 euros per annum in 2023 nope they are cheering from the side walks. Add to this the carbon tax addition to certain fuels from mid 2023 and you can expect a bonanza in BEV sales
-
It’s already here now in many markets here there’s a good market in second hand EVs. So the lower paid can do as they always did ie buy used , that will only increase as EVs age you can get a perfectly good leaf for 9k for example
The solution is the removal of dino juice cats tuats what the EU countries are aiming at. It’s a perfectly acceptable target and over the NEXT 20 years BEVS will rise to the challenge
There’s no intrinsic reason to keep ice cars no more then we don’t make steam engines anymore. Simply cause some people may want them is not a reason to change public policy that these are environmentally damaging , some people want to smoke in pubs we now don’t allow that either
Ice is dead baby !!
Says the man with no country
Even in Canada, with high gas prices, the top sellers are gas guzzling big vehicles. I personally do not know how they can afford the gasoline,
And their electricity is mostly Hydro
I think we have a long way to go on getting really good low emission cars on the road. Most places on earth use carbon to make electricity
Electric vehicles are just changing the point where emissions occur.
We need better and more electric generating, transmission and storage (batteries are still not good enough)
It would be nice to have a battery vehicle that meets our needs.
Just my opinion
-
It’s already here now in many markets here there’s a good market in second hand EVs. So the lower paid can do as they always did ie buy used , that will only increase as EVs age you can get a perfectly good leaf for 9k for example
The solution is the removal of dino juice cats tuats what the EU countries are aiming at. It’s a perfectly acceptable target and over the NEXT 20 years BEVS will rise to the challenge
There’s no intrinsic reason to keep ice cars no more then we don’t make steam engines anymore. Simply cause some people may want them is not a reason to change public policy that these are environmentally damaging , some people want to smoke in pubs we now don’t allow that either
Ice is dead baby !!
Says the man with no country
Even in Canada, with high gas prices, the top sellers are gas guzzling big vehicles. I personally do not know how they can afford the gasoline,
And their electricity is mostly Hydro
I think we have a long way to go on getting really good low emission cars on the road. Most places on earth use carbon to make electricity
Electric vehicles are just changing the point where emissions occur.
We need better and more electric generating, transmission and storage (batteries are still not good enough)
It would be nice to have a battery vehicle that meets our needs.
Just my opinion
Well, of course. I've been saying this all along too.
But we're just tackling this problem as we have pretty much always tackled anything: shitting all over the place first, and then maybe trying to fix it much later, when it's close to too late, and making as many people suffer as possible along the way. Great stuff. :-DD
-
It’s already here now in many markets here there’s a good market in second hand EVs. So the lower paid can do as they always did ie buy used , that will only increase as EVs age you can get a perfectly good leaf for 9k for example
The solution is the removal of dino juice cats tuats what the EU countries are aiming at. It’s a perfectly acceptable target and over the NEXT 20 years BEVS will rise to the challenge
There’s no intrinsic reason to keep ice cars no more then we don’t make steam engines anymore. Simply cause some people may want them is not a reason to change public policy that these are environmentally damaging , some people want to smoke in pubs we now don’t allow that either
Ice is dead baby !!
Says the man with no country
Even in Canada, with high gas prices, the top sellers are gas guzzling big vehicles. I personally do not know how they can afford the gasoline,
And their electricity is mostly Hydro
I think we have a long way to go on getting really good low emission cars on the road. Most places on earth use carbon to make electricity
Electric vehicles are just changing the point where emissions occur.
We need better and more electric generating, transmission and storage (batteries are still not good enough)
It would be nice to have a battery vehicle that meets our needs.
Just my opinion
WRT emissions location: obviously, this does not impact total greenhouse gas emission, but shifting the points of emission can be useful for reducing near-surface levels of air pollution in populated areas, to the benefit of health.
-
:-/O
It’s already here now in many markets here there’s a good market in second hand EVs. So the lower paid can do as they always did ie buy used , that will only increase as EVs age you can get a perfectly good leaf for 9k for example
The solution is the removal of dino juice cats tuats what the EU countries are aiming at. It’s a perfectly acceptable target and over the NEXT 20 years BEVS will rise to the challenge
There’s no intrinsic reason to keep ice cars no more then we don’t make steam engines anymore. Simply cause some people may want them is not a reason to change public policy that these are environmentally damaging , some people want to smoke in pubs we now don’t allow that either
Ice is dead baby !!
Says the man with no country
Even in Canada, with high gas prices, the top sellers are gas guzzling big vehicles. I personally do not know how they can afford the gasoline,
And their electricity is mostly Hydro
I think we have a long way to go on getting really good low emission cars on the road. Most places on earth use carbon to make electricity
Electric vehicles are just changing the point where emissions occur.
We need better and more electric generating, transmission and storage (batteries are still not good enough)
It would be nice to have a battery vehicle that meets our needs.
Just my opinion
Large countries addicted to hydrocarbon private vehicles have particular issues the thread was about EU policy
Firstly removing pollutants from roads and especially urban centres is a very good thing secondly electricity generation is itself going more green anyway as the same public policy is being applied there. Here in Ireland we genetate over 30 % from renewables to such an extent that we are building an underwater interconnected to France to export the energy as we currently have to shut renewables down in peak conditions. We have a billion euro 350 offshore wind farm scheduled for 2026 largely funded by esso !!
Hence energy regulators are happy the power station sector will meet its carbon targets they need to as the forthcoming Cabon taxes will hit over reliance on hydrocarbons generators hard.
In fact if one adds up the proposed wind and PV plans there will be an abundance of energy and significant price competition from generators.
-
WRT emissions location: obviously, this does not impact total greenhouse gas emission, but shifting the points of emission can be useful for reducing near-surface levels of air pollution in populated areas, to the benefit of health.
Power plants are also a good target for carbon capture, so even if you have EVs powered by coal/nat gas it can be a winner.
While I'm not a big fan of carbon capture storage (CCS) because it's not really proven to be that realistic in the past it may be one solution in the short term to get to net zero. Virtually impossible to do that with a conventional car, the equipment doesn't scale well.
And yes this does mean fossil hydrogen could be clean - that's the so-called blue hydrogen that Shell, et al., are trying to push.
-
It’s already here now in many markets here there’s a good market in second hand EVs. So the lower paid can do as they always did ie buy used , that will only increase as EVs age you can get a perfectly good leaf for 9k for example
The solution is the removal of dino juice cats tuats what the EU countries are aiming at. It’s a perfectly acceptable target and over the NEXT 20 years BEVS will rise to the challenge
There’s no intrinsic reason to keep ice cars no more then we don’t make steam engines anymore. Simply cause some people may want them is not a reason to change public policy that these are environmentally damaging , some people want to smoke in pubs we now don’t allow that either
Ice is dead baby !!
Says the man with no country
Even in Canada, with high gas prices, the top sellers are gas guzzling big vehicles. I personally do not know how they can afford the gasoline,
And their electricity is mostly Hydro
I think we have a long way to go on getting really good low emission cars on the road. Most places on earth use carbon to make electricity
Electric vehicles are just changing the point where emissions occur.
We need better and more electric generating, transmission and storage (batteries are still not good enough)
It would be nice to have a battery vehicle that meets our needs.
Just my opinion
Well, of course. I've been saying this all along too.
But we're just tackling this problem as we have pretty much always tackled anything: shitting all over the place first, and then maybe trying to fix it much later, when it's close to too late, and making as many people suffer as possible along the way. Great stuff. :-DD
This is patently false the electricity sector is making huge strides in renewables with increasing percentages of power coming from renewables and plans in place to dramatically increase that.
-
WRT emissions location: obviously, this does not impact total greenhouse gas emission, but shifting the points of emission can be useful for reducing near-surface levels of air pollution in populated areas, to the benefit of health.
Power plants are also a good target for carbon capture, so even if you have EVs powered by coal/nat gas it can be a winner.
While I'm not a big fan of carbon capture storage (CCS) because it's not really proven to be that realistic in the past it may be one solution in the short term to get to net zero. Virtually impossible to do that with a conventional car, the equipment doesn't scale well.
And yes this does mean fossil hydrogen could be clean - that's the so-called blue hydrogen that Shell, et al., are trying to push.
Most European countries are making enormous investments in renewable grid generation or like France rolling the nuclear option. What’s clear is the regulators see ending most hydrocarbon based grid generation as a goal and it looks largely achievable. Hence along side the car transistion power generation will also phase out hydrocarbon usage
-
To me the cost is what makes it unfeasible. They keep going up in price and this is only going to continue as they deplete the supply of minerals needed for batteries. Most people are not going to be able to afford or justify an EV.
I'd love an EV truck but every time I look at them they went up by like 10 grand. The F150 is now around 90k for the base model after you account for taxes. Even if I account for fuel savings it's still more money than I'll ever spend with my gas truck which I got for 14k.
Maybe in 10-20 years from now when there are more EVs in the used market I would consider buying a used one, but I'd be worried I end up having to change out the battery and spend like 30 grand doing that. Shops don't really want to work on these including the dealers themselves, so rather than fix an issue with the battery they just want to replace the whole thing. The industry is treating these like ipads basically. Warranty runs out and you're on your own. At least with gas vehicles dealerships and 3rd party shops are willing to actually open the hood and fix individual parts instead of telling you that you need a new engine.
At some point I do want to get setup with a proper shop and I might experiment with doing an EV swap. One advantage to that as well is no gimmicks, like cloud based stuff or app based stuff, it would be kept simple and be 100% local. Though the issue is getting the battery cells. There just are not a lot of legit places to get them from here in Canada.
You’re making the classic mistake of projecting the status who forward
Here we seeing all the dealers geared up to service BEVs , the second tier is starting to follow suit ,third party battery replacement ships are opening.
As for battery life by 6 year old Leaf with 375,000 km remains usable with 100 mile range even though it’s lost 20% of capacity. It’s second hand value is better then an equivalent small ICE
AS BEVS predominate the service industry will change to support then we already seeing third party battery replacement shops etc and in my case Nissan BEV dealers will sell you replacement Nissan certified cells ( at a price of course )
In the winter via the app my BEV warns thd cabin, defrosts the windows and is all comfy in comparison to my frozen ice van. The Bev is way nicer to drive , faster , and has more creature comforts
Ideally the battery will last long, but defects can and do happen, so it is a bit concerning hearing stories of Tesla wanting to swap out the entire pack over 1 cell. There are some garages that will do work on them but they are far and few between.
The app stuff I'm not a big fan of either. Anything that relies on a phone has planned obsolescence built in. I just hope that they at very least make it so all the basic functions of the car can be done without a phone.
I do like the idea behind EVs and I want one, but there's still lot of iffy things which I hope get solved. I do like the idea of being able to get into a warm car without burning gas though. Just hope they don't force you to use an app for that since not everyone has or wants a smart phone with stock OS and it shouldn't be a requirement.
-
I do like the idea behind EVs and I want one, but there's still lot of iffy things which I hope get solved. I do like the idea of being able to get into a warm car without burning gas though. Just hope they don't force you to use an app for that since not everyone has or wants a smart phone with stock OS and it shouldn't be a requirement.
With my car you can either do it via an app or set a timer on the infotainment unit.
I would like if it worked via a button on the remote, too.
-
Speaking of naturally growing own transportation. Why not consider going back to horse riding? Horse-drawn carriage is as close to a true zero emissions transportation as it can get. Cross country travel on horses would be as fast as in future economic BEVs - you ride 35 miles, then stay in a motel overnight while horses recharge.
I am sure some people would prefer natural smell of horse manure to the smell of exhaust from a Euro 7 compliant ICE vehicle, while being stuck in a traffic jam.
Definitely sounds like a plan! ;D
-
Speaking of naturally growing own transportation. Why not consider going back to horse riding? Horse-drawn carriage is as close to a true zero emissions transportation as it can get. Cross country travel on horses would be as fast as in future economic BEVs - you ride 35 miles, then stay in a motel overnight while horses recharg
And if it breaks down in the middle of nowhere theres less chance of starvation with a ready source of shergar burgers and steaks
-
Doesn't look compatible with the current politics though, horses emit CO2 and a lot of methane on top of it. And that wouldn't please vegans either.
-
Doesn't look compatible with the current politics though, horses emit CO2 and a lot of methane on top of it. And that wouldn't please vegans either.
Range anxiety too! Only 50 miles to a haybale and would you believe it, the en-route charging infrastructure is atrocious...
-
Doesn't look compatible with the current politics though, horses emit CO2 and a lot of methane on top of it. And that wouldn't please vegans either.
Range anxiety too! Only 50 miles to a haybale and would you believe it, the en-route charging infrastructure is atrocious...
But the changing infrastructure is was fit for purpose (and could be very fast), provided Hobson's Choice (https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/what-is-designation/heritage-highlights/hobsons-choice) was acceptable.
-
Doesn't look compatible with the current politics though, horses emit CO2 and a lot of methane on top of it. And that wouldn't please vegans either.
That carbon comes from renewable sources (horses do not drink dino juice, neither they eat coal), and is immediately captured in manure.
-
Doesn't look compatible with the current politics though, horses emit CO2 and a lot of methane on top of it. And that wouldn't please vegans either.
Range anxiety too! Only 50 miles to a haybale and would you believe it, the en-route charging infrastructure is atrocious...
New BEV at Kia Rio price range would have under 50 miles range anyway. Used Tesla at that price point would probably have 50 miles range too, due to deteriorating battery capacity.
-
Doesn't look compatible with the current politics though, horses emit CO2 and a lot of methane on top of it. And that wouldn't please vegans either.
Range anxiety too! Only 50 miles to a haybale and would you believe it, the en-route charging infrastructure is atrocious...
New BEV at Kia Rio price range would have under 50 miles range anyway. Used Tesla at that price point would probably have 50 miles range too, due to deteriorating battery capacity.
And yet there's already BEVs on the market with more than double that range at that price point, if not lower. Smaller than a Rio, admittedly, but that's more to do with the Rio not being that small or cheap.
-
Speaking of naturally growing own transportation. Why not consider going back to horse riding? Horse-drawn carriage is as close to a true zero emissions transportation as it can get. Cross country travel on horses would be as fast as in future economic BEVs - you ride 35 miles, then stay in a motel overnight while horses recharge.
I am sure some people would prefer natural smell of horse manure to the smell of exhaust from a Euro 7 compliant ICE vehicle, while being stuck in a traffic jam.
Definitely sounds like a plan! ;D
The flying car will come first —😁
-
Doesn't look compatible with the current politics though, horses emit CO2 and a lot of methane on top of it. And that wouldn't please vegans either.
That carbon comes from renewable sources (horses do not drink dino juice, neither they eat coal), and is immediately captured in manure.
When there get old Iceland will sell them as frozen burgers
-
And yet there's already BEVs on the market with more than double that range at that price point, if not lower. Smaller than a Rio, admittedly, but that's more to do with the Rio not being that small or cheap.
Yep, for instance - Rio is about £16k and you can/could get a 150 mile range Skoda Citigo for £17.5k. Though it's been discontinued now because of parts shortages.
https://www.kia.com/uk/new-cars/rio/pricing/ (https://www.kia.com/uk/new-cars/rio/pricing/)
https://ev-database.org/uk/car/1190/Skoda-CITIGOe-iV (https://ev-database.org/uk/car/1190/Skoda-CITIGOe-iV)
So not at cost parity yet (the Citigo is a slightly smaller car, too) but not far off.
-
Horses are a great option for short commutes.
However it would never catch on. Horses don't have bluetooth and buying an addon accessory (Bluetooth speaker) because its not integrated into the horse it would be considered "such a last year manuver" and the stock price of Horses would plummet.
But who cares what they think, I say bring on the horses! They can eat parking tickets all day.
And for us poorer folk, the donkeys.
Clearly the lunatics take taken over if we’re diverting into talking about horses. !!
We have a “ travelling “ community that retain horses they suffer appalling abuse on metalled roads and sulky racing on motorways ( look up sulky ) horses for transport are best left in the movies.
Clearly the debate has breached the nonsense argument point the BEVs have it sir.
-
As I recall from one of my safety courses, the road accident rate went way down after powered vehicles took over from horses.
This even in the face of the fact that the very old automobiles were not very safe from today's standards.
-
As I recall from one of my safety courses, the road accident rate went way down after powered vehicles took over from horses.
This even in the face of the fact that the very old automobiles were not very safe from today's standards.
There’s one advantage I learned to plough as a kid behind a horse and that horse used take its owner to and from the pub , the horse knew the way so he could be blind drunk and the horse used take him home. Musk has a way to go yet, to replicate that !
-
Mad:
I also remember a milkman making rounds in Warsaw. He would walk beside the horse-drawn cart and the horse would stop at delivery point. He would then exchange the empty bottles on the doorstep for full bottles. When he put the empties in the cart, the horse would start up again and go to the next delivery point.
All this without any GPS, Bluetooth, battery or even a transistor involved.
Still strikes me as a very efficient system for the specific purpose
I think it beats the devil out of drone delivery in most aspects.
"Clearly the lunatics take taken over if we’re diverting into talking about horses. !!" Absolutely!!!
-
I remember the old lead-acid powered milk floats coming around here - the idea being I suppose that they could deliver at 5am and not awaken their customers with the noise of an engine. But, they all seem to use Transits and the like now. Has the noise of the vehicles decreased enough that this is not seen as an issue any more - or do customers and suppliers not care so much any more, I wonder.
-
I remember the old lead-acid powered milk floats coming around here - the idea being I suppose that they could deliver at 5am and not awaken their customers with the noise of an engine.
Probably partly to do with the fact that older houses walls were much thinner and noise levels were naturally quieter to begin with what with a lack of road noise to begin with, re lower traffic.
Around here older houses have thicker walls. In the case of my parents' house, about 3ft/80cm thick at ground level and 1ft/25cm thick on the 3rd floor.
-
Horses are a great option for short commutes.
However it would never catch on. Horses don't have bluetooth and buying an addon accessory (Bluetooth speaker) because its not integrated into the horse it would be considered "such a last year manuver" and the stock price of Horses would plummet.
But who cares what they think, I say bring on the horses! They can eat parking tickets all day.
And for us poorer folk, the donkeys.
Until 1997 horses were used in London to deliver beer
A leading brewery has decided to end daily deliveries to pubs by horse- drawn drays because of an increasing number of accidents involving motor vehicles, and complaints by irate drivers.
Young's Brewery, in Wandsworth, south-west London, from which horses have been used to take out beer for 400 years, says it is no longer fair on the animals to subject them to abuse and danger from motorists, even though they are more cost-effective than diesel-powered lorries.
-
Until 1997 horses were used in London to deliver beer
hook norton still do,all be it to a few pubs local to the brewery
-
Around here older houses have thicker walls. In the case of my parents' house, about 3ft/80cm thick at ground level and 1ft/25cm thick on the 3rd floor.
More important is probably double (or now triple) glazing with frames that are properly fitted - these do offer a noticeable benefit in traffic noise.
-
Around here older houses have thicker walls. In the case of my parents' house, about 3ft/80cm thick at ground level and 1ft/25cm thick on the 3rd floor.
More important is probably double (or now triple) glazing with frames that are properly fitted - these do offer a noticeable benefit in traffic noise.
You have to define 'older' here. Homes build from the early 1900's to 90's are likely not build to high standards.
-
You have to define 'older' here. Homes build from the early 1900's to 90's are likely not build to high standards.
Around here, many homes have retrofitted double glazing. Single glazing is still seen, but given it usually only costs a few thousand pounds to get it done, it is a common improvement made as the benefit on heating and comfort is notable. Is that not common in the Netherlands?
-
When you have an oldish construction with single glazed windows, switching to double glazed often requires changing the frame of the window and making it fully custom, so this has some non-negligible cost. Not a big deal for just a couple windows, but if you have many windows to do that quickly becomes a significant investment.
In terms of comfort, absolutely no doubt double glazing is eons better. Both in terms of temperature and noise.
-
I remember the old lead-acid powered milk floats coming around here - the idea being I suppose that they could deliver at 5am and not awaken their customers with the noise of an engine. But, they all seem to use Transits and the like now. Has the noise of the vehicles decreased enough that this is not seen as an issue any more - or do customers and suppliers not care so much any more, I wonder.
My father in law in Detroit in the 1930s delivered things to companies using a lead acid battery vehicle. The companies had plug ins for the vehicle at the loading dock. But back then he had to unload things by hand. It took a while. Time for the batteries to recharge, This was in the downtown area and I do not know if there was DC available for this purpose, There was a lot of DC available in Detroit because of the electric street railways at the time, Electric Trams were stopped about 1960??? Don't remember exactly. Trams were sold to Mexico City, I think.
Maybe this may be still a viable and economic use of electric vehicles, using cheap lead acid batteries.
There were a few electric vehicles produced in Detroit, including cars, admittedly a little before this.
-
You have to define 'older' here. Homes build from the early 1900's to 90's are likely not build to high standards.
Around here, many homes have retrofitted double glazing. Single glazing is still seen, but given it usually only costs a few thousand pounds to get it done, it is a common improvement made as the benefit on heating and comfort is notable. Is that not common in the Netherlands?
Double glazing is common on homes built since the 1980's but your 'only costs a few thousand pounds' makes it sound like a no brainer for many but it isn't. And if you need to upgrade the frames as well, you can start adding zeros. Last year I asked for some quotations for having 2 doors and a big window + frames replaced (from double glazing to HR++ glazing and from wooden frames to plastic ones). The lowest quote was around 14k euro. It is around 6k in materials. Yes, I could get a subsidy but doing it myself will still be far cheaper. I've started to gradually upgrade the windows from double glazing to HR++. Doing this myself makes it affordable. There is no payback when having it done by a company.
Similar for putting an organic roof on my shed (just for fun). Since you can get subsidies for organic roofs, prices went insane. It is just a moss blanket with some plants in there. Like 5 euro in materials. :palm:
-
Double glazing is common on homes built since the 1980's but your 'only costs a few thousand pounds' makes it sound like a no brainer for many but it isn't. And if you need to upgrade the frames as well, you can start adding zeros. Last year I asked for some quotations for having 2 doors and a big window + frames replaced (from double glazing to HR++ glazing and from wooden frames to plastic ones). The lowest quote was around 14k euro. It is around 6k in materials. Yes, I could get a subsidy but doing it myself will still be far cheaper.
Similar for putting an organic roof on my shed (just for fun). Since you can get subsidies for organic roofs, prices went insane. It is just a moss blanket with some plants in there. Like 5 euro in materials. :palm:
Crazy prices. In my pile of documents when I bought the house I have an invoice for the work: £4,200. Done in 2015. Replacement of all existing single glazed frames, windows, back French door and front door with uPVC units. Total 7 windows, 2 door units. And the work was warrantied for 10 years too, underwritten by an insurer. I can't understand how you can add an extra 10k to that unless you're doing up a mansion!
I recently got a quote for a double glazed unit to replace the skylight at the back of the garage: about £250 for the unit, if I fit it myself.
I agree the subsidies distort the market. Classic example for me is EV charging subsidy. The last EV charger I had put on cost about £600 - the government grant paid £450 and I paid the rest. Half of that was the unit, and the other half was for the electrician. The guy was there for less than an hour and his apprentice did most of the hard work. I wish I earned as much as those guys, seems like a pretty sweet deal. But even looking at the unit itself, there's not £300 of electronics there. A double pole 32 amp contactor, a circuit breaker, a plastic case, type 2 connector and a simple controller - it should cost £100 at most.
-
I agree the subsidies distort the market. Classic example for me is EV charging subsidy. The last EV charger I had put on cost about £600 - the government grant paid £450 and I paid the rest. Half of that was the unit, and the other half was for the electrician. The guy was there for less than an hour and his apprentice did most of the hard work. I wish I earned as much as those guys, seems like a pretty sweet deal. But even looking at the unit itself, there's not £300 of electronics there. A double pole 32 amp contactor, a circuit breaker, a plastic case, type 2 connector and a simple controller - it should cost £100 at most.
What unit you are talking about? MyEnergi Zappi?
-
What unit you are talking about? MyEnergi Zappi?
Nope! This was a bare bones Rolec dumb as a pile of bricks charger, before those were outlawed and had to have some kind of vaguely defined smart functionality.
-
Double glazing is common on homes built since the 1980's but your 'only costs a few thousand pounds' makes it sound like a no brainer for many but it isn't. And if you need to upgrade the frames as well, you can start adding zeros. Last year I asked for some quotations for having 2 doors and a big window + frames replaced (from double glazing to HR++ glazing and from wooden frames to plastic ones). The lowest quote was around 14k euro. It is around 6k in materials. Yes, I could get a subsidy but doing it myself will still be far cheaper. I've started to gradually upgrade the windows from double glazing to HR++. Doing this myself makes it affordable. There is no payback when having it done by a company.
The pig cycle of construction work can hit really hard, especially for major contractors who don't want to just expand endlessly and then get destroyed on the downturn. Same with heatpump installs at the moment.
-
We haven't heard of solar roadways in a while. I miss that! :-DD
-
Clearly for loads of reasons horses are not the solution nor anything near it. So less not decent info abject nonsense.
The alternative to petrol powered private transport is (a) BEVs (b) better urban planning to dissuade the use of cars and societal change that incentivises the “ right “ choice and penalises choices that are detrimental to society and the environment . We each don’t live on our personal “ island “ so collective living require compromises
-
Clearly for loads of reasons horses are not the solution nor anything near it. So less not decent info abject nonsense.
The alternative to petrol powered private transport is (a) BEVs (b) better urban planning to dissuade the use of cars and societal change that incentivises the “ right “ choice and penalises choices that are detrimental to society and the environment . We each don’t live on our personal “ island “ so collective living require compromises
All this is true. But, that approach taken to the limit would force almost everyone to live in high density structures, maybe as nice as the Arcosanti dreams, maybe not so nice. There are other solutions, but they have downsides and penalties of their own. Choosing between them requires making difficult to impossible moral decisions.
Just one example of a three way choice. Is it better to:
A: Have a huge number of people living with adequate and equal access to nutrition and health, but with limited opportunities to do anything but routine activities.
B. Have a similar number of people sorted by creativity and capability, with those high on the scale having wider opportunities and those lower on the scale much more restricted.
C. Have a much smaller number of people with access to wide opportunities with no prior assessment of their "worthiness".
There are sound arguments for and against each of these options. Different people will make different choices. These differences imply that there is no objective correct answer.
-
While some EEVBloggers fantasize about penalizing other people for not riding bikes (or electric bikes), GM invests almost a billion dollars into production of V8 ICE engines.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/general-motors-investing-854-million-v8-engines (https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/general-motors-investing-854-million-v8-engines)
-
While some EEVBloggers fantasize about penalizing other people for not riding bikes (or electric bikes), GM invests almost a billion dollars into production of V8 ICE engines.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/general-motors-investing-854-million-v8-engines (https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/general-motors-investing-854-million-v8-engines)
Because psychopaths (sorry, CEOs) act in the interests of others on a regular basis.
-
Because psychopaths (sorry, CEOs) act in the interests of others on a regular basis.
Successful CEOs listen to consumers. Mad climate scientists and those they brainwashed, apparently represent a tiny fraction of consumer population.
-
While some EEVBloggers fantasize about penalizing other people for not riding bikes (or electric bikes), GM invests almost a billion dollars into production of V8 ICE engines.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/general-motors-investing-854-million-v8-engines (https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/general-motors-investing-854-million-v8-engines)
Nice! ;D
-
Because psychopaths (sorry, CEOs) act in the interests of others on a regular basis.
Successful CEOs listen to consumers. Mad climate scientists and those they brainwashed, apparently represent a tiny fraction of consumer population.
Ah, yes, consumers are all highly educated and well informed.
Ever consider perhaps you've been brainwashed into believing cars are necessary, pollution is a non-issue, and bigger cars are always better? Because, well.. you have. To make them money. Successful CEOs manipulate consumers.
-
Ah, yes, consumers are all highly educated and well informed.
Ever consider perhaps you've been brainwashed into believing cars are necessary, pollution is a non-issue, and bigger cars are always better? Because, well.. you have. To make them money. Successful CEOs manipulate consumers.
I am pretty sure you know better what 6+ million GM customers really need. And those who disagree should be “penalized” one way or another.
-
Ah, yes, consumers are all highly educated and well informed.
How is that relevant?
-
I bought my Chevy Bolt for one reason only: I am a retired EE and it seemed pretty cool. No woke thinking, no 'good for the Earth', none of that nonsense. It just seem pretty cool.
This was after I spent 3 years with a Chevy Spark EV. That thing was outrageous - a true muscle car! 400 ft-lbs of torque was fun!
I've been at this BEV stuff for 8 years and I still think it is pretty cool.
High torque, high acceleration, low center of gravity, what's not to like! And no biennial smog inspections!
-
The GM engine plant is aimed at suv and large vehicles . It’s another indication the US is a complete outlier on transport and climate change.
We will need new ice engines for certain sectors for certainly 20 years
But none of that detracts from thd inevitably of BEVs assuming the vast majority of personal private car usage in the next few years.
The pathway has been decided by regulators , urban planners, environmentalists etc. A significant sector of the population is in support . In future pulling up in a big ice will have similar connotations as smoking in the presence of others
-
It’s another indication the US is a complete outlier on transport and climate change.
And the worlds largest oil producer. Significant wealth will resist all change.
-
While some EEVBloggers fantasize about penalizing other people for not riding bikes (or electric bikes), GM invests almost a billion dollars into production of V8 ICE engines.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/general-motors-investing-854-million-v8-engines (https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/general-motors-investing-854-million-v8-engines)
Yet they invested $6.6bn into EVs and are promising to invest $35bn up until 2025 into EVs and autonomous vehicles. Which do you think they see as winning the "format war" of vehicles?
https://www.edie.net/general-motors-confirms-6-6bn-investment-in-ev-manufacturing/#:~:text=General%20Motors%20(GM)%20has%20announced,and%20automated%20cars%20by%202025. (https://www.edie.net/general-motors-confirms-6-6bn-investment-in-ev-manufacturing/#:~:text=General%20Motors%20(GM)%20has%20announced,and%20automated%20cars%20by%202025.)
A company like GM would be silly to give up on V8's now, given they are an established and well understood design, and have customers demanding them. But they can surely see there is a limited future for them.
-
The altitude and weight (up to a point) don't matter that much with regenerative braking. Also, home recharging don't take much power as generally the car is plugged all night.
-
While some EEVBloggers fantasize about penalizing other people for not riding bikes (or electric bikes), GM invests almost a billion dollars into production of V8 ICE engines.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/general-motors-investing-854-million-v8-engines (https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/general-motors-investing-854-million-v8-engines)
Yet they invested $6.6bn into EVs and are promising to invest $35bn up until 2025 into EVs and autonomous vehicles. Which do you think they see as winning the "format war" of vehicles?
https://www.edie.net/general-motors-confirms-6-6bn-investment-in-ev-manufacturing/#:~:text=General%20Motors%20(GM)%20has%20announced,and%20automated%20cars%20by%202025. (https://www.edie.net/general-motors-confirms-6-6bn-investment-in-ev-manufacturing/#:~:text=General%20Motors%20(GM)%20has%20announced,and%20automated%20cars%20by%202025.)
A company like GM would be silly to give up on V8's now, given they are an established and well understood design, and have customers demanding them. But they can surely see there is a limited future for them.
Fanatics on both sides of this issue don't put much thought into what the real world involves. The market for V8 engines is unlikely to grow in the future. But the market is likely to remain for a long time.
Compare EVs vs ICU with the transistors vs tubes competition.
In the first ten years of the transistor there was real question about whether they would ever be the dominant electrical control device.
Then towards the end of that first decade the long term winner became obvious. But there was a real and viable market for tubes in a variety of markets for another decade or two. And the long term winner wasn't the BJT which dominated at the time, but the FET, which was more of a curiosity at the time of the semiconductor takeover.
Tubes held out in specialty applications (mostly high voltage or high power) for forty years after the first commercial transistors.
And even today, seventy years after that commercial introduction tubes are being built and used, both for extreme edge cases (photomultipliers and extreme high temperature operation) and in niche markets driven by things other than technology (audiophiles and nixie users).
-
True but valves were never outlawed ice will and is being so
-
I suspect we'll still have ICE for a long time in specialty applications. For simplicity little beats a small petrol genset for emergency / worksite power for instance. And diesel trucks will probably outpace electric trucks on some routes. However, these will need to run on carbon neutral fuels, either synthetic or biofuel, and/or have a carbon offsetting tax applied to them that pays for the carbon produced to be removed. This will make such fuels uneconomical for all but the most difficult use cases to use batteries and fuel cells in.
-
There's a lot of farm equipment with long running hours and very short windows of operation which just isn't going electric any time soon.
-
True but valves were never outlawed ice will and is being so
Actually California is on its second cutoff date for non-zero emissions vehicles. When the drop dead date arrived, and the market solution wasn't there yet they kind of quietly said "Oh, never mind".
It.seems more likely that they will stick to their guns this time, but only time will tell
-
There's a lot of farm equipment with long running hours and very short windows of operation which just isn't going electric any time soon.
I imagine we'll see a "green diesel" available to farmers that is, at first, based on offset fossil fuel diesel supplied at an economic loss (because we subsidise farming in so many other ways what's another?) And then eventually that is a biofuel or synfuel. Food supply is critical so we can't let the proposed ICE extinction harm it.
Though some farm equipment does seem ideal for electrification - short distances, long days, but with a place to charge every night. An electric tractor with a 100kWh battery doesn't seem infeasible to me. More difficult if the engine has to do a lot more work, like a combine or mill.
-
But like most overnight charging, 7-22kW AC is feasible for these vehicles, and farms often have dedicated 3 phase connections to the grid due to being classified as industrial areas. AC chargers are fairly cheap. You could get a 22kW wall charger installed for around £1k, which will make the tractor look cheap.
I am thinking more from the UK context though, some areas potentially will be too rural.
-
There's a lot of farm equipment with long running hours and very short windows of operation which just isn't going electric any time soon.
Yeah, a combine harvester is like a million EUR and it only operates for a few weeks each year, but then often times 12-16 hours a day. And you cannot wait for it to charge up, if the weather allows it, you need to work, not wait for the equipment to charge. I don't think these are the problematic machines, even if agriculture is emitting more than road transportation.
The main issues for agriculture is N2O (fertilizer related) and methane (manure) emissions. I think there was a study that methane emissions can be reduced by a lot by adding a little bit of algae to the food of the animals. And fertilizer and land related CO2 can be replaced by industrial processes (or biological processes in enclosed controlled environments). Is it a lot of work? Yes, but it's probably much less than completely replacing a billion and a half cars.
I don't think zero emissions should be the goal, the goal is to reduce emissions quickly, as much as possible without completely bankrupting everyone in the process. Now instead everyone is fixated on road transport, which is very-very expensive for the individuals to get to zero, and it's only responsible for 10-12% of global emissions.
-
I don't see how these newfangled petrol engines could be available to anyone.
How are you going to supply millions of folks with this highly flammable liquid? What logistic chain could possibly achieve that?
Do you imagine folks walking around with buckets of petrol from home to town? Stores filled with cans of petrol distillate?
Don't you know gasoline needs a complicated refinement process? Can you imagine enough of these plants growing out of nowhere?
How could it be scaled to a daily use for the mass?
Realistically, automobiles will remain an enthusiast's past time, but not a reliable transport medium for the mass. Those who say otherwise are either delusional and incompetent, or have something to win by spreading this propaganda.
-
I don't think zero emissions should be the goal, the goal is to reduce emissions quickly, as much as possible without completely bankrupting everyone in the process. Now instead everyone is fixated on road transport, which is very-very expensive for the individuals to get to zero, and it's only responsible for 10-12% of global emissions.
I don't think we'll ever get to true zero emissions, but the goal is net zero, which is to say that we can remove more CO2 from the atmosphere than we create.
Carbon capture and storage facilities are likely to be expensive to build and run and it's unlikely to be practical to run fossil fuels at our current rate in parallel with carbon capture. So we need to reduce emissions from fossil fuels and then capture what we do emit.
The secondary benefit of reducing combustion fuel usage is improving air quality which is why EVs (or I guess hydrogen FCEV) must be the requirement for city centre air quality.
-
There's a lot of farm equipment with long running hours and very short windows of operation which just isn't going electric any time soon.
Yeah, a combine harvester is like a million EUR and it only operates for a few weeks each year, but then often times 12-16 hours a day. And you cannot wait for it to charge up, if the weather allows it, you need to work, not wait for the equipment to charge.
That could actually be a potential use-case for hydrogen - generate & store H2 locally from solar over a long period, then use it when needed.
-
That could actually be a potential use-case for hydrogen - generate & store H2 locally from solar over a long period, then use it when needed.
Or CNG powered tractor based on on site anaerobic digestion. Maybe even CNG fuel cell.
-
I don't think zero emissions should be the goal, the goal is to reduce emissions quickly, as much as possible without completely bankrupting everyone in the process. Now instead everyone is fixated on road transport, which is very-very expensive for the individuals to get to zero, and it's only responsible for 10-12% of global emissions.
I don't think we'll ever get to true zero emissions, but the goal is net zero, which is to say that we can remove more CO2 from the atmosphere than we create.
Carbon capture and storage facilities are likely to be expensive to build and run and it's unlikely to be practical to run fossil fuels at our current rate in parallel with carbon capture. So we need to reduce emissions from fossil fuels and then capture what we do emit.
The secondary benefit of reducing combustion fuel usage is improving air quality which is why EVs (or I guess hydrogen FCEV) must be the requirement for city centre air quality.
Why would we ever want to do carbon capture? Unless we can do that very cheap on an industrial scale, there are always industries that can use the extra electricity to make something useful. Look at this picture below (from NASA), just to understand how tiny we are compared to the natural processes. I would actually bet money, that we can "carbon capture" more CO2 from the oceans cheaper than from the air. All we need to do is plant more vegetation, forests, and change our usage to reduce unnecessary emissions. You know the ones that are easy to avoid. And guess what, we are already doing that. Deforestation peaked in 1980 and now there are 2 million square KM of new forests. Net. We should stop deforestation in Brazil since that seems to do the most damage. By exporting food there, it would be worth to do maybe even below cost.
Adding ~5% extra vegetation worldwide would offset the entire CO2 emissions caused by fossil fuels.
(https://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/rails/active_storage/blobs/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBWHM9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--25eb1711b667eda2633ab1694ad0f3e0504b94c0/8263952221_647fda6a09_o.jpg?disposition=attachment)
-
The secondary benefit of reducing combustion fuel usage is improving air quality which is why EVs (or I guess hydrogen FCEV) must be the requirement for city centre air quality.
Exactly. This is why diesel was lately (and finally) exposed for it's particulate pollution especially in dense (urban) areas.
-
Carbon capture and storage facilities are likely to be expensive to build and run...
The operating expense is largely energy costs. ISTR reading that it would take 25% of the output power for CCS, but that might be a faulty neuron. That is a non-negligible inefficiency.
As to whether CCS can work on a global scale for many decades, I haven't seen any analysis.
-
The secondary benefit of reducing combustion fuel usage is improving air quality which is why EVs (or I guess hydrogen FCEV) must be the requirement for city centre air quality.
That won't help if the power plant next to the city keeps on emitting toxic fumes. In a previous post I already showed (through a simple calculation) that only a few percent of coal based electricity generation makes a BEV several time more dirty compared to a modern hybrid. Also, dense city centers are not big so the actual number of people living there is low while there are many more people living in the suburds. All in all the idea to make a few streets cleaner while exposing the entire city to several times higher concentrations of toxic gas is not a good idea. It makes more sense to simply block the streets that have little ventilation for traffic (or ban cars with poor or no emission control for those streets) in order to improve air quality.
And CO2 capture is one of the worst ideas ever. You basically create an underground toxic gas bubble. There have been several incidents with natural CO2 sources that suddenly release their content resulting in a great number of deaths.
-
Even IPCC has conceded the 1.5C goal is impossible without carbon capture (https://www.catf.us/2022/04/what-does-latest-ipcc-report-say-about-carbon-capture/).
Removing CO2 from the oceans is also essential to limit ocean acidification but I don't know at what rate it gets reabsorbed or how practical the technology is to do so yet.
And building forests is absolutely noble but trees take 30-50 years to absorb enough carbon; they also constantly face targeting for deforestation (we will always want wood for furniture and to clear area for farming.) I also don't think the planet will go meat free, which would reduce farmed area considerably, any time soon. (I mean, I'm not even meat free, because the alternatives aren't there yet IMO. I can't imagine "Joe Public" wanting to be vegan unless we have true artificial meat and still there will be demand for real animals.) Imagine another Bolsonaro deciding that the Amazon is fair game again, despite international condemnation. So not convinced they make a huge degree of sense in terms of averting significant climate change.
-
Even IPCC has conceded the 1.5C goal is impossible without carbon capture (https://www.catf.us/2022/04/what-does-latest-ipcc-report-say-about-carbon-capture/).
A quick scan tells me that this is to be achieved through biomass (= grow more plants).
-
The secondary benefit of reducing combustion fuel usage is improving air quality which is why EVs (or I guess hydrogen FCEV) must be the requirement for city centre air quality.
That won't help if the power plant next to the city keeps on emitting toxic fumes. In a previous post I already showed (through a simple calculation) that only a few percent of coal based electricity generation makes a BEV several time more dirty compared to a modern hybrid. Also, dense city centers are not big so the actual number of people living there is low while there are many more people living in the suburds. All in all the idea to make a few streets cleaner while exposing the entire city to several times higher concentrations of toxic gas is not a good idea. It makes more sense to simply block the streets that have little ventilation for traffic (or ban cars with poor or no emission control for those streets) in order to improve air quality.
Can you link to your analysis/post because I scanned through and couldn't find a mention of that. It doesn't sound even remotely correct to me, but even if it was, longer term we are moving towards 0% coal, we used nearly no coal in the last 5 years and it's expected by 2030 that we will use no coal at all. The only reason it's being used at all this winter is due to gas shortages as a result of the Ukraine war.
And CO2 capture is one of the worst ideas ever. You basically create an underground toxic gas bubble. There have been several incidents with natural CO2 sources that suddenly release their content resulting in a great number of deaths.
That's just one possible CO2 storage mechanism. And these are geological reservoirs that have held CH4 for millennia, so there is no reason to believe they will be worse with CO2. But if you were concerned about that you could focus more on carbonification of rock, such as using limestone deposits.
Even IPCC has conceded the 1.5C goal is impossible without carbon capture (https://www.catf.us/2022/04/what-does-latest-ipcc-report-say-about-carbon-capture/).
A quick scan tells me that this is to be achieved through biomass (= grow more plants).
DACCS is part of many scenarios, there isn't one possible pathway, one scenario is no carbon capture at all but 30% less energy usage, well we know that is extremely unlikely to happen but the scientists present options for the politicians and bureaucrats to argue over.
-
Can you link to your analysis/post because I scanned through and couldn't find a mention of that. It doesn't sound even remotely correct to me, but even if it was, longer term we are moving towards 0% coal, we used nearly no coal in the last 5 years and it's expected by 2030 that we will use no coal at all.
By “we” did you mean your household, Great Britain, or the world? Volume of global coal production did not change much over the past 12 years:
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-total-coal-production-1971-2020 (https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-total-coal-production-1971-2020)
-
All we need to do is plant more vegetation, forests, and change our usage to reduce unnecessary emissions.
True. And with higher CO2 atmospheric concentrations and warmer and moister climate the vegetation will thrive.
What needs to be banned is deforestation for the sake of production of biofuels. The practice of cutting down forests in North America, to manufacture wood pellets that are then exported to EU as renewable biofuel is madness.
-
... longer term we are moving towards 0% coal, we used nearly no coal in the last 5 years and it's expected by 2030 that we will use no coal at all. The only reason it's being used at all this winter is due to gas shortages as a result of the Ukraine war.
I don't think it is quite that simple. Currently the UK is generating ~3GW from coal and "pre-coal". While the coal plant has hastily been saved from decomissioning, the "pre-coal" Drax plant looks like it will continue operating for quite a while.
Whether or not coal can be phased out depends on the introduction of a lot more green "dispatchable" capacity, presumably nuclear and grid-scale seasonal-scale pumped storage.
Germany has, of course, stepped up generation from its "pre-coal" sources.
(In my terminology, "pre-coal" = trees or lignite.)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/ev-based-road-transportation-is-not-viable/?action=dlattach;attach=1699705)
-
I suspect we'll still have ICE for a long time in specialty applications. For simplicity little beats a small petrol genset for emergency / worksite power for instance. And diesel trucks will probably outpace electric trucks on some routes. However, these will need to run on carbon neutral fuels, either synthetic or biofuel, and/or have a carbon offsetting tax applied to them that pays for the carbon produced to be removed. This will make such fuels uneconomical for all but the most difficult use cases to use batteries and fuel cells in.
Correct. It’s not about converting everything instantly to BEVs it’s about converting what’s possible. It’s possible now and the near future to move personal cars away from ice. That’s needs to be done
-
I suspect we'll still have ICE for a long time in specialty applications. For simplicity little beats a small petrol genset for emergency / worksite power for instance. And diesel trucks will probably outpace electric trucks on some routes. However, these will need to run on carbon neutral fuels, either synthetic or biofuel, and/or have a carbon offsetting tax applied to them that pays for the carbon produced to be removed. This will make such fuels uneconomical for all but the most difficult use cases to use batteries and fuel cells in.
Correct. It’s not about converting everything instantly to BEVs it’s about converting what’s possible. It’s possible now and the near future to move personal cars away from ice. That’s needs to be done
Incorrect. The whole goal is to move to renewable, non-poluting energy sources. ICE in itself isn't bad. It is the fuel that is being used that makes it bad. Alternatives can even be worse (like BEVs powered indirectly from coal).
People are obsessing over CO2 but the reality is that CO2 emissions are not today's problem. The emission of toxic gasses like SO2 and NOx (which cause respiratory and other health issues) are. Just look up the number of annual deaths due to producing electricity from coal as published by the WHO. Even in small countries like the NL, the number exceeds over 100 persons per year that die prematurely. Nuclear is far better and it boggles the mind how environmentalists can be against it...
As I wrote before, I ran the numbers a long time ago to show that moving the BEVs is not a good idea if electricity is (partly) generated by coal plants (which are also likely to provide the cheap night time power to have a base load):
Gasoline has a density of 0.72kg/litre and contains a maximum of 10ppm of sulphur (this limit is adopted world wide nowadays and rumour has it, it is significantly less in a lot of places). So 1000 grams of gasoline contains (up to) 10 milligrams of sulphur. 10 * 0.720 = 7.2 milligrams of sulphur per liter of gasoline.
One liter of gasoline takes you 20km in an efficient hybrid (going from realistic numbers). SO2 consists of 1 sulphur atom and two oxygen atoms. In totaal this molecule weighs about twice as much as a sulphur atom. 7.2 * 2 = 14 milligrams of SO2 per liter. Divide by 20 => 0.72 milligrams per km.
In 2019 the NL SO2 emissons for electricity production are 2400 metric tonnes (2.400.000 kg = 2.400.000.000 gram)
https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/83390NED/table?ts=1610469052046 (https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/83390NED/table?ts=1610469052046)
In the same year 121TWh was produced.
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2020/12/elektriciteitsproductie-naar-recordhoogte (https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2020/12/elektriciteitsproductie-naar-recordhoogte)
2.400.000.000 / 121TWh=19,8 microgram/Wh
With a realistic use of 225Wh/km for a BEV that brings you to 225 * 19.8 microgram = 4.5 milligrams per km
4.5 milligrams / 0.72 milligrams = 6
So in the NL a BEV causes the emission of 6 times more SO2 compared to an efficient hybrid per distance travelled.
You can do a similar calculation for NOx and you'll see a BEV barely meets the Euro6 limit for NOx.
-
Though some farm equipment does seem ideal for electrification - short distances, long days, but with a place to charge every night. An electric tractor with a 100kWh battery doesn't seem infeasible to me. More difficult if the engine has to do a lot more work, like a combine or mill.
The majority of tractors have PTOs for delivering non-trival power to towed or pushed implements, they're very multipurpose machines, and often do many miles of road hauling. Combines, as noticed by tszaboo, are exactly what I was thinking of in terms of 'not happening'.
Some of the smaller ones for yard work are very electrifiable, though, and in fact there are electric options on the market.
-
Industrial/farm equipment will likely transition to having on site LH2 tanks/pumps resupplied by tanker truck, once the LH2 infrastructure is in place for long haul trucking it's not an issue.
Large LH2 tanks have low enough evaporation rate you don't really need to take it into much consideration.
-
Industrial/farm equipment will likely transition to having on site LH2 tanks/pumps resupplied by tanker truck, once the LH2 infrastructure is in place for long haul trucking it's not an issue.
Large LH2 tanks have low enough evaporation rate you don't really need to take it into much consideration.
Onsite diesel tanks are low tech and require little maintenance.
Pressurised cryogenic tanks are high tech, and require regular maintenance and special skills to maintain. Conditions on a remote farm and the staff skillsets will remain, to use the standard euphemism, a challenge.
-
Industrial/farm equipment will likely transition to having on site LH2 tanks/pumps resupplied by tanker truck, once the LH2 infrastructure is in place for long haul trucking it's not an issue.
Large LH2 tanks have low enough evaporation rate you don't really need to take it into much consideration.
Onsite diesel tanks are low tech and require little maintenance.
Pressurised cryogenic tanks are high tech, and require regular maintenance and special skills to maintain. Conditions on a remote farm and the staff skillsets will remain, to use the standard euphemism, a challenge.
Modern day farm equipment is chuck full with electronics anyway. So a tank -which still is a passive device- won't matter much. Besides that, H2 isn't stored in a cryogenic tank at all but a normal tank that can withstand pressures up to 750 bar. If a farmer owns a blow torch, then the knowledge on how to deal with high pressure gas tanks is already present.
-
Incorrect. The whole goal is to move to renewable, non-poluting energy sources. ICE in itself isn't bad. It is the fuel that is being used that makes it bad. Alternatives can even be worse (like BEVs powered indirectly from coal).
People are obsessing over CO2 but the reality is that CO2 emissions are not today's problem. The emission of toxic gasses like SO2 and NOx (which cause respiratory and other health issues) are. Just look up the number of annual deaths due to producing electricity from coal as published by the WHO. Even in small countries like the NL, the number exceeds over 100 persons per year that die prematurely. Nuclear is far better and it boggles the mind how environmentalists can be against it...
The problem with ICE is even running on the cleanest carbon neutral fuel they produce soot, NOx and other hazardous compound (fuel produces VOCs from evaporation, plus some hydrocarbons escape the combustion process.) Also pretty much every engine burns a little bit of oil, which adds to the problem. NOx is actually a really tough problem to solve as VW discovered with their cheating diesels, it's more or less impossible to make an efficient and powerful turbocharged engine that does not produce NOx, and therefore requires AdBlue treatment or at least a NOx trap. It's easier to clean up power plants than it is to clean up ICE, given most of these recycling/capture systems are only efficient at scale.
CO2 emissions are a long term existential problem. You are correct to say they are not a huge problem now but to ignore them because of that would be foolish - it's like saying "I don't need to stop smoking until I get cancer". We need to decarbonise now so that we don't have the crisis in 30 years time. That doesn't preclude doing things about city pollution like restricting/fining the worst offending vehicles and encouraging as much public transit/cycling/EV use as possible.
As I wrote before, I ran the numbers a long time ago to show that moving the BEVs is not a good idea if electricity is (partly) generated by coal plants (which are also likely to provide the cheap night time power to have a base load): [...]
The sector you have highlighted is not limited to electricity generation alone. It also includes production of natural gas, steam, cooling etc (going by the English translation). However, I did a similar calculation and come to a similar conclusion based on US data. So I will grant you that. It is a very good reason to be removing all fossil fuels from the grid as soon as practically possible.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29812 (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29812)
For EV charging, at night time most demand will be coming from nuclear and natural gas. So far we are only using coal during periods of high demand, typically the 4-7pm evening peak.
-
As I wrote before, I ran the numbers a long time ago to show that moving the BEVs is not a good idea if electricity is (partly) generated by coal plants (which are also likely to provide the cheap night time power to have a base load): [...]
The sector you have highlighted is not limited to electricity generation alone.
It is. There is a different website ( emissieregistratie.nl ) which has the same number (and a little more accurate). I have checked the calculation and verified the data 5 times over to make sure the SO2 emissions stated are from electricity generation alone.
-
Incorrect. The whole goal is to move to renewable, non-poluting energy sources. ICE in itself isn't bad. It is the fuel that is being used that makes it bad. Alternatives can even be worse (like BEVs powered indirectly from coal).
People are obsessing over CO2 but the reality is that CO2 emissions are not today's problem. The emission of toxic gasses like SO2 and NOx (which cause respiratory and other health issues) are. Just look up the number of annual deaths due to producing electricity from coal as published by the WHO. Even in small countries like the NL, the number exceeds over 100 persons per year that die prematurely. Nuclear is far better and it boggles the mind how environmentalists can be against it...
The problem with ICE is even running on the cleanest carbon neutral fuel they produce soot, NOx and other hazardous compound (fuel produces VOCs from evaporation, plus some hydrocarbons escape the combustion process.) Also pretty much every engine burns a little bit of oil, which adds to the problem. NOx is actually a really tough problem to solve as VW discovered with their cheating diesels,
NOx is a problem for diesel (which works with excess air by design) but for a hybrid with an Atkinson cycle engine, the NOx emissions are really really low. A fraction of the Euro 6 limit. Again, lower than you can reach with a BEV powered from coal / natural gas power plants. With NOx and SO2, NIMBY just doesn't work as these gasses get blown around by the wind and end up everywhere.
Actually, a lot more cars could perform as good like the ones from Toyota where it comes to emissions from regular passenger cars. However, the European car manufacturers formed a cartel in which they agreed not to compete on emissions AND only do so much to stay within the legal limits where it comes to emissions. Mercedes rolled over and snitched but didn't have to pay the fines in return.
Capturing pollution from power plants doesn't work either. It simply isn't economically viable; otherwise they'd be doing it already. Electricity prices would become insane. Ofcourse a lot has been improved the past decades. Turning SO2 into gypsum has been done for decades already. But getting the last bits out, would be exponentially more expensive.
-
I just had a horrible thought.
A hillbillie playing around with liquid hydrogen.
Hydrogen is the wrong stuff for that. Look on Youtube for videos where people do stupid things with liquid oxygen. Everything burns with pure oxygen... Liquid hydrogen needs to mix with air first to become combustible so it is far less of an issue.
-
Industrial/farm equipment will likely transition to having on site LH2 tanks/pumps resupplied by tanker truck, once the LH2 infrastructure is in place for long haul trucking it's not an issue.
Large LH2 tanks have low enough evaporation rate you don't really need to take it into much consideration.
Onsite diesel tanks are low tech and require little maintenance.
Pressurised cryogenic tanks are high tech, and require regular maintenance and special skills to maintain. Conditions on a remote farm and the staff skillsets will remain, to use the standard euphemism, a challenge.
Modern day farm equipment is chuck full with electronics anyway. So a tank -which still is a passive device- won't matter much. Besides that, H2 isn't stored in a cryogenic tank at all but a normal tank that can withstand pressures up to 750 bar. If a farmer owns a blow torch, then the knowledge on how to deal with high pressure gas tanks is already present.
750 bar isn't "business as usual". Then add hydrogen embrittlement of metals, a topic which I haven't investigated.
I'll stand in a puddle of diesel while you throw a lighted match in it. Would you stand in a cloud of escaped hydrogen when I (remotely :) ) throw a lighted match at you?
-
Industrial/farm equipment will likely transition to having on site LH2 tanks/pumps resupplied by tanker truck, once the LH2 infrastructure is in place for long haul trucking it's not an issue.
Large LH2 tanks have low enough evaporation rate you don't really need to take it into much consideration.
Onsite diesel tanks are low tech and require little maintenance.
Pressurised cryogenic tanks are high tech, and require regular maintenance and special skills to maintain. Conditions on a remote farm and the staff skillsets will remain, to use the standard euphemism, a challenge.
Modern day farm equipment is chuck full with electronics anyway. So a tank -which still is a passive device- won't matter much. Besides that, H2 isn't stored in a cryogenic tank at all but a normal tank that can withstand pressures up to 750 bar. If a farmer owns a blow torch, then the knowledge on how to deal with high pressure gas tanks is already present.
750 bar isn't "business as usual". Then add hydrogen embrittlement of metals, a topic which I haven't investigated.
I'll stand in a puddle of diesel while you throw a lighted match in it. Would you stand in a cloud of escaped hydrogen when I (remotely :) ) throw a lighted match at you?
Embrittlement is not a problem. If you had investigated that, you wouldn't be parrotting about problems that don't exist. And sure you can throw a lit match to me. Hydrogen is so light that by the time the match is near me, the hydrogen is already gone. If you let 5kg (a full filling of a typical car) of hydrogen leak in a garage, then that garage will need to consist of less than 6 parking spaces in order to achieve a flammable mixture. These are not difficult math problems to solve. There is a whole lot of gut feeling stuff going on that makes no sense when you apply some math to it. Do as I do: only use your underbelly feeling to indicate when it is time to eat. For anything else: use a calculator.
-
Hydrogen embrittlement of metals is an important issue, when atomic hydrogen is present, although reduced at high temperatures.
Practical storage of hydrogen at high pressure usually has an inert lining inside a steel vessel, where the steel holds the stress from pressure but the thin plastic (or other) lining keeps the hydrogen from the iron.
Hydrogen embrittlement has been studied in great detail ever since the days of steam locomotives, where it represented practical limits to operating pressure.
The typical limit on steam pressure was around 250 psig (1.7 MPa =17 bar), later increased to 1500 psig (10 MPa = 100 bar) with special construction.
The usual source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement
-
So it is a known, well studied phenomenon with know countermeasures. IOW: not a problem.
-
I'm not that worried about hydrogen safety. The tanks are pretty leak proof, they might leak during an accident but comparably Li-Ion batteries aren't perfectly safe either and neither is ICE fuel. Plenty of post-crash car fires, as well as just car fires from bad maintenance or bad luck. The bigger issues are the end-to-end efficiency (which is really bad for hydrogen) and the production source for the hydrogen (it needs to be green, if it's used). I think the feasibility of solving these issues plus the high cost of fuel cells will exclude them from mass automotive usage any time soon but I'm waiting for those £20k hydrogen cars, we have £20k EVs already so surely they aren't far behind?
-
methane powered tractors seems an obvious solution,especially for livestock farms.
-
Onsite diesel tanks are low tech and require little maintenance.
Pressurised cryogenic tanks are high tech, and require regular maintenance and special skills to maintain. Conditions on a remote farm and the staff skillsets will remain, to use the standard euphemism, a challenge.
You don't use high pressure tanks, it's way more trouble than it's worth.
If there is a market for it you can make the pump assemblies easy to replace. Don't repair anything on site, just have a spare assembly delivered with all the tools to install it calibrated torque wrenches and all in hermetic packaging, which can be put in whole.
-
methane powered tractors seems an obvious solution,especially for livestock farms.
The problem with significant scale synthetic natural gas at net zero is that there's not a lot of CO2 to go around which isn't in the air. Sure there is (crop) waste incineration, but that's not a lot of CO2 in the grand scheme of things.
The only scalable solution for SNG is using direct carbon capture from the air. Liquid hydrogen is going to be expensive to use, synthetic natural gas at direct carbon capture scale is likely going to be even more expensive.
-
We know this, obvious is obvious, electric vehicles are a nonstarter and dead in the water. I don’t need to “qualify” my statement, the future will prove it
-
We know this, obvious is obvious, electric vehicles are a nonstarter and dead in the water. I don’t need to “qualify” my statement, the future will prove it
.
It will certainly disprove your silly conclusion.
BEVS will make up the majority of personal car transport within 10 years that’s the reality , a combination of changing social pressure , tax advantages and cost advantages will see to it.
Ice is dead as a dodo , it’s just a long runout in some cases but it will all gone in our kids lifetimes
-
Just like there are some Ford Model-T's around, there will still be ICE vehicles around. They will not go extinct. But the majority will not drive them.
-
We know this, obvious is obvious, electric vehicles are a nonstarter and dead in the water. I don’t need to “qualify” my statement, the future will prove it
.
It will certainly disprove your silly conclusion.
BEVS will make up the majority of personal car transport within 10 years that’s the reality , a combination of changing social pressure , tax advantages and cost advantages will see to it.
Not to mention that they're just so much nicer to use and drive, and convenient if you can charge at home.
In places with less reliable power, their potential as a temporary power source will also be a significant selling point.
Ask most EV drivers if they'd ever go back to ICE, very few would.
-
We know this, obvious is obvious, electric vehicles are a nonstarter and dead in the water. I don’t need to “qualify” my statement, the future will prove it
.
It will certainly disprove your silly conclusion.
BEVS will make up the majority of personal car transport within 10 years that’s the reality , a combination of changing social pressure , tax advantages and cost advantages will see to it.
Ice is dead as a dodo , it’s just a long runout in some cases but it will all gone in our kids lifetimes
Maybe in your little corner of the world. Car makers expect that 80% to 90% of world wide car sales will be ICE based by 2050.
-
Maybe in your little corner of the world. Car makers expect that 80% to 90% of world wide car sales will be ICE based by 2050.
[citation needed]
-
Maybe in your little corner of the world. Car makers expect that 80% to 90% of world wide car sales will be ICE based by 2050.
[citation needed]
See KPMG automotive reports.
-
There’s gonna be a world egg shortage for all the egg that’s gonna be all over the faces of the EV delusionals. Whoops.
-
See KPMG automotive reports.
The predictions are for 2030.
-
In the 2022 report, the only thing I can see relevant is that they believe EV's may not replace ICE by 2030 worldwide, they don't make any predictions about 2050. They are less optimistic than 2021 (possibly due to continuing semiconductor headaches.) Though they still believe cost parity for EV's will be met by 2030 - as observed in UK/EU cost parity has already been reached in some sectors like luxury/SUV and in other sectors it is approaching parity like in small cars.
This is just a survey of executives too, they would be quite happy to sell ICE vehicles as it's something they know well, EV's represent a risk that they would rather not take on.
Edit: Looks like Marco beat me to it :)
-
Not to mention that [BEV are] just so much nicer to use and drive, and convenient if you can charge at home.
That caveat is rather important and too easily (and frequently) overlooked by zealots.
Good luck with that in historic areas (where modifications are difficult to illegal) or high rise areas (tower blocks or flats) where there are no dedicated parking spaces, or there are too few parking spaces on the roads (think of the roads around Grenfell tower). ISTR reading that is about 40% of the population falls into those "traps".
In places with less reliable power, their potential as a temporary power source will also be a significant selling point.
Problem: have to make an unexpected (possibly emergency) journey, go to your BEV and find the battery charge has become insufficient. Expletives fill the air.
Ask most EV drivers if they'd ever go back to ICE, very few would.
That attitude is exactly what you would expect from enthusiastic "early adopters", for a variety of psychological reasons.
The first X% is always low-hanging fruit. The last X% is always the problem with bans and cutoff dates.
-
Just like there are some Ford Model-T's around, there will still be ICE vehicles around. They will not go extinct. But the majority will not drive them.
Not to mention that they're just so much nicer to use and drive, and convenient if you can charge at home.
In places with less reliable power, their potential as a temporary power source will also be a significant selling point.
Ask most EV drivers if they'd ever go back to ICE, very few would.
Exactly
Even now people are having their classic cars in storage and taking them for nice road trips.
It will just push all ICE vehicles to that category.
It is really nice to sit in a car with real leather and wood inside 8) And fire up a gas-guzzling noise-making machine. >:D
But BEVs are slowly becoming cheaper than ICEs. There are still not many BEVs in the affordable class, but in premium, you are very close in buying price and operation is cheaper.
So it is just a matter of time for most users.
Except for some rare cases with far far away locations where will be ICE with some backup synthetic fuel. You won't use BEV to travel from nowhere with the closest civilization a few days away. But this is a really rare case.
And even then it will be good to have one BEV to move around in close range.
-
What will be there for a longer time are motorcycles with ICE.
As there is an issue with range when you want to move at a reasonable speed.
At higher speed drag of a motorcycle with the rider sitting can be bigger than modern cars.
And you just have no way to carry that huge battery with you.
Plus most bikers are hugely conservative about it ;D
-
What will be there for a longer time are motorcycles with ICE.
Disagree. A motorcycle is far more suitable for electrification compared to a car. Also due to lack of emission controls on motorcycles, there is a lot more to gain.
-
What will be there for a longer time are motorcycles with ICE.
Disagree. A motorcycle is far more suitable for electrification compared to a car. Also due to lack of emission controls on motorcycles, there is a lot more to gain.
In that case for the owner the emissions are an "externality" (economists) or "SEP" (Douglas Adams).
-
Some perspectives ...
-> EV makers put China on course to overtake Japan as the world’s top car exporter (https://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/3208048/chinas-ev-makers-put-nation-course-overtake-japan-worlds-top-car-exporter?module=lead_hero_story&pgtype=homepage)
Quotes ...
.. "China exported 3.11 million vehicles in 2022 ...
.. "Japanese carmakers shipped 3.2 million vehicles abroad in the first 11 months of 2022 ..
-
There are a large number of EV manufacturers from China breaking through into the UK/EU market.
Off the top of my head you have MG (SAIC), Maxus vans (also SAIC), Ora (a small brand, only with the "Ora Cat" for now, a rather interesting vehicle - a subsidiary of Great Wall), as well as Nio (in EU already, entering UK market in 2023) and I've definitely seen some BYD buses around the UK too. Oh and Geely, who own Volvo, with Polestar and the Volvo Cars brand, as a more established brand, but they are making all Polestars in China right now.
The competition in the EV space will be fierce from China and Japan could very well lose their vehicular dominance if they fail to keep up with the competition. The lack of development from Nissan, still using the same outdated passively cooled battery packs that deteriorate almost as fast as a lettuce, and Toyota and Honda is rather telling. Of course, they're betting on hydrogen and ICE, but it's a very brave bet given where things look to be going.
Edit: corrected typo
-
Gosh the video in the opening post is just fantastic. He’s sane, rational, calm and logical. He’s also right on all counts.
-
We know this, obvious is obvious, electric vehicles are a nonstarter and dead in the water. I don’t need to “qualify” my statement, the future will prove it
.
It will certainly disprove your silly conclusion.
BEVS will make up the majority of personal car transport within 10 years that’s the reality , a combination of changing social pressure , tax advantages and cost advantages will see to it.
Ice is dead as a dodo , it’s just a long runout in some cases but it will all gone in our kids lifetimes
Maybe in your little corner of the world. Car makers expect that 80% to 90% of world wide car sales will be ICE based by 2050.
Those car makers will most likely be bankrupt long before 2050
-
In the 2022 report, the only thing I can see relevant is that they believe EV's may not replace ICE by 2030 worldwide, they don't make any predictions about 2050. They are less optimistic than 2021 (possibly due to continuing semiconductor headaches.) Though they still believe cost parity for EV's will be met by 2030 - as observed in UK/EU cost parity has already been reached in some sectors like luxury/SUV and in other sectors it is approaching parity like in small cars.
This is just a survey of executives too, they would be quite happy to sell ICE vehicles as it's something they know well, EV's represent a risk that they would rather not take on.
Edit: Looks like Marco beat me to it :)
"May not", in bullshit-free, plain speaking world, = "Absolutely won't AND we know it, but don't have the courage or honesty to admit it"
-
Even now people are having their classic cars in storage and taking them for nice road trips.
and many classic car owners are also getting them converted them to EV to make them more practical to use day-to-day, and outperform their ICE engines.
-
There are a large number of EV manufacturers from China breaking through into the UK/EU market.
Off the top of my head you have MG (SAIC), Maxus vans (also SAIC), Ora (a small brand, only with the "Ora Cat" for now, a rather interesting vehicle - a subsidiary of Great Wall), as well as Nio (in EU already, entering UK market in 2023) and I've definitely seen some BYD buses around the UK too. Oh and Geely, who own Volvo, with Polestar and the Volvo Cars brand, as a more established brand, but they are making all Polestars in China right now.
The competition in the EV space will be fierce from China and Japan could very well lose their vehicular dominance if they fail to keep up with the competition. The lack of development from Nissan, still using the same outdated passively cooled battery packs that deteriorate almost as fast as a lettuce, and Toyota and Honda is rather telling. Of course, they're betting on hydrogen and ICE, but it's a very brave bet given where things look to be going.
Edit: corrected typo
Funny so my nearly 6 year old leaf 30 kw has 80 % capacity remaining after 250,000 km.
-
There's video all over the Internet re: the new (concept) Dodge Charger. Nine different performance brackets (priced accordingly) and the max is 1100 HP and estimated to cost $115k plus options (there are always options). It even has 4 task modes: Drive, Drift, Drag and Donut. This thing should be a kick in the ass to drive.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2022/08/18/dodge-charger-daytona-ev-electric-muscle-car-fj-orig.cnn-business (https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2022/08/18/dodge-charger-daytona-ev-electric-muscle-car-fj-orig.cnn-business)
There are several other videos re: the probable 2024 release.
Talk about 'conspicuous consumption' of kWh...
My wife just said there will be no tapping of the 401(k) to buy a hotrod - she has no sense of adventure...
-
In the 2022 report, the only thing I can see relevant is that they believe EV's may not replace ICE by 2030 worldwide, they don't make any predictions about 2050. They are less optimistic than 2021 (possibly due to continuing semiconductor headaches.) Though they still believe cost parity for EV's will be met by 2030 - as observed in UK/EU cost parity has already been reached in some sectors like luxury/SUV and in other sectors it is approaching parity like in small cars.
This is just a survey of executives too, they would be quite happy to sell ICE vehicles as it's something they know well, EV's represent a risk that they would rather not take on.
Edit: Looks like Marco beat me to it :)
"May not", in bullshit-free, plain speaking world, = "Absolutely won't AND we know it, but don't have the courage or honesty to admit it"
Most commentators and politicos know the date is not cast in stone , it’s an aspiration , and no doubt individual countries will evaluate as the date approaches ( as will the EU) if excemptions are needed.
What’s clear is that categories where BEV substitutes exist will be subject to the ban and furthermore excemptions will be granted to specific categories where a Bev substitute is not readily available , the current thinking is freight , heavy equipment and certain business categories.
However the personal car ban will remain in one form or another
-
In the 2022 report, the only thing I can see relevant is that they believe EV's may not replace ICE by 2030 worldwide, they don't make any predictions about 2050. They are less optimistic than 2021 (possibly due to continuing semiconductor headaches.) Though they still believe cost parity for EV's will be met by 2030 - as observed in UK/EU cost parity has already been reached in some sectors like luxury/SUV and in other sectors it is approaching parity like in small cars.
This is just a survey of executives too, they would be quite happy to sell ICE vehicles as it's something they know well, EV's represent a risk that they would rather not take on.
Edit: Looks like Marco beat me to it :)
"May not", in bullshit-free, plain speaking world, = "Absolutely won't AND we know it, but don't have the courage or honesty to admit it"
Most commentators and politicos know the date is not cast in stone , it’s an aspiration , and no doubt individual countries will evaluate as the date approaches ( as will the EU) if excemptions are needed.
What’s clear is that categories where BEV substitutes exist will be subject to the ban and furthermore excemptions will be granted to specific categories where a Bev substitute is not readily available , the current thinking is freight , heavy equipment and certain business categories.
However the personal car ban will remain in one form or another
I may "aspire" to fly to Pluto on a paper aeroplane... but it won't ever happen. This EV stuff en masse, won't ever happen. No need for "rebuttals" or other such, just allow time to unfold, wait and see.
-
There's video all over the Internet re: the new (concept) Dodge Charger. Nine different performance brackets (priced accordingly) and the max is 1100 HP and estimated to cost $115k plus options (there are always options). It even has 4 task modes: Drive, Drift, Drag and Donut. This thing should be a kick in the ass to drive.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2022/08/18/dodge-charger-daytona-ev-electric-muscle-car-fj-orig.cnn-business (https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2022/08/18/dodge-charger-daytona-ev-electric-muscle-car-fj-orig.cnn-business)
There are several other videos re: the probable 2024 release.
Talk about 'conspicuous consumption' of kWh...
My wife just said there will be no tapping of the 401(k) to buy a hotrod - she has no sense of adventure...
It's notable that Ferrari has finally admitted they will make an EV. They say that almost half of their sales by 2030 will be electric too, that's a complete turnaround from their prior stance of "electric has no future".
The fastest accelerating vehicles out there are going to be EVs simply because it is easier to build an EV powertrain for peak power, it uses less weight and volume, and packaging batteries is less of a challenge than it once was with pouch and prismatic cells. With EV there is no disadvantage from a gearbox or power banding giving continuous high power but at the same time these vehicles can be unreasonably efficient. Hence why you see an 1100hp monster but it probably still achieves at least 2.5 miles per kWh. What's the fuel economy of the 6.2L V8 in the Hellcat... about 12 mpg(US) city/21 mpg highway, so probably 15 mpg real world average.
Top speed and track vehicles will be ICE for some time; Formula 1 will remain ICE with hybrid function because it's just not possible to hit the power-weight-endurance metrics with electric just yet. Hydrogen might actually work quite well here, though they'd probably have to use even higher than 700 bar pressure to get the density into the vehicle.
-
There are a large number of EV manufacturers from China breaking through into the UK/EU market.
he competition in the EV space will be fierce from China and Japan could very well lose their vehicular dominance if they fail to keep up with the competition. The lack of development from TNissan, still using the same outdated passively cooled battery packs that deteriorate almost as fast as a lettuce, and Toyota and Honda is rather telling. Of course, they're betting on hydrogen and ICE, but it's a very brave bet given where things look to be going.
You keep going around in circles with this. But the annual KPMG reports are pretty clear and Toyota + Nissan not being in a hurry to switch over the massive EV production, should tell you the future isn't set in stone yet AND very likely different from what you expect. The error in your reasoning is that you are extrapolating from the growth rate for something that is still in it's infancy stage. Toyota OTOH is playing the long game here. They are steering the company towards products they can sell in the future.
Just look at Europe. The number of electric cars is below 1% of all cars and at some point sales will level off because a BEV doesn't make sense to buy for the majority of people.
-
You keep going around in circles with this. But the annual KPMG reports are pretty clear and Toyota + Nissan not being in a hurry to switch over the massive EV production, should tell you the future isn't set in stone yet AND very likely different from what you expect. The error in your reasoning is that you are extrapolating from the growth rate for something that is still in it's infancy stage. Toyota OTOH is playing the long game here. They are steering the company towards products they can sell in the future.
My argument is simple, these manufacturers are missing the boat. The Japanese are very conservative, and it practically took a revolt on the Toyota board to get Toyota to even consider making an EV. (It sucks, by the way. But at least they're trying.) And Nissan only developed an EV because Renault pushed them to explore the technology and Ghosn was a pretty shrewd businessman. You could equally look at the US and European manufacturers and see how they are getting into EVs significantly now. 5 years ago the idea of Ford making anything other than a converted ICE (Focus EV) was laughable and now they've electrified their top seller, F-150, and it's selling like mad. 3 years ago BMW's answer to EV's was the i3, now they have a full range.
Just look at Europe. The number of electric cars is below 1% of all cars and at some point sales will level off because a BEV doesn't make sense to buy for the majority of people.
Exponentials are a bit like that. I'd argue we're at the same situation Microsoft/Nokia/RIM were in, back in 2008. Cars last a lot longer than phones but also have longer development cycles, so if Toyota don't have a Corolla, Camry and Auris answer to the EV question soon enough they're going to become really stuck soon, and they're going to lose market share to the Chinese manufacturers who can offer competitive cost, quality and performance.
I've sat in an MG4 EV and driven it. It's genuinely impressive how far these manufacturers have come. The vehicle drives as sharp as my Golf, is quiet on the road, and has a quality interior with decent plastics and comfortable seats. Under the 'hood' the electronics and power components are laid out like any professional automotive production (unlike Tesla, there is no Home Depot trim). And they offer a 7 year warranty that covers practically everything on the car. They're coming for Toyota's lunch.
-
It will just push all ICE vehicles to that category.
They will be competing with all the other legacy users for bio/synth fuel, with synth fuel production cost setting the price. Not enough arable land in the world to do it with biofuel alone, the legacy market will be too f'ing huge. Only synthetic with air captured CO2 scales at net zero.
You will be able to take your old timer out of the garage and go to the pump for some synth fuel, but you will have running costs of a couple multiples. Which is not really a problem for an old timer, since it's just a luxury/hobby. Hell old timer motor bikes will be usable as an every day vehicle even for people who have to be careful with their money, given the negligible fuel consumption.
If it's a diesel you could sneak in some food grade vegetable oil, the tax regime will likely keep that cheap (by forcing the unsustainable/unscaleable biofuel producers off the market).
-
There are a large number of EV manufacturers from China breaking through into the UK/EU market.
he competition in the EV space will be fierce from China and Japan could very well lose their vehicular dominance if they fail to keep up with the competition. The lack of development from TNissan, still using the same outdated passively cooled battery packs that deteriorate almost as fast as a lettuce, and Toyota and Honda is rather telling. Of course, they're betting on hydrogen and ICE, but it's a very brave bet given where things look to be going.
You keep going around in circles with this. But the annual KPMG reports are pretty clear and Toyota + Nissan not being in a hurry to switch over the massive EV production, should tell you the future isn't set in stone yet AND very likely different from what you expect. The error in your reasoning is that you are extrapolating from the growth rate for something that is still in it's infancy stage. Toyota OTOH is playing the long game here. They are steering the company towards products they can sell in the future.
Just look at Europe. The number of electric cars is below 1% of all cars and at some point sales will level off because a BEV doesn't make sense to buy for the majority of people.
Toyota actually made a 180. New CEO. News for today.
-
There are a large number of EV manufacturers from China breaking through into the UK/EU market.
he competition in the EV space will be fierce from China and Japan could very well lose their vehicular dominance if they fail to keep up with the competition. The lack of development from TNissan, still using the same outdated passively cooled battery packs that deteriorate almost as fast as a lettuce, and Toyota and Honda is rather telling. Of course, they're betting on hydrogen and ICE, but it's a very brave bet given where things look to be going.
You keep going around in circles with this. But the annual KPMG reports are pretty clear and Toyota + Nissan not being in a hurry to switch over the massive EV production, should tell you the future isn't set in stone yet AND very likely different from what you expect. The error in your reasoning is that you are extrapolating from the growth rate for something that is still in it's infancy stage. Toyota OTOH is playing the long game here. They are steering the company towards products they can sell in the future.
Just look at Europe. The number of electric cars is below 1% of all cars and at some point sales will level off because a BEV doesn't make sense to buy for the majority of people.
Toyota actually made a 180. New CEO. News for today.
I can't find any reference that Toyota is shifting their strategy. Just a new CEO which could happen for any number of reasons.
-
This topic is just the kind of comedy PLATINUM we need in these often dark times. Keep it coming, it's great for a chortle, imagining that we are all gonna be plugging in our oversized toy cars and trundling around in some imaginary "Eco" Utopia ;D ;D
The fact that SO MANY people have bought into this, just shows that even the brightest minds can be utterly fooled by subtle, slowly-creeping marketing brainwashing and political agenda "Eco" BOLLOCKS.
-
There are a large number of EV manufacturers from China breaking through into the UK/EU market.
he competition in the EV space will be fierce from China and Japan could very well lose their vehicular dominance if they fail to keep up with the competition. The lack of development from TNissan, still using the same outdated passively cooled battery packs that deteriorate almost as fast as a lettuce, and Toyota and Honda is rather telling. Of course, they're betting on hydrogen and ICE, but it's a very brave bet given where things look to be going.
You keep going around in circles with this. But the annual KPMG reports are pretty clear and Toyota + Nissan not being in a hurry to switch over the massive EV production, should tell you the future isn't set in stone yet AND very likely different from what you expect. The error in your reasoning is that you are extrapolating from the growth rate for something that is still in it's infancy stage. Toyota OTOH is playing the long game here. They are steering the company towards products they can sell in the future.
Just look at Europe. The number of electric cars is below 1% of all cars and at some point sales will level off because a BEV doesn't make sense to buy for the majority of people.
Believing "reports" as a gold standard is pretty amusing, and shows great gullibility in a person. You maybe understand that "reports" are paid to be written, and heavily biased toward the agenda of the one paying. ;)
-
Top speed and track vehicles will be ICE for some time; Formula 1 will remain ICE with hybrid function because it's just not possible to hit the power-weight-endurance metrics with electric just yet. Hydrogen might actually work quite well here, though they'd probably have to use even higher than 700 bar pressure to get the density into the vehicle.
Formula E exists but the cars are rather slow compared to Formula I.
NASCAR is looking at EVs. Currently ICE cars are limited to 670 HP and the EVs will be limited to something north of 1000 HP. If they can get the car to stay on the track it should be fun (and quiet) to watch. Seeing that much steel not making noise ought to be interesting.
NASCAR will also use 3 electric motors. I wonder if the rear axel gets one and each of the front wheels gets another. Then I wonder if the electronics package helps with steering by individually controlling the front motors.
-
They will be competing with all the other legacy users for bio/synth fuel, with synth fuel production cost setting the price. Not enough arable land in the world to do it with biofuel alone, the legacy market will be too f'ing huge. Only synthetic with air captured CO2 scales at net zero.
Or biofuel from ocean algae, 3x as much ocean area as land area. That said, just making use of otherwise unused/underused land is an easier place to start.
-
Or biofuel from ocean algae, 3x as much ocean area as land area.
Nutrient density sucks though and it's not easily fertilized.
That said, just making use of otherwise unused/underused land is an easier place to start.
You'd be likely damaging biodiversity unless you're putting closed bioreactors in the desert, but bioreactors are expensive.
There will be some profitable niches, but ultimately you need scalable solutions. It's not enough to start, you have to finish ... and at the finish the scalable solutions will set the price.
-
Formula E exists but the cars are rather slow compared to Formula I.
The hydrogen industry should sponsor a LH2+Fuel cell Formula class (and a LeMans team). Fuel Cells with power density near high performance engines have been demonstrated (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28970-w).
Toyata and Glickenhaus are planning liquid hydrogen ICE endurance racers already, but I'd prefer fuel cells ... though I think the politics of racing isn't ready for an electrical class which outperforms Formula 1 on every metric.
-
F1 has never been about best performance. Rules have been adjusted several times to keep all teams somewhat competitive.
-
F1 has never been about best performance. Rules have been adjusted several times to keep all teams somewhat competitive.
But it is supposed to be the number 1 Formula class in performance and prestige, a LH2+Fuel cell class with high end engineering and not artificially crippled would endanger it's perceived performance crown and with it its prestige.
On the other hand that's why it presents a big chance for the hydrogen industry, it has great symbolic value.
-
You'd be likely damaging biodiversity unless you're putting closed bioreactors in the desert, but bioreactors are expensive.
I was thinking of making good use of front and back yards and the like.
-
In the 2022 report, the only thing I can see relevant is that they believe EV's may not replace ICE by 2030 worldwide, they don't make any predictions about 2050. They are less optimistic than 2021 (possibly due to continuing semiconductor headaches.) Though they still believe cost parity for EV's will be met by 2030 - as observed in UK/EU cost parity has already been reached in some sectors like luxury/SUV and in other sectors it is approaching parity like in small cars.
This is just a survey of executives too, they would be quite happy to sell ICE vehicles as it's something they know well, EV's represent a risk that they would rather not take on.
Edit: Looks like Marco beat me to it :)
"May not", in bullshit-free, plain speaking world, = "Absolutely won't AND we know it, but don't have the courage or honesty to admit it"
Most commentators and politicos know the date is not cast in stone , it’s an aspiration , and no doubt individual countries will evaluate as the date approaches ( as will the EU) if excemptions are needed.
What’s clear is that categories where BEV substitutes exist will be subject to the ban and furthermore excemptions will be granted to specific categories where a Bev substitute is not readily available , the current thinking is freight , heavy equipment and certain business categories.
However the personal car ban will remain in one form or another
I may "aspire" to fly to Pluto on a paper aeroplane... but it won't ever happen. This EV stuff en masse, won't ever happen. No need for "rebuttals" or other such, just allow time to unfold, wait and see.
So I see in your part of the word canals carry coal and steam locomotives haul passagners !!! For a technical forum there sure are a lot of Luddite’s around here.
Drive a modern BEV. it’s a better car all round then it’s ice counterpart that’s the key to Bev success.
-
I don't see why the debate is framed in terms of "everyone will have EV cars" or "no one will have EV cars". People for whom an EV is not a good fit seem to be adamant that it is therefore a fit for no one.
I did the math on an EV purchase for my circumstances (lifestyle, taxes etc), it pays for itself over the time I plan to keep it and I got a lot more car than I would have buying ICE.
Would I have bought it if the math didn't work out? No*
Does the math work the same for everyone else? No.
It's pretty simple cost/benefit analysis, 30 mins with a spreadsheet and an objective mind makes the decision easy either way.
*Though I would now factor in that EVs are a vastly superior experience, I'd hate to go back, but if the math said so, I would.
-
My reasons for not wanting an electric car are that they are simply too powerful. I'm perfectly happy at around the 200 hp-220 hp ballpark. If I were to get a car with even just a small amount more I would hate it because it would make me feel nervous about driving it. As it is now my current car is producing less than 200hp, at 183 hp, and that is brand new specs.
I learned driving a car with no more than 140 hp at 3750rpm when new, it definitley had less than that when I was driving it. It was perfectly adequate because it also had 316nm of torque at 2400 rpm. It was also lighter than modern cars. I don't understand why people today need these high powered cars it just makes the road conditions more unsafe and gives you less time to react.
What I'm mainly interested in is low down torque and towing capacity and fuel economy.
There is no car currently on the market and there won't be one for quite a while IF EVER that is mainly focused on low cost and low power outputs with high torque outputs for additional towing capacity and is a wagon or utility.
My requirements are that it also be low to the ground, because I have to get my mum in and out of the car as she is an invalid, but the electric cars that come close to my requirements are far too overpowered and too high off the ground. So because of this requirement the only options out there are a Toyota Camry but even then they aren't a wagon and they aren't exactly known for their towing prowess and Toyota don't make a camry thats all electric. And the Camry is front wheel drive. And manufacturers usually go all out when putting power to the ground in new electric cars.
With respect your summary of current BEV options is way off. Most current small BEVs are low power fro to wheel drive It’s only the higher end is high power 4WD. Look at offerings from Hyundai , Peugeot, Kia , Nissan , sine of the vW ID range etc. these are fairly “ straightforward “ cars , some are tow rated now also
Tow rated BEVs are quite new but more are coming , in fact no doubt we’ll see more tow rated BEVs in the future but right now it’s a compromise
But things like the Kia or Hyundai or a new Nissan leaf would easily meet your requirements , ( sill height etc ) try a test drive or two to get a feel !
-
For a technical forum there sure are a lot of Luddite’s around here.
We're not stupid. Not everything brand new is good or safe or wise.
The Atom bomb for example.
Equally “ old “ stuff isn’t great either , a argument on technical merits is fine , nonsense about conspiracy and climate denier stuff just makes for nonsense debates
My experience is people who don’t own a Bev or haven’t driven one tend to have all sorts of “ perceived” negatives that prove false once they start to use a Bev or get familiar with them. Range anxiety is usually the first thing to get dropped . These “ perceived negatives “tend to hypothetical negatives not based on how actually they use their cars or how they change their motoring habits when they change to BEVS
-
I’m just sitting here, laughing at how supposedly intelligent people are so gullible
-
I’m just sitting here, laughing at how supposedly intelligent people are so gullible
Or entrenched viewpoints held by the ill-informed Who seem to read largely conspiracy websites nonsense |O
-
I’m just sitting here, laughing at how supposedly intelligent people are so gullible
Or entrenched viewpoints held by the ill-informed Who seem to read largely conspiracy websites nonsense |O
How is facing up the hard realities which the early adopters avoid at all costs or “forget” to mention, any form of “conspiracy”?
You loonies.
-
What “ hard “‘realities , just stick to technical ones. Politics isvt discussed rationally here
-
My reasons for not wanting an electric car are that they are simply too powerful. I'm perfectly happy at around the 200 hp-220 hp ballpark. If I were to get a car with even just a small amount more I would hate it because it would make me feel nervous about driving it. As it is now my current car is producing less than 200hp, at 183 hp, and that is brand new specs.
First, most EVs are probably more in the 150-300hp range than the 300+ hp range. But also, perhaps unlike an ICE, the accelerator pedal is quite different on an EV. It is not controlling throttle position but torque request. So if you want less power you press it less and there's really no chance of it accelerating faster than you expect. Some cars have an 'eco' mode which limits power to <50% as well. (Tesla 'chill' mode for instance is like driving a small 1.4L city car, I think the 0-60 time is about 10 seconds.)
I learned driving a car with no more than 140 hp at 3750rpm when new, it definitley had less than that when I was driving it. It was perfectly adequate because it also had 316nm of torque at 2400 rpm. It was also lighter than modern cars. I don't understand why people today need these high powered cars it just makes the road conditions more unsafe and gives you less time to react.
Like having good brakes is important, having extra acceleration can be a safety feature. For instance, if you have to emerge from the emergency bay on a highway into fast moving traffic, if your car can get up to speed quickly, you will pose less of a hazard to other traffic. A lot of roads in the UK also have very short slip roads onto 70 mph dual carriageways, these can be very difficult to merge out unless you get lucky and there is a very long gap. Finally, things like passing tractors or other slow moving vehicles on single carriageway roads, you want to get from 20 to 60 reasonably quickly, so that you are in the oncoming lane for as little time as possible.
What I'm mainly interested in is low down torque and towing capacity and fuel economy.
There is no car currently on the market and there won't be one for quite a while IF EVER that is mainly focused on low cost and low power outputs with high torque outputs for additional towing capacity and is a wagon or utility.
ISTR the electric F-150 is offered still with low range gearbox, but yes we will probably need more cars here before they're competitive with the ICE versions. There's no reason a manufacturer couldn't stick a low range gearbox on the output of a standard EV motor.
My requirements are that it also be low to the ground, because I have to get my mum in and out of the car as she is an invalid, but the electric cars that come close to my requirements are far too overpowered and too high off the ground. So because of this requirement the only options out there are a Toyota Camry but even then they aren't a wagon and they aren't exactly known for their towing prowess and Toyota don't make a camry thats all electric. And the Camry is front wheel drive. And manufacturers usually go all out when putting power to the ground in new electric cars.
A lot of EVs ride no higher than regular cars, but also a lot of EVs are SUVs. So what you want is more like a station wagon EV? The only ones I can think of are the Audi e-tron sportback, and the MG5 EV. The MG5 is pretty cheap (for a new car), the Audi is not.
-
What “ hard “‘realities , just stick to technical ones. Politics isvt discussed rationally here
Who mentioned politics? 🤨
-
What “ hard “‘realities , just stick to technical ones. Politics isvt discussed rationally here
Who mentioned politics? 🤨
All the climate politics BS and running down govs etc. it’s a BS argument distraction
Today in many countries the vast typical usages of private car transport can be delivered with BEVs and are being done so in many countries often at cheaper running costs to boot.
With incentives BEVs are cheaper to buy , cheaper to run, tax and insure. No pollution at point of use , There’s little to find wrong in practice
-
All this talk, none of it changes what the passage of time will show that came to pass. Physics and reality don’t change just because the minority and the green washing have an agenda and technological wet dreams over some sci-fi future bollocks they read in comics as kids. Wake up you dummies.
-
All this talk, none of it changes what the passage of time will show that came to pass. Physics and reality don’t change just because the minority and the green washing have an agenda and technological wet dreams over some sci-fi future bollocks they read in comics as kids. Wake up you dummies.
The current crop of BEVs delivers transport needs for a quite large subsection of car owners that’s the reality in countries that have planned well. Sure certain sectors will have to wait. But when I drive into the capital I can count multiple BEVs on the motorway in
The physics works well as does the charging infrastructure and various incentives it’s the biggest driving car sector currently
As I have 6 years ownership and 250 ,000km on my Leaf I can speak with practical experience it’s a lot nicer to use and run than my recent. Diesel pickup !!!
-
You will be able to take your old timer out of the garage and go to the pump for some synth fuel, but you will have running costs of a couple multiples. Which is not really a problem for an old timer, since it's just a luxury/hobby. Hell old timer motor bikes will be usable as an every day vehicle even for people who have to be careful with their money, given the negligible fuel consumption.
If it's a diesel you could sneak in some food grade vegetable oil, the tax regime will likely keep that cheap (by forcing the unsustainable/unscaleable biofuel producers off the market).
Yup, even with 10 times the fuel price, it won't be a big deal for classic cars.
But the fuel consumption of motorbikes looks like it has some myths.
When I take a typical 70s 80s bike, it has worse mileage than a modern car.
It still is not that huge deal but far from cheap.
Old bikes easily take 6-8 even 10 l/100km
-
Yeah but can your leaf do this? (and by this I mean make a heap of noise, catch fire, explode and put on a show)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHqAvCLopj8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHqAvCLopj8)
Or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2eWHNSaSZU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2eWHNSaSZU)
Or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZnRcGuJbW4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZnRcGuJbW4)
Or this?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeaxxSej2fw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeaxxSej2fw)
Play all videos at the same time for maximum effect.
Again how is this relevant. We’re trying to move away from chilish nonsense like that , environmentally damaging , this type of stuff needs banning and drivers penalised
-
For a technical forum there sure are a lot of Luddite’s around here.
Drive a modern BEV. it’s a better car all round then it’s ice counterpart that’s the key to Bev success.
I don't think anyone is questioning here that a BEV is nicer then a ICE car. It is when it has the proper range.
The question is whether or not this is the right way of fixing the global warming problem, whether or not the power grid can handle it, and if we can expand the EV production capacity by 10000% in ~8 years time. And the answer to all these questions is a no.
Other industries are more polluting, and fixing them is cheaper.
The power grid is not clean enough to actually reduce pollution if we switch to EVs, those need to be fixed first. Capacity might be an issue in some places. An EV is terrible when powered by a coal fired plant.
And no, we cannot increase the capacity to 100x the current one. Nor should we. This is the early adapter phase, making the production plants without solid state battery in mind is stupid. The tech is just soo much better and cheaper and safer. It will pretty much make all existing EVs obsolete, and impossible to sell on the second hand market, because nobody wants to have the "explody type" BEV after it comes out. Plus there are existing new plants, making cars that eat 5L instead of 12L and every time someone switches to such a car is a win. Or would you seriously force someone who uses their car 1000 km a year to buy a new EV instead of their 15 year old ICE, planning to use it for another 10 years? How is that for CO2 balance?
So can you please stop projecting your wishes because they are not compatible with reality.
-
#1
The safety for the occupants only of a Tesla, Complete mayhem if they are pedestrians in the way and the Tesla is barrelling toward them. Or inside of a "lesser" car. Or on a motorcycle.
How is this different to a regular car? Or are you talking about autopilot... because that's fairly unique to Tesla's. But either way not really relevant to EVs.
#2
Even higher powered electric vehicles in the hands of people who were driving around in older Petrol cars.
Power output won't remain at lower levels, it will continue to go up and up and up well into the performance of 2,000 hp or even 3,000 hp vehicles, on public roads. In the hands of inexperienced everyday drivers.
Not sure about this. Cars like the Leaf, Zoe, ID.3, e-208 for European EV's, for instance, are all in the 200hp-or-less category. They are really no faster than mid range petrol cars. They have slightly better torque but their 0-60 times are comparable.
What's more dangerous than anything, especially in the city, is speed, not acceleration, and even a 0.9L Fiat 500 can be dangerous in that situation. In fact, if anything, EV's are less dangerous in that their top speed is typically under 100 mph due to their single gear design. Tesla and the like can go much faster due to having motors that can turn faster, but these are expensive to build.
It costs more to build an EV with a bigger motor - these cars need bigger battery packs, different cells, thicker current collectors and the inverters, motors and gearbox components need to be uprated too. So manufacturers won't just produce 1000 hp EVs as a standard subcompact car, because the market won't want to pay the extra $20,000 in components that requires. Also, such power in a small vehicle is useless for anything but drag racing, you need a good suspension and large tyres to actually use that torque on a track. Such components imply greater weight and cost, and bigger tyres tend to be less efficient due to higher rolling resistance.
So in short, no, I don't think your little subcompact city car will go up to 1,000 hp, and I suspect for Golf-to-Corolla sized cars the power output will stay around the 200 hp mark, with only 'sport' models offering more than that. 2,000 to 3,000 hp - you do realise the latter figure is >2000kW? For even an 800V EV (only a few cars are using that architecture now, most are 400V, including Tesla) that is well over 2,500A peak current, just think about the implications for wiring and motor design to accommodate that, no way we will see that any time soon except in the ultra high end performance category where $250k+ price tags look cheap.
#3
Complete ignorance of the pollution problem, that is pushing the pollution onto Coal power plants "out of sight out of mind".
In a time when coal plants are progressively being taken offline and wind and nuclear are beginning to dominate the grid.
#4
Insane expense of an electric car and a brand new charging network needing to be built.
Well, the cars are definitely more expensive, for now. As for the charging network a lot of it is built up already, it needs to be scaled for demand so instead of 2 spaces we need 16+. That will cost a bit too. The alternative is building more hydrogen filling stations which cost even more.
#5
The added pollution from making all of these new electric cars when people will most likely crush their older ICE vehicles instead of running them on the roads for longer. Where are those ICE vehicles going? Oh right, landfill, creating even more pollution.
No, this has been debunked a number of times. In general, an EV is expected to be net-beneficial on emissions by around the 2nd or 3rd year of ownership. Also, ICE should be phased out slowly, with the vehicles just not being built past a certain date and allowed to die a 'natural death'. It may be necessary to accelerate this process if emissions targets aren't reached in time but it's not clear yet if that will be necessary.
#6
The slave labour of Lithium mining hasn't been addressed, only ignored.
The majority of lithium for electric vehicle battery packs comes from Australia, Chile and Argentina, countries which do not use slave labour.
#7
The danger of a battery pack catching fire to top it off.
Sure, it's a different risk, but a battery pack is much less likely to burn than an ICE vehicle fire, given they use flammable fuel and oil, have very hot exhaust and engine components and require good maintenance to prevent these components from causing fire (e.g. oil leaks onto exhaust parts.)
-
All this talk, none of it changes what the passage of time will show that came to pass. Physics and reality don’t change just because the minority and the green washing have an agenda and technological wet dreams over some sci-fi future bollocks they read in comics as kids. Wake up you dummies.
Are we on a Facebook boomer group?
This kind of message doesn't really invite to civil conversation.
-
whether or not the power grid can handle it,
Doubtful in the uk considering were already being threatened with blackouts ,and thats 2 years before new builds stop getting a gas supply,no point for developers paying for a gas supply when all it can be used for is cooking.Has the uk invested in additional infrastructer to deal with that demand? And in the 5 years after that is anything being done to deal with the extra demand expected from 2030? o yea hinkley c ,due to come online in 2025 2028 2030 2036,lets hope until then every day is windy and sunny.
-
When you seriously it look at grid capacity theta is no issue supporting increasing BEV populations , thd grid will need expanding but that’s happening anyway equally PV production is also taking a share too , the grid issue is eminently fixable and some of it has been classic poor investment and limited thinking
BEVs are not all coming at once
The power generation grid is also itself changing to greener production and its easier to change this then support ice cars. In fact here it’s data centres that are challenging the grid not BEVs.
That’s simply no future in ice cars it’s poisoning our cities and the damage processing hydrocarbons is huge
Most BEVs are not teslas and won’t be. Most BEVs will be low power runaround’s. Typically like the ice car mix today isn’t all porches either here the small Bev reigns suptemr just like the taxation system makes owning big Ice very expensive. When you’re paying €3000in annual road tax and a fortune in “ benefit in kind” on company cars you tend to avoid high end vehicles.
Hence it not all Tesla’s the future Bev is likely to be small compact and cheap to run serving urban dwellers or people with low daily commutes ( < 50km) etc. thd evidence is parking charges , comjestion charges etc are combining younger generations to avoid buying cars at all.
Also governments are in tandem improving public transport investing in light rail etc. so it’s a multi pronged approach allied with changes in urban planning moving away from settlements that demand car access.
This isnt a single solution. But what’s clear is ice As a means of powering personal transport is on its way out and frankly it’s time we abandoned that 19th century bag of bolts that is the ice , electric motors are better traction engines anyway.
-
All this talk, none of it changes what the passage of time will show that came to pass. Physics and reality don’t change just because the minority and the green washing have an agenda and technological wet dreams over some sci-fi future bollocks they read in comics as kids. Wake up you dummies.
The current crop of BEVs delivers transport needs for a quite large subsection of car owners that’s the reality in countries that have planned well. Sure certain sectors will have to wait. But when I drive into the capital I can count multiple BEVs on the motorway in
So far the low-hanging <5% of fruit has been picked. The last 40% will be much more difficult.
The physics works well as does the charging infrastructure and various incentives it’s the biggest driving car sector currently
From that we can infer you don't live in West London where new housing developments are on hold due to the insufficient electricty infrastructure.
Your comment suggests you might live somewhere like
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.8985412,-0.0282761,3a,75y,104.17h,83.66t/data= (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.8985412,-0.0282761,3a,75y,104.17h,83.66t/data=)!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sjliSnimn1zE2RFfzG_Wbsg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i42
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5722587,-0.175047,3a,75y,290.94h,82.37t/data= (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5722587,-0.175047,3a,75y,290.94h,82.37t/data=)!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sCRVzP0KHuT4DU2ziD3GDJA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i42
We can also infer you don't live in desirable middle class places like
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3863906,-2.366496,3a,75y,122.01h,90.7t/data= (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3863906,-2.366496,3a,75y,122.01h,90.7t/data=)!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sceh1CxJgNP3k2_czZUfp2w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.201124,0.1345726,3a,75y,302.94h,88.69t/data= (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.201124,0.1345726,3a,75y,302.94h,88.69t/data=)!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9Fb-TCa2E4uMDMIGUamFNA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
nor less desirable places like
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4401703,-2.6039083,3a,75y,3.41h,81.14t/data= (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4401703,-2.6039083,3a,75y,3.41h,81.14t/data=)!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sr-TU_EJ0nRGzhSgdnI5tXw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i42
Hint: a very large number of dwellings don't have assigned parking, so - even where they can afford it - individual's simply cannot install chargers. In some cases they have tried workarounds, were defeated, and were forced to sell their BEV.
-
Also governments are in tandem improving public transport investing in light rail etc.
:-DD yea thats why there was a report on the uk's national news the other day about the threat of cutbacks in government funding for public transport,and how large areas of the population already have no access to it
-
I’m just sitting here, laughing at how supposedly intelligent people are so gullible
Or entrenched viewpoints held by the ill-informed Who seem to read largely conspiracy websites nonsense |O
How is facing up the hard realities which the early adopters avoid at all costs or “forget” to mention, any form of “conspiracy”?
You loonies.
I had an electric car on a monthly subscription, I could have ditched at any time. I only did when I got fed up with the company supplying the cars. I am now getting a car through work, I have had to go back to petrol for what is hopefully only until May, I can't wait to get back into an electric car again.
What are these things that "we" EV drivers won't talk about?
-
Also governments are in tandem improving public transport investing in light rail etc.
:-DD yea thats why there was a report on the uk's national news the other day about the threat of cutbacks in government funding for public transport,and how large areas of the population already have no access to it
The evidence is that roadside fast chargers will be the preferred charging of BEVs as power ratings climb not house based charging hehce this argument about lack of driveway precludes BEVs flrrs in face of what home charging studies have shown. Planners see home charging as merely one constitute of the total charging solution. Not the “ only” way to charge BEVs
-
Also governments are in tandem improving public transport investing in light rail etc.
:-DD yea thats why there was a report on the uk's national news the other day about the threat of cutbacks in government funding for public transport,and how large areas of the population already have no access to it
There are fundamental reasons why public transport isn't viable and the most notable is population density and proximity to working locations.
In some areas, big cities are 'vertical' meaning high rise office buildings, high rise apartments/condominiums and little open space. It's pretty easy to serve these with mass transit because a single stop might serve 10,000 jobs and an equivalent number of living units.
Horizontal areas, like most of California, are not well served by mass transit because there would be far too many stops spread over miles of destinations.
So, how to solve the horizontal problem? Simple, build parking lots so people can drive to and from the station. But what do they do at the other end? Have two cars? I lived 60 miles from downtown Silicon Gulch and the closest mass transit came to my company was about a mile away and uphill in both directions. Do they really think I'm going to walk a mile in the rain (if it rains) to get to work? The nearest pickup point was about half way so I still had a 60 mile round trip commute. But I could afford a house if I lived far enough away! Hence the 'horizontal'...
I knew one guy who flew to work in his own plane, every single day! He really lived a ways off. Of course, he got a lot of flying hours which is probably better than sitting in traffic.
Somebody had the idea that all the people in Los Angeles wanted to visit Sacramento and San Francisco - what for was never discussed. Hence the on-again, off-again High Speed Rail which is expected to cost $105 billion. The cost per passenger mile will be staggering. Uber would probably be cheaper.
We're going to be driving cars for a good long while.
-
Also governments are in tandem improving public transport investing in light rail etc.
:-DD yea thats why there was a report on the uk's national news the other day about the threat of cutbacks in government funding for public transport,and how large areas of the population already have no access to it
The evidence is that roadside fast chargers will be the preferred charging of BEVs as power ratings climb not house based charging hehce this argument about lack of driveway precludes BEVs flrrs in face of what home charging studies have shown. Planners see home charging as merely one constitute of the total charging solution. Not the “ only” way to charge BEVs
Home charging is the way as it happens at night when the grid is less loaded.
-
#5
The added pollution from making all of these new electric cars when people will most likely crush their older ICE vehicles instead of running them on the roads for longer. Where are those ICE vehicles going? Oh right, landfill, creating even more pollution.
I call BS on this! The steel in cars is a valuable source for making more steel. Schnitzer Steel in Oakland, Calif (among other places) is big on chopping up old cars for feedstock. It's not a coincidence that they are located on the Oakland Estuary where they can dump the product in big ships for transport to, probably, China.
https://www.schnitzersteel.com/ (https://www.schnitzersteel.com/)
I had a small sailboat berthed near the plant and they had a sign showing several alligators crunching up cars. I taught my grandson to count using that sign as we passed by on our sailing trips.
-
I can confirm that cars do not go into landfill, talk about fucking conspiracies...
-
#2
Even higher powered electric vehicles in the hands of people who were driving around in older Petrol cars.
Power output won't remain at lower levels, it will continue to go up and up and up well into the performance of 500-2,000 hp or even 3,000 hp vehicles, on public roads. In the hands of inexperienced everyday drivers.
A decent everyday commuter EV is already reaching 3.5 second 0-60 speeds. That's insane.
Kia EV6 GT (576 hp)
Porsche Taycan Turbo S (750 hp)
Tesla Model X Plaid (1020 hp)
Lucid Air Dream Edition (1111 hp)
Nio EP9 (1360 hp)
Now imagine how dangerous it is when a manufacturer introduces a high powered BEV at a low price.
I have an idea! Let's ban low performance drivers and embrace high performance cars.
I lived through the muscle car era and arrived at old age relatively unscathed despite having a 426 Plymouth Satellite and a couple of 440 Magnum Dodge Chargers. They were scary fast but you just had to get up on the wheel and drive!
Detroit built some very fast cars but they didn't handle worth a damn. The suspensions were too soft and the front end didn't always go where it was supposed to. It's one thing when the rear end steps out, no big deal. But when the front end washes out you're in deep doo-doo.
All those BEV muscle cars are going to be priced to the very well off. The highest performing Dodge Charger (when they build it) is estimated to cost $115k! The average run-of-the-mill BEV will probably be like my Chevy Bolt - around 200 HP. Quick enough for driving in traffic yet not truly scary fast. The factories know all about this! The 2015 Chevy Spark EV had 400 ft-lbs of torque. The next year they toned it down and my Bolt only has 266 ft-lbs. Plenty for normal driving.
-
Also governments are in tandem improving public transport investing in light rail etc.
:-DD yea thats why there was a report on the uk's national news the other day about the threat of cutbacks in government funding for public transport,and how large areas of the population already have no access to it
The evidence is that roadside fast chargers will be the preferred charging of BEVs as power ratings climb not house based charging hehce this argument about lack of driveway precludes BEVs flrrs in face of what home charging studies have shown. Planners see home charging as merely one constitute of the total charging solution. Not the “ only” way to charge BEVs
What evidence is there that people will want to go to a public place and wait while their car is charged?
The only place I would be willing to do that on a regular basis is at home. But then I, unlike many others, have a private driveway.
-
I can confirm that cars do not go into landfill, talk about fucking conspiracies...
I thought they get crushed and then recycled once stripped.
-
I can confirm that cars do not go into landfill, talk about fucking conspiracies...
I thought they get crushed and then recycled once stripped.
Yep, at least in the UK, breakers yards will buy your car for £100+, sell any parts they can and then send the car to be crushed,
-
I can confirm that cars do not go into landfill, talk about fucking conspiracies...
What about the interiors? All that plastic gets recycled does it?
Sure modern cars use recyclable/biodegradable plastic but we're not disposing of newer cars, not yet.
And yes I'm sorry. I made an error in judgement. Steel frames/engine blocks, etc are indeed fully recyclable.
Someone makes an error in judgement, uses the wrong word, suddenly its a conspiracy theory. geez.
Look I'll just fuck off from this thread ok? Its obvious that you guys are gonna want shiney new toys until the whole damn world is full of them. You just can't get enough of this shit.
I don't know what they do with the plastics, however what ever they do will be the same shit show as the rest of so called recycling, the problem is not disposing of cars, but the way we dispose of anything. Indeed I'm sure landfill sites will become the mines of the future, once we have exhausted everything we will be digging landfill sites back up to get it cheaper than digging even deeper into the ground.
-
I can confirm that cars do not go into landfill, talk about fucking conspiracies...
Me walks into the Toyota dealership to swap my 14 years old car with a new one I have bought.
Dealer: "Do you know what is going to happen to your old car?"
Me: " It goes to the landfill ?..."
Dealer: " Nope, it goes to the Bahamas, they already paid us for it"
-
Me walks into the Toyota dealership to swap my 14 years old car with a new one I have bought.
Dealer: "Do you know what is going to happen to your old car?"
Me: " It goes to the landfill ?..."
Dealer: " Nope, it goes to the Bahamas, they already paid us for it"
Often true, except for that pathetic "Cash for Clunkers" shitshow where they deliberately destroyed perfectly good vehicles to juice sales.
In any case, the recycling process for vehicles is as good or better than that of almost anything else you can think of. The only thing that routinely runs into trouble are the tires because they have a negative net value and often the people who accept payment to ensure their recycling end up cheating--often by having an accidental fire.
-
The only thing that routinely runs into trouble are the tires because they have a negative net value and often the people who accept payment to ensure their recycling end up cheating--often by having an accidental fire.
Here's a local example of a 2 year tire fire and the downstream results:
https://www.ttownmedia.com/tracy_press/archives/tracing-tracy-territory-the-fire-that-keeps-on-burning/article_e2338fb1-2b3a-5879-9cf2-1ceebc922f5d.html (https://www.ttownmedia.com/tracy_press/archives/tracing-tracy-territory-the-fire-that-keeps-on-burning/article_e2338fb1-2b3a-5879-9cf2-1ceebc922f5d.html)
But those 7 million tires didn't come from BEVs - they hadn't been invented in 1998.
-
But those 7 million tires didn't come from BEVs
Probably true for the most part.
- they hadn't been invented in 1998.
Um, not so true.
-
I’m just sitting here, laughing at how supposedly intelligent people are so gullible
Or entrenched viewpoints held by the ill-informed Who seem to read largely conspiracy websites nonsense |O
How is facing up the hard realities which the early adopters avoid at all costs or “forget” to mention, any form of “conspiracy”?
You loonies.
I had an electric car on a monthly subscription, I could have ditched at any time. I only did when I got fed up with the company supplying the cars. I am now getting a car through work, I have had to go back to petrol for what is hopefully only until May, I can't wait to get back into an electric car again.
What are these things that "we" EV drivers won't talk about?
As I said above, I've been using BEVs for the last 8 years. Up until this year I also had a Chevy Silverado pickup but I gave it away. Our only daily driver is the Bolt - that's a fact, not a theory.
For those who want to give BEV technology a shot, go to your local dealer and take a test drive. See what you really think after having a little experience. Deal with the facts, not just a bunch of web nonsense. If you haven't even taken a test drive, how can you have a valid opinion?
Are BEVs a perfect solution? No! Are they better than ICE? Who cares? I'm a retired EE and BEVs are, primarily, electrical. Of course I want one!
As to all the surrounding issues (made up or real), who cares? It's just a car, it gets us to the store and back (less so since COVID) and that's all I require.
I'm not an evangelist! I don't care what other people drive.
For our use case, the Bolt is perfect.
-
And, in the case of BEVs, the heat and defrost are instantly available.
-
But those 7 million tires didn't come from BEVs
Probably true for the most part.
- they hadn't been invented in 1998.
Um, not so true.
Let's just change it to mass produced. I'm not the least interested in an 1830s experiment. The EV1 came out in '96 and it seems unlikely the tires would have wound up in the Central Valley of Calif much less with tires only 2 years old.
The Nissan Leaf was the first realistic BEV in 2010.
-
Also governments are in tandem improving public transport investing in light rail etc.
:-DD yea thats why there was a report on the uk's national news the other day about the threat of cutbacks in government funding for public transport,and how large areas of the population already have no access to it
The evidence is that roadside fast chargers will be the preferred charging of BEVs as power ratings climb not house based charging hehce this argument about lack of driveway precludes BEVs flrrs in face of what home charging studies have shown. Planners see home charging as merely one constitute of the total charging solution. Not the “ only” way to charge BEVs
What evidence is there that people will want to go to a public place and wait while their car is charged?
The only place I would be willing to do that on a regular basis is at home. But then I, unlike many others, have a private driveway.
This all boils down to having supercharger gas-stations that can charge a car as fast as you can fill up with petrol or hydrogen. But this will only work with the next generation of batteries; the solid state ones. How long will the solid state batteries take before the first BEVs are shipped with these type of batteries?
Every now and then I end up at a petrol station in the middle of the night and the less time I spend at such an unsafe place, the better.
-
Also governments are in tandem improving public transport investing in light rail etc.
:-DD yea thats why there was a report on the uk's national news the other day about the threat of cutbacks in government funding for public transport,and how large areas of the population already have no access to it
The evidence is that roadside fast chargers will be the preferred charging of BEVs as power ratings climb not house based charging hehce this argument about lack of driveway precludes BEVs flrrs in face of what home charging studies have shown. Planners see home charging as merely one constitute of the total charging solution. Not the “ only” way to charge BEVs
What evidence is there that people will want to go to a public place and wait while their car is charged?
The only place I would be willing to do that on a regular basis is at home. But then I, unlike many others, have a private driveway.
This all boils down to having supercharger gas-stations that can charge a car as fast as you can fill up with petrol or hydrogen. But this will only work with the next generation of batteries; the solid state ones. How long will the solid state batteries take before the first BEVs are shipped with these type of batteries?
Every now and then I end up at a petrol station in the middle of the night and the less time I spend at such an unsafe place, the better.
I really enjoy my visits to petrol stations, and wish I could spend more time there breathing in the pure air.
That's just as believable as any explanation involving magic, or any plan involving a fundamental advance in 5 months and 3 weeks time, or any politician that says "make it so" ;)
When the fundamental advance has occurred, I'll be very happy to reevaluate that!
-
We'll probably see 500kW charging rate by 2030 or so, but I don't ever (at least without a completely fundamental shift in battery tech) see EV's going beyond this any time soon.
That would represent a reasonably sustained 10-12C charging rate, and would wear any cell that is not designed to accommodate this. It would also mean the charging rate begins to exceed the peak discharge rate of many of these packs, and so the charge cabling and electronics starts to look bulkier than the drive electronics. And odd situation to be in, but also a disadvantage in weight and cost.
Charging rates will certainly improve. In 2012, when Tesla launched the $75k Model S it charged at a peak of 90kW and an average closer to 40kW (10-80%). Now, VW has the ID.3 which charges at a peak of 120kW and an average of about 70kW. Hyundai have the Ioniq5 which charges up to 250kW and an average of around 130kW, and Porsche claim the Taycan will soon support 350kW charging with a software update (though that's taking its time, apparently.)
So it's not unbelievable we'll see 500kW soon, and CCS already has accommodations for this kind of charging rate, though the peak install is around 350kW.
More important than headline rate is sustained charging, so for instance the e-Tron might only charge at 150kW, but it sustains that almost to 90%, which is fantastic. Even at 100% it's charging at 50kW.
I don't see how this replaces rapid petrol filling, I'm realistic here, road trips will take longer on EVs or this might be a small area of the market that hydrogen carves out (or people will just buy 120kWh cars), but overall I see the balance of being able to charge at home/on the street as exceeding that of rapid filling, but then that's probably based on my mindset.
-
How long does a trip to Costco take? Our local Raley's grocery has a half-dozen stations and you can charge while you shop.
With COVID, fewer people are shopping in person (we have almost EVERYTHING delivered) but the idea is right. Find some task (like shopping at Lowes or Home Depot) and charge while you shop. It's telling that the majority of charge stations in my area are at pharmacies. And they put those in several years ago. Even Walmart is installing charging stations. You don't necessarily have to wait for a full charge.
500 kW charging (are they serious?) for a half-dozen cars would take an enormous substation and some medium voltage infrastructure that only utilities and large industrials have. Such a setup would cost a LOT of money.
-
I don't see how this replaces rapid petrol filling, I'm realistic here, road trips will take longer on EVs or this might be a small area of the market that hydrogen carves out (or people will just buy 120kWh cars), but overall I see the balance of being able to charge at home/on the street as exceeding that of rapid filling, but then that's probably based on my mindset.
For that once-in-a-decade long trip, just rent a car that still uses gasoline. They'll be around for a while. Or fly and rent a car.
-
No sorry wont happen "petrol" cars are beneath them in social status.
Not true, I have thought for some time one reasonable option for us would be to keep a diesel car around for long trips and buy a cheaper, shorter range EV. As long as ICE vehicle usage goes to 10% of what it once was, that's good.
I think now given our circumstances though we will probably just buy a decent long range EV instead. Servicing a car that is infrequently used is expensive and a hassle, plus it would need insurance and take up space on the driveway. We'll see how well that goes. I've got fairly regular access to other EV's and generally not found charging to be a major hassle.
For holidays, we'll still probably rent a car, and I expect that will be ICE, but maybe not.
I am definitely not unique in this, I know lots of EV people who have just one EV and one ICE car, or rent/zipcar the bigger car when they need it.
-
There are plenty of solutions for people who can't charge at home - e.g. in the UK, in some areas every other lamppost on the street has a chargepoint built in
I have an issue with this statement as it gets banded about by the EV fanboys to shut up anyone who says they can't charge up at home. It might work in some areas but its not a solution open to all.
Agreed. Public charging is horribly expensive as well. I'm 80% sure my first non-ICE car will be powered by hydrogen because that is better suitable & cheaper for my use compared to BEV. But first long haul trucking needs to accellerate implementing hydrogen fueling stations. Long haul trucks typically have ranges from 1200km to 2500km on a single tank. There is no way to match that using batteries.
Public Charging in the uk is not “ horribly “ expensive it’s comparable to other countries
Tbd future is high power roadside BEV charging just like current filling stations. In fact the uk current requires all new filing stAtions to add Bev charging. Hence as batteries get bigger and accept faster charging , home charging will not be a big factor
-
Tbd future is high power roadside BEV charging just like current filling stations. In fact the uk current requires all new filing stAtions to add Bev charging. Hence as batteries get bigger and accept faster charging , home charging will not be a big factor
I do think you're missing that home charging is super convenient. Why would I want to take time out of my day to rapid charge my car when I can charge overnight? I get that you'll need to charge for long trips and the odd unplanned long drive, but all other charging would definitely be preferably done overnight.
-
I don't see how this replaces rapid petrol filling, I'm realistic here, road trips will take longer on EVs or this might be a small area of the market that hydrogen carves out (or people will just buy 120kWh cars), but overall I see the balance of being able to charge at home/on the street as exceeding that of rapid filling, but then that's probably based on my mindset.
For that once-in-a-decade long trip, just rent a car that still uses gasoline. They'll be around for a while. Or fly and rent a car.
Exactly. People want to be able to use EVs exactly as they used ICEVs. The change must also be in the uses. The old model when you could haul you family hundred of km (for vacations or family trips) can evolve to train (I'm European...) + rented vehicle on location. As for the cost, voting accordingly can make it without raising costs or even cheaper.
-
Yes, this is a good solution for homes with several cars. When I bought my Zoé, I also talked about it with people I know, and most of the time, if they had to renew one of their car, it would be to an EV in addition to keeping an ICE. Especially when one of the drivers works with a company vehicle. And that is with people living in houses where they can easily charge at home.
-
Tbd future is high power roadside BEV charging just like current filling stations. In fact the uk current requires all new filing stAtions to add Bev charging. Hence as batteries get bigger and accept faster charging , home charging will not be a big factor
I do think you're missing that home charging is super convenient. Why would I want to take time out of my day to rapid charge my car when I can charge overnight? I get that you'll need to charge for long trips and the odd unplanned long drive, but all other charging would definitely be preferably done overnight.
I can only base my comments on a study ( unpublished ) from the grid operator in Ireland where public charging started in 2010 and home evse was provided free. The evidence was that home charging did not turn out to be the primary method which the grid operator expected it to be.
Partly this is because as batteries increased rapidly in capacity thd home charging was taking too long secondly people with two cars often had access issues and other physical restrictions applied
The net result was that fast roadside charging became much more prevalent and in fact thd grid operator under took a massive investment in high power roadside systems.
These days the private sector has taken up this mantle within very large ( 10 plus 100 kw+) charging stations typically in motorway rest areas or existing filling stations. Furthermore hotels and shops also have begun to install fast chargers as opppsed to low power ( =< 7 kw) charging
Furthermore there has been a huge increase in work installed charging often provided free or at a substantial discount ,
the statistics suggest that home charging is not a” big “ factor in the decision to buy a BEV.
While one cannot directly compare countries as attitudes differ but the Ireland experience can be generalised. It should be noted that all public charging was free from 2010 to 2019 whereas home charging was not discounted at all. But even after the introduction of charges the popularity of roadside fast Charging increased.
My point is that a “ fixation “ on charging at home is not actually seen amongst Bev users. Yet it’s “ important “ but it’s not a defining restrictions it seems.
Changes in planning rules will make evse installs almost mandatory on new builds anyway so apartments etc must now factor this in. Lamppost charging has been completely discounted as the lighting wiring is entirely unsuitable to carry the loads especially during lamb operation and equally parking spaces outside houses cannot be reserved for BEVs
The overall effect is that driveway charging will undoubtably remain a “ factor” but not it seems a defining one. People are happy To buy BEVs and rely on high speed chargers it seems
Hence one has too careful not to attach too much importance to “ shibboleths “ that in fact are not bearing out to be 100% true.
What’s also true is an awful lot of people buy cars and increasingly do little annual mileage
-
I don't see how this replaces rapid petrol filling, I'm realistic here, road trips will take longer on EVs or this might be a small area of the market that hydrogen carves out (or people will just buy 120kWh cars), but overall I see the balance of being able to charge at home/on the street as exceeding that of rapid filling, but then that's probably based on my mindset.
For that once-in-a-decade long trip, just rent a car that still uses gasoline. They'll be around for a while. Or fly and rent a car.
Exactly. People want to be able to use EVs exactly as they used ICEVs. The change must also be in the uses. The old model when you could haul you family hundred of km (for vacations or family trips) can evolve to train (I'm European...) + rented vehicle on location. As for the cost, voting accordingly can make it without raising costs or even cheaper.
The evidence in Ireland from users surveys is BEV owners significantly increased their annual car mileage as running costs were low. In fact this left the train or bus out of the equation and used the Bev. To such an extent that the capital city authorities would not provide parking concessions to BEVs that other cities provided ( most city public parking is free to BEVs )
Hence the evidence is BEV owners eschew public transport in favour of the car. In Ireland public transport is not great and is seen as “ low rent “ with the exception of light rail solutions
In fact it’s become a concern that overly aiding conversions to BEV is wrong and will result in higher car usage not less. The latest gov strategy is to decline Bev subsidies to make people seriously consider non car options which many young professionals now opting for non car ownership
It should be noted that in Ireland it’s one of the highest annual private car mileage per person nearly 1.5 the European average and higher than the USA average. It’s an extremely car centric country.
I would disagree that people want BEVs to deliver an indentical experience. Evidence is that changing perspectives , covid , concern over pollution is changing peoples attitudes and younger people see cars on a different way. On the spot car hire ( often BEV) etc has become very popular amongst urban apartment dwellers who fell the huge cost of owning a private car isvt justified.
-
Tbd future is high power roadside BEV charging just like current filling stations. In fact the uk current requires all new filing stAtions to add Bev charging. Hence as batteries get bigger and accept faster charging , home charging will not be a big factor
I do think you're missing that home charging is super convenient. Why would I want to take time out of my day to rapid charge my car when I can charge overnight? I get that you'll need to charge for long trips and the odd unplanned long drive, but all other charging would definitely be preferably done overnight.
many domestic systems cannot charge big capacity evse in a reasonable time especially if other loads like water heating etc are concurrent
I’m not denying it’s super convient , we had a daily 130 km commuted so every night the leaf was pliggged in to a 7kw evse from 1am to 6am at 8 cents a kWh !!! ( this was for nearly 5 years !!)
But that experience is not universal
-
I don't see how this replaces rapid petrol filling, I'm realistic here, road trips will take longer on EVs or this might be a small area of the market that hydrogen carves out (or people will just buy 120kWh cars), but overall I see the balance of being able to charge at home/on the street as exceeding that of rapid filling, but then that's probably based on my mindset.
For that once-in-a-decade long trip, just rent a car that still uses gasoline. They'll be around for a while. Or fly and rent a car.
Exactly. People want to be able to use EVs exactly as they used ICEVs. The change must also be in the uses. The old model when you could haul you family hundred of km (for vacations or family trips) can evolve to train (I'm European...) + rented vehicle on location. As for the cost, voting accordingly can make it without raising costs or even cheaper.
As I said the feedback was people used their BEV more then their original ICE including long trips as the running costs were so low. Worrying for regulators was BEVs were increasing private car mileage not reducing it
-
What is abundantly clear is non BEV owners are very unreliable petspectives
on how BEVs will be used even by themselves. Really only examining the BEV ownership usage patterns does a true usage pattern emerge. It’s even worse amongst those not convinced BEVs are for them , these groups almost unfailing present incorrect usage perspectives , possibly in an attempt at self justication
-
I don't see how this replaces rapid petrol filling, I'm realistic here, road trips will take longer on EVs or this might be a small area of the market that hydrogen carves out (or people will just buy 120kWh cars), but overall I see the balance of being able to charge at home/on the street as exceeding that of rapid filling, but then that's probably based on my mindset.
For that once-in-a-decade long trip, just rent a car that still uses gasoline. They'll be around for a while. Or fly and rent a car.
Exactly. People want to be able to use EVs exactly as they used ICEVs. The change must also be in the uses. The old model when you could haul you family hundred of km (for vacations or family trips) can evolve to train (I'm European...) + rented vehicle on location. As for the cost, voting accordingly can make it without raising costs or even cheaper.
Voting appropriately does not change the costs except for marginal differences in efficiency. It only changes who pays the bill.
-
Voting appropriately does not change the costs except for marginal differences in efficiency. It only changes who pays the bill.
Well duh. Also investing allows more volume, therefore reduced cost.
That's how countries with dense railway network do it.
-
many domestic systems cannot charge big capacity evse in a reasonable time especially if other loads like water heating etc are concurrent
It depends of the energy needed. For example for a 40 kW.h battery, I can charge it at home in about 12 hours at less than 4kW (because I have an adapted socket - Hager's Witty, which is a licensed copy of Legrand's Green-up). Also there are systems which will manage the charging power in order to limit the max your supplier's breaker can handle (sorry for the weird vocabulary, I don't know the proper terminology in English).
-
The evidence in Ireland from users surveys is BEV owners significantly increased their annual car mileage as running costs were low. In fact this left the train or bus out of the equation and used the Bev. To such an extent that the capital city authorities would not provide parking concessions to BEVs that other cities provided ( most city public parking is free to BEVs )
Hence the evidence is BEV owners eschew public transport in favour of the car. In Ireland public transport is not great and is seen as “ low rent “ with the exception of light rail solutions
In fact it’s become a concern that overly aiding conversions to BEV is wrong and will result in higher car usage not less. The latest gov strategy is to decline Bev subsidies to make people seriously consider non car options which many young professionals now opting for non car ownership
It should be noted that in Ireland it’s one of the highest annual private car mileage per person nearly 1.5 the European average and higher than the USA average. It’s an extremely car centric country.
I would disagree that people want BEVs to deliver an indentical experience. Evidence is that changing perspectives , covid , concern over pollution is changing peoples attitudes and younger people see cars on a different way. On the spot car hire ( often BEV) etc has become very popular amongst urban apartment dwellers who fell the huge cost of owning a private car isvt justified.
Interesting.
I suppose the surveys really considered the drivers' mileage, so that it doesn't count mileage that would be deducted from an ICEV in the same home.
I could understand it as, whether legitimate or not, drivers can have the impression that taking the EV has few environnement effects, as well as the novelty and pleasure to drive an EV (compared to public transports, walking or cycling).
I've never seen free parking for EVs, though. And I don't think that would be a good idea.
-
Interesting.
I suppose the surveys really considered the drivers' mileage, so that it doesn't count mileage that would be deducted from an ICEV in the same home.
I could understand it as, whether legitimate or not, drivers can have the impression that taking the EV has few environnement effects, as well as the novelty and pleasure to drive an EV (compared to public transports, walking or cycling).
I've never seen free parking for EVs, though. And I don't think that would be a good idea.
Free parking and tolls are one of the government incentives to push EVs.
Parking fees can be relatively high in cities like Prague.
I don't have EV now, because it does not make economic sense for me with using the car just a few times a month.
But I can clearly see how I would use it way more often for short trips and other travels that can be easily consolidated into one.
There is that psychological thing about having free or almost free cost per km/mile.
Ane with off-peak electricity or solar panels, you can charge really cheaply.
-
Towing capacity? The 2022 Ford F150 EV pickup has a tow rating of 7700 pounds.
The 2024 Chevy Silverado EV pickup will come in 3 flavors from 8000 pounds to 20,000 pounds:
https://insideevs.com/news/629796/chevrolet-silverado-ev-towing-video/
The original question was probably directed at small sedans like my Chevy Bolt which GM says is unsuitable for towing. There is anecdotal evidence it will tow around 2000 pounds but there goes the warranty!
Strangest tow vehicle I ever saw was a Rolls Royce! A hotshot motocross rider owned the car and used it to tow his motorcycles. You just don't expect to see a trailer ball on a Rolls Royce.
-
Reading Madscientist's post, (a few back), I follow the thinking, that 'too much' benefit from bev ownership can have negative persistent effects on such resources like asphalt, farm land conversion, and the many many smaller repair businesses, etc that are in the domestic supply situation.
I donated my fairly efficient small hatchback car, in 2009, (Pres Obama started that year). Watching the BART transit system growing, gives more confidence in such personal transition, maintaining most city access (San Francisco). Glad to be rid, plus having an ADD personality didn't contribute to safety very well (attention deficit).
Bus lines, on the other hand, have suffered near-mortilly these last 20 years, many cuts and consolidations. That means, walking the 1.5 miles to get on train. So my cup is half filled, I figure.
Life-style is important, although folks sometimes see that as snobbery. But even more than here, the L.A. coastal areas have a special 'California Charm', in places like Santa Monica, although that whole car ownership dynamic is a bit of a scam.
-
Towing capacity? The 2022 Ford F150 EV pickup has a tow rating of 7700 pounds.
The 2024 Chevy Silverado EV pickup will come in 3 flavors from 8000 pounds to 20,000 pounds:
Cool, so can they be used for plowing fields?
-
Towing capacity? The 2022 Ford F150 EV pickup has a tow rating of 7700 pounds.
The 2024 Chevy Silverado EV pickup will come in 3 flavors from 8000 pounds to 20,000 pounds:
Cool, so can they be used for plowing fields?
I suspect you would have to use a different style of tires but, sure, why not? I suspect there are a large number of farmers looking at this.
In California, leaf blowers and lawn mowers have to be battery powered by 2024. That's going to be a lot of small battery charging. I haven't seen a battery powered riding lawn mower. I wonder what my yard-work contractor is going to do... A Chevy Bolt won't fit through the gate!
https://mashable.com/article/electric-leaf-blower-california-ban
-
A sales ban, not an use ban. HOA bans likely have far more impact than this, those are actual use bans for both the home owners and the contractors.
There's ride on mowers with 20 kWh range battery packs, where there's a will and a wallet there's a way. Though for landscapers I think it would make more sense to have a battery pack system sized for backpacks, which can also slide into the mower. More universally useful.
-
(quote):. "...FREE charging for EVs...or nearly FREE $".
Ah shucks, we ain't there, yet. Sounds like a foo, (err, better mind my manners...; Sounds pretty darn naive.
Remember, Nuclear power, in 1970s was going that 'nearly, practically free$'. Do we have to wait, on you to deliver on that, and meanwhile conduct (these changes) accordingly (trust the flippantly irresponsible remarks, about free$, or practically so)?
Plus, while reading and pondering, just realized:
There's no room, here, for any comparisons with public transit system's COST. Please, when answers come, give equivalents in...dollars or euros, whatever. But please no 'FREE' or nearly so, parameters, on the money.
That's like, high School level economics, and I'm at about that level myself.
Disappointed.
-
In California, leaf blowers and lawn mowers have to be battery powered by 2024.
Good luck with that. I thrown away my EGO battery powered electric mower two years ago. It is underpowered garbage with ridiculously low runtime that got even lower after several year of use.
-
I suspect there are a large number of farmers looking at this.
Why on earth would they ?
Until a battery charge can last all day and a recharge take only as long as pumping a tank of fuel farmers will resist inefficiencies or food costs will increase.
Time costs money even for the private vehicle user.
-
In California, leaf blowers and lawn mowers have to be battery powered by 2024.
Wouldn't corded electric (or combo corded/cordless) still be allowed? It would be very silly to ban that.
-
In California, leaf blowers and lawn mowers have to be battery powered by 2024.
Good luck with that. I thrown away my EGO battery powered electric mower two years ago. It is underpowered garbage with ridiculously low runtime that got even lower after several year of use.
Ah yes. the conning product where it doesn't have enough power to do the job but the low price suckers in millions of people each year.
I hate having gasoline stored in my garage, so I have always used electric mowers. Since cords are a nuisance, I bought a nice ToroTM battery-powered unit (60 V battery) that has plenty of capacity for my 10 m by 46 m city lot.
-
I suspect there are a large number of farmers looking at this.
Why on earth would they ?
Until a battery charge can last all day and a recharge take only as long as pumping a tank of fuel farmers will resist inefficiencies or food costs will increase.
Time costs money even for the private vehicle user.
The view from John Deere research is that BEV farm tractors is eminently feasible as electric drive is actually better suited to farm tractors then diesel , allowing signifcantvda bugs in things like gearbox’s as the flat torque of the engine suits farm applications better then diesel and the tractor chassis can carry a big batttey if required. Many tractors spend a lot of time idle on farms. Clearly a big contractors ms home is a different kettle of fish but the view seems to be that single farm orientated tractors are eminently suited to BEV operation ( in time )
Time doesn’t cost money for many people. A housewive or house husband shipping isn’t time sensitive etc and in fact BEVs can be more “ available “ than ice cars if opportunity charging is availed of.
Really my experience is non BEV owners “ Invent” problems that don’t actually appear in real life with ownership of a BEV.
we’ve done some very long BEV journeys , yes planning is needed and some of our early ones were very problematic until we understood thd issues with public fast charging etc. but our later journeys were very straightforward and these days with the huge expansion of fast chargers it’s got very straightforward
-
I suspect there are a large number of farmers looking at this.
Why on earth would they ?
Until a battery charge can last all day and a recharge take only as long as pumping a tank of fuel farmers will resist inefficiencies or food costs will increase.
Time costs money even for the private vehicle user.
m
The general view is that taxation changes and incentives will encourage farmers to switch
-
Many tractors spend a lot of time idle on farms.
Wouldn't that make it more difficult for the reduced cost of operation to ever pay for itself? If the goal is to eliminate oil use, biofuel would probably be the better option. Could have it as a hybrid so the torque advantage of electric drive is still available.
-
The evidence in Ireland from users surveys is BEV owners significantly increased their annual car mileage as running costs were low. In fact this left the train or bus out of the equation and used the Bev. To such an extent that the capital city authorities would not provide parking concessions to BEVs that other cities provided ( most city public parking is free to BEVs )
Hence the evidence is BEV owners eschew public transport in favour of the car. In Ireland public transport is not great and is seen as “ low rent “ with the exception of light rail solutions
In fact it’s become a concern that overly aiding conversions to BEV is wrong and will result in higher car usage not less. The latest gov strategy is to decline Bev subsidies to make people seriously consider non car options which many young professionals now opting for non car ownership
It should be noted that in Ireland it’s one of the highest annual private car mileage per person nearly 1.5 the European average and higher than the USA average. It’s an extremely car centric country.
I would disagree that people want BEVs to deliver an indentical experience. Evidence is that changing perspectives , covid , concern over pollution is changing peoples attitudes and younger people see cars on a different way. On the spot car hire ( often BEV) etc has become very popular amongst urban apartment dwellers who fell the huge cost of owning a private car isvt justified.
Interesting.
I suppose the surveys really considered the drivers' mileage, so that it doesn't count mileage that would be deducted from an ICEV in the same home.
I could understand it as, whether legitimate or not, drivers can have the impression that taking the EV has few environnement effects, as well as the novelty and pleasure to drive an EV (compared to public transports, walking or cycling).
I've never seen free parking for EVs, though. And I don't think that would be a good idea.
The main feedback was a combination of lower cost per mile and incentives ( at the time ) of free public parking etc was having the effect of moving Bev owners away from public urban transport to instead using their Bev car , this was seen as contrary to public planning where the goal is to disincentivise centre city car travel .
In later years Bev incentives were tailored to disincentivise centre city car usage , ie the free public parking ended and plans to allow BEVs to access bus lanes were scrapped.
So nowadays Bev centre city usage has returned to a similar profile to ICE users with the major exception that apartment dwellers are much likely to consider Bev ownership if they decide in a car at all. That’s a major attitude change where until recently car ownership was not high on their desire.
-
Many tractors spend a lot of time idle on farms.
Wouldn't that make it more difficult for the reduced cost of operation to ever pay for itself? If the goal is to eliminate oil use, biofuel would probably be the better option. Could have it as a hybrid so the torque advantage of electric drive is still available.
Hybrid produces a very expensive vehicle which still attracts ice taxation it’s not seen as any sort of long term solution it’s a bad compromise
The view is Bev tractors will be cost effective both to purchase due to tax incentives and to run due to increasing carbon taxes on diesel.
Hence the view is once suitable Bev tractors are available the switch over will be both incentivised and popular especially amongst small to medium non contractor farmers.
Big contractor machines subject to high workloads will take longer to become available as BEVs.
-
In California, leaf blowers and lawn mowers have to be battery powered by 2024.
Wouldn't corded electric (or combo corded/cordless) still be allowed? It would be very silly to ban that.
Dangling a 200+ foot cable (and stowing it) will get old in a hurry. Around here, many lots are multiple acres and there doesn't tend to be a lot of power outlets in the back yard. Then there is the voltage drop...
Battery is workable but for a contractor servicing a dozen clients per day, 5 days per week, there will be a lot of batteries and chargers.
Leave it to private enterprise to solve the problems. Money (revenue) can fix everything.
-
You just don't expect to see a trailer ball on a Rolls Royce.
Really? How else are they going to pull the horse box?
-
In California, leaf blowers and lawn mowers have to be battery powered by 2024.
https://mashable.com/article/electric-leaf-blower-california-ban
The article talks about noise and pollution. Which is driving the issue in California? I do like the idea of quiet gardening tools. ICE ones can really spoil a peaceful day.
-
The article talks about noise and pollution. Which is driving the issue in California? I do like the idea of quiet gardening tools. ICE ones can really spoil a peaceful day.
While we're talking about loud ICEs, I'd love to see noise regs on scooters and motorcycles. I know that's a contentious one, as there's this argument from the motorcycling community that a loud bike is a safer one, but the noise these vehicles can make is immense, you can hear them several streets over.
-
In California, leaf blowers and lawn mowers have to be battery powered by 2024.
https://mashable.com/article/electric-leaf-blower-california-ban (https://mashable.com/article/electric-leaf-blower-california-ban)
The article talks about noise and pollution. Which is driving the issue in California? I do like the idea of quiet gardening tools. ICE ones can really spoil a peaceful day.
Somewhere on the Internet there is an article equating a yard blow emits as much pollution as a trip from San Diego to Denver (about 1100 miles). Papers by the California Air Resources Board seem to be the driving force for lawmakers.
Here's one of the articles but not the one I am thinking of. It does, however, equate blowing leaves with 1100 miles of travel.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a38004981/california-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment/ (https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a38004981/california-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment/)
Google shows the distance as 1079.3 miles so the quote seems credible on this point.
ETA:
Pollution is the issue as cities and HOAs have no ability to regulate pollution. Noise is a local problem. We don't have an HOA around here and nobody wants one. One day a week the leaf blowers intrude (including my guy) and double pane windows help a lot. Nobody cares about the noise!
-
Leave it to private enterprise to solve the problems.
They can solve it, but there has to be monetary incentive. I suspect American HOAs are the greatest force in the world at the moment for electrifying landscaping.
-
Article makes many sensible points...
https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-ev-transition-explained-2659316104
-
The article talks about noise and pollution. Which is driving the issue in California? I do like the idea of quiet gardening tools. ICE ones can really spoil a peaceful day.
While we're talking about loud ICEs, I'd love to see noise regs on scooters and motorcycles. I know that's a contentious one, as there's this argument from the motorcycling community that a loud bike is a safer one, but the noise these vehicles can make is immense, you can hear them several streets over.
In California, motorcycles built after 1985 are limited to 80 dB by law:
https://www.williamweisslaw.com/how-does-californias-new-law-on-exhaust-noise-violations-work (https://www.williamweisslaw.com/how-does-californias-new-law-on-exhaust-noise-violations-work)
No, I don't know how MCs are tested. What orientation, what distance, throttle manipulation and so forth. Don't care, I no longer ride an MC.
-
We don't have an HOA around here and nobody wants one.
You don't really need one, the contractors need only a couple customers who provide an economic incentive to switch to electrified tools and at that point it probably makes economic sense to just use them everywhere.
-
https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-ev-transition-explained-2659316104
"For the U.S. to hit the 90 percent EV target, sales of all new ICE vehicles across the U.S. must cease by 2038 at the latest"
IF the EU sticks to its guns and doesn't economically collapse from other reasons (I really don't think this will break the camel's back, there are however a lot of other overwhelming problems) the ability to make the transition will be visible long before 2038 and it will pull the US along.
It's mostly just a game of chicken with an industry too big to fail, with no one wanted to leave profit on the table if government blinks. If they are all convinced government won't blink, they'll get it done.
-
Most of the contractors use really powerful leaf blowers, not the average homeowner style:
https://www.lowes.com/pd/Husqvarna-570BTS-66-cc-2-cycle-236-2-MPH-972-CFM-Professional-Gas-Backpack-Leaf-Blower/1000760830 (https://www.lowes.com/pd/Husqvarna-570BTS-66-cc-2-cycle-236-2-MPH-972-CFM-Professional-Gas-Backpack-Leaf-Blower/1000760830)
I have no idea how many HP this thing has but we also need to evaluate battery life and weight. I'm figuring one battery exchange per property or about a dozen on charge at the end of the day. Maybe the charge rack is inside the trailer.
Time is money, small leaf blowers need not apply.
-
I hate having gasoline stored in my garage, so I have always used electric mowers.
I hated charging mover’s 56V lithium ion battery packs unattendedly in my garage, due to fire danger.
Petrol in the garage, whether it is in car’s petrol tank or in a canister, is safer.
-
It's mostly just a game of chicken with an industry too big to fail, with no one wanted to leave profit on the table if government blinks. If they are all convinced government won't blink, they'll get it done.
So far I'd say the European car manufacturers seem to be convinced it is happening. If even Ferrari are saying ~50% of their sales will be electric by 2030 then they are clearly seeing the tide change. The question will be, will they achieve this whilst maintaining similar accessibility to EVs. The gradual drop in the price of EVs is clearly there but we need a lot more 20k Euro EV's and less 50k Euro EVs.
-
I hated charging mover’s 56V lithium ion battery packs unattendedly in my garage, due to fire danger.
Petrol in the garage, whether it is in car’s petrol tank or in a canister, is safer.
:-DD
You have no comprehension of the risk of lithium ion batteries pose. Well designed batteries don't burn down, except in exceedingly rare scenarios. There are extremely strict standards over the design of these battery packs, with a BMS, cell balancer, and temperature sensors being required. Meanwhile, you could easily knock the can of petrol over, or spill it while filling your mower, or have an arcing electrical connection nearby that ignites fuel vapours. In an ICE car, there are so many more risks, like leaking fuel piping, leaking oil, and mechanical failure.
-
Many tractors spend a lot of time idle on farms.
You clearly spend too much time shining a chair in an aircon office. :bullshit:
-
Many tractors spend a lot of time idle on farms.
You clearly spend too much time shining a chair in an aircon office. :bullshit:
Given I spent a huge part of my life on farms. What would I know …..
-
It's mostly just a game of chicken with an industry too big to fail, with no one wanted to leave profit on the table if government blinks. If they are all convinced government won't blink, they'll get it done.
So far I'd say the European car manufacturers seem to be convinced it is happening. If even Ferrari are saying ~50% of their sales will be electric by 2030 then they are clearly seeing the tide change. The question will be, will they achieve this whilst maintaining similar accessibility to EVs. The gradual drop in the price of EVs is clearly there but we need a lot more 20k Euro EV's and less 50k Euro EVs.
I think we can confidently say the European car industry sees BEVs as the future and are taking strategic manufacturing decisions today that will end ICE production relatively soon for ordinary private car transport.
European governments are largely in lockstep and hence the political will remains strong ( by and large ) and successful countries will tend to offer a road map for the laggards
I do think we shall see a larger price range as small euro compacts convert over to BEV
The other thing is mass produced BEVs are cheaper to make then mass produced ICE of similar size , so as Bev volume ramps we should see significant price competition and better BEV value.
-
Many tractors spend a lot of time idle on farms.
You clearly spend too much time shining a chair in an aircon office. :bullshit:
Given I spent a huge part of my life on farms. What would I know …..
60 years and counting, what would I know ? :P
-
the age of lithium ion battery cells matter . the balancer circuit in a large battery pack, may not monitor individual cells but a subgroup or bank of cells.
this is ok when the cells are young , but with age and a loss of performance. high discharge and high rate of recharge add to the loss of individual cell balance in just one..
now your got a fire.
-
the age of lithium ion battery cells matter . the balancer circuit in a large battery pack, may not monitor individual cells but a subgroup or bank of cells.
this is ok when the cells are young , but with age and a loss of performance. high discharge and high rate of recharge add to the loss of individual cell balance in just one..
now your go a fire.
I can't think of any modern BMS that would not monitor individual series cell voltages. Especially not in any EV battery, but even in a power tool battery this would be virtually unheard of (maybe very cheap knockoff brands.)
Parallel Li-Ion cells do not require balancing for each cell, if that is what you are stating.
-
It's mostly just a game of chicken with an industry too big to fail, with no one wanted to leave profit on the table if government blinks. If they are all convinced government won't blink, they'll get it done.
So far I'd say the European car manufacturers seem to be convinced it is happening. If even Ferrari are saying ~50% of their sales will be electric by 2030 then they are clearly seeing the tide change.
Like Ferrari is affordable... Ferrari's move has everything to do with meeting average CO2 emission limits as set by the EU.
IMHO you really need to check two things: the size of the group of people that can afford a BEV (including charging costs) and the people for who a BEV is practical. Just assuming everyone can / will switchover to BEV is an utterly wrong assumption. In the NL you can already see the growth of BEVs is starting to level off. In 2017 to 2019 the number of BEVs on the road doubled every year but after that the increase (in %) starts to slow down. Keep in mind that cars get exported as well so sales numbers don't paint the full picture.
-
I hated charging mover’s 56V lithium ion battery packs unattendedly in my garage, due to fire danger.
Petrol in the garage, whether it is in car’s petrol tank or in a canister, is safer.
:-DD
You have no comprehension of the risk of lithium ion batteries pose. Well designed batteries don't burn down, except in exceedingly rare scenarios. There are extremely strict standards over the design of these battery packs, with a BMS, cell balancer, and temperature sensors being required. Meanwhile, you could easily knock the can of petrol over, or spill it while filling your mower, or have an arcing electrical connection nearby that ignites fuel vapours. In an ICE car, there are so many more risks, like leaking fuel piping, leaking oil, and mechanical failure.
Sealed cans of petrol don't spontaneously ignite. Sealed Li-ion batteries have, can and DO.
-
I hated charging mover’s 56V lithium ion battery packs unattendedly in my garage, due to fire danger.
Petrol in the garage, whether it is in car’s petrol tank or in a canister, is safer.
:-DD
You have no comprehension of the risk of lithium ion batteries pose. Well designed batteries don't burn down, except in exceedingly rare scenarios. There are extremely strict standards over the design of these battery packs, with a BMS, cell balancer, and temperature sensors being required. Meanwhile, you could easily knock the can of petrol over, or spill it while filling your mower, or have an arcing electrical connection nearby that ignites fuel vapours. In an ICE car, there are so many more risks, like leaking fuel piping, leaking oil, and mechanical failure.
Nonsense. Data from insurance companies shows that the fire risk between ICE and BEV is similar. Only problem is that putting out a BEV needs a lot more water. 11000 liters versus 2000 liters for an ICE. A Norwegian ferry company is banning any electric vehicle on board of their ships because they can't deal with an electric car on fire.
-
A Norwegian ferry company is banning any electric vehicle on board of their ships because they can't deal with an electric car on fire
But electric ferrys are ok
-
A cruise ship for tourists which for the moment can afford to be picky.
Normal ferries in Norway wouldn't be able to get away with it, politically and probably not even economically. They'll just have to deal with it, might want to buy some under-car spraying solutions and EV fire blankets.
-
Related to what was just mentioned, generally about LITHIUM BATTs;. (and sorry about a little topic drift),
In high rise buildings the management has to be careful, often strict fire safety rules:
Any concerns happening related to presence of lithium battery systems, kept by building tenants ? Because that tells (us) what others think / feel, about general safe batteries, or not.
-
The fire doesn't evaporate that much water, you can just recycle the sprinkler water from the floor drains.
-
Like Ferrari is affordable... Ferrari's move has everything to do with meeting average CO2 emission limits as set by the EU.
IMHO you really need to check two things: the size of the group of people that can afford a BEV (including charging costs) and the people for who a BEV is practical. Just assuming everyone can / will switchover to BEV is an utterly wrong assumption. In the NL you can already see the growth of BEVs is starting to level off. In 2017 to 2019 the number of BEVs on the road doubled every year but after that the increase (in %) starts to slow down. Keep in mind that cars get exported as well so sales numbers don't paint the full picture.
Well done for missing the point, it's not about Ferrari, but if such a manufacturer is seeing the market for their high-performance sportscars go away from being exclusively ICE then that is an interesting shift. They could have said 50% would be hydrogen but they didn't, they said electric. That would hit the CO2 goals, too. (To be entirely honest, they have said they are 'considering' fuel-cell technology, but they haven't made any commitments or statements beyond that.)
Sales levelling off? COVID did affect supply chains, but despite this, 19.8% of vehicle sales in NL in 2021 were EVs, and EV sales in Europe doubled. For the Netherlands sales figures, they are only behind Norway. What data are you looking at?
https://www.jato.com/in-2021-battery-electric-vehicles-made-up-one-in-ten-new-cars-registered-in-europe/ (https://www.jato.com/in-2021-battery-electric-vehicles-made-up-one-in-ten-new-cars-registered-in-europe/)
You can't really look at quarterly data as there is a lot of noise in that data.
As I've argued repeatedly, EV's are best for people who can charge at home right now or live near existing good street infrastructure/work charging. EV's are still cheaper to run than ICE at normal AC charging prices and maintenance costs are expected to be lower. About 50% of all road users in the UK have regular access to a driveway so those guys should be easier to convince. As demand for street infrastructure increases, it will be built to accommodate more street parked and charged EVs, just look at London, the vast majority of that infrastructure is privately funded.
-
Agreed. Future BEV charging will be split across all charging modalities , home, street and fast charging infrastructure , no one node will be the defining one.
What’s clear based on sakes and manufacturing strategy is the immediate future is BEV based.
-
Then again I suppose retrofitting a large fire hydrant that uses an overboard water supply would help too.
Pumping water into a ship goes against normal maritime practice!
-
So basically you have a large water tank take up a car space or two beneath the ship. Pump water into it from a drain above. Pump the water back up to douse the car thats aflame.
There is already a large water tank beneath the ship. It has two benefits over bilge water: much larger than two cars, and the chemical composition is known.
-
Nobody has leaf blowers around me and little cutting grass after sept and before march so it’s not an issue
-
Maybe a hatch below each car to allow immediate ejection of the firey EV into the sea. May produce disappointing results for multi-deck ferries.
I guess the question is how common is such a fire? ICE or EV? I would imagine in any case, it is a disaster; and 4x the water to extinguish it sounds bad, but either way, when surrounded by other vehicles full of fuel, oil and possibly battery packs, a fire on a sea ferry is really bad whatever the technology. So a better route might be containing the fire for as long as possible and getting back to port sharpish.
-
Maybe a hatch below each car to allow immediate ejection of the firey EV into the sea. May produce disappointing results for multi-deck ferries.
I guess the question is how common is such a fire? ICE or EV? I would imagine in any case, it is a disaster; and 4x the water to extinguish it sounds bad, but either way, when surrounded by other vehicles full of fuel, oil and possibly battery packs, a fire on a sea ferry is really bad whatever the technology. So a better route might be containing the fire for as long as possible and getting back to port sharpish.
Large numbers of BEVs have been shipped without issue. It’s not a general problem and less so as more LIFEPO4 batteries are being used
-
Then again I suppose retrofitting a large fire hydrant that uses an overboard water supply would help too.
Pumping water into a ship goes against normal maritime practice!
Oh right because of the whole buyoancy thing.
And yet West Coast Coolers come in by the crate load.
What are you talking about?
What is your chain of reasoning? Refer to the basic physics of ships floating and the Plimsoll Line.
-
Nobody has leaf blowers around me and little cutting grass after sept and before march so it’s not an issue
Just as I thought, you live in some other reality.
-
It would be interesting to see what procedure is used regarding EVs (such as disconnecting batteries) for sea transport.
-
Nobody has leaf blowers around me and little cutting grass after sept and before march so it’s not an issue
Just as I thought, you live in some other reality.
Why? It's somehow the case for me too.
-
It would be interesting to see what procedure is used regarding EVs (such as disconnecting batteries) for sea transport.
Insurance companies are keeping a close watch on developments around EVs.
One example is https://www.zurich.co.uk/news-and-insight/the-insurance-considerations-for-electric-vehicles (https://www.zurich.co.uk/news-and-insight/the-insurance-considerations-for-electric-vehicles) and that references https://www.zurich.co.uk/-/media/news-and-insight/documents/useful-documents/electric_vehicles_risk_topic.pdf (https://www.zurich.co.uk/-/media/news-and-insight/documents/useful-documents/electric_vehicles_risk_topic.pdf)
The latter includes...
EV Repair costs and timing
There are several aspects that contribute to the increased cost of repairs for EVs. Unique to EVs is that when any repair work is undertaken on one it is necessary to decommission the battery to ensure that the vehicle is safe to work on and this can take up to an hour.
-
It would be interesting to see what procedure is used regarding EVs (such as disconnecting batteries) for sea transport.
Insurance companies are keeping a close watch on developments around EVs.
One example is https://www.zurich.co.uk/news-and-insight/the-insurance-considerations-for-electric-vehicles (https://www.zurich.co.uk/news-and-insight/the-insurance-considerations-for-electric-vehicles) and that references https://www.zurich.co.uk/-/media/news-and-insight/documents/useful-documents/electric_vehicles_risk_topic.pdf (https://www.zurich.co.uk/-/media/news-and-insight/documents/useful-documents/electric_vehicles_risk_topic.pdf)
The latter includes...
EV Repair costs and timing
There are several aspects that contribute to the increased cost of repairs for EVs. Unique to EVs is that when any repair work is undertaken on one it is necessary to decommission the battery to ensure that the vehicle is safe to work on and this can take up to an hour.
Renault told me that to justify their maintenance costs on my Zoé. Although Midas do it for cheaper. Who should we trust?
But my remark was more about preparing the vehicle for transport on ships.
-
Nobody has leaf blowers around me and little cutting grass after sept and before march so it’s not an issue
Just as I thought, you live in some other reality.
Other reality meaning a slightly different climate from you?
If you change September to October what was said pretty much applies here. I only see leaf blowers being used in places like public gardens. They are rare at residences.
-
Maybe a hatch below each car to allow immediate ejection of the firey EV into the sea. May produce disappointing results for multi-deck ferries.
I guess the question is how common is such a fire? ICE or EV? I would imagine in any case, it is a disaster; and 4x the water to extinguish it sounds bad, but either way, when surrounded by other vehicles full of fuel, oil and possibly battery packs, a fire on a sea ferry is really bad whatever the technology. So a better route might be containing the fire for as long as possible and getting back to port sharpish.
Large numbers of BEVs have been shipped without issue. It’s not a general problem and less so as more LIFEPO4 batteries are being used
Not quite. Not so long ago a ship with a bunch of EVs on board caught fire and sunk. https://www.euronews.com/2022/03/01/massive-cargo-ship-carrying-electric-cars-sinks-in-atlantic-ocean-after-fire (https://www.euronews.com/2022/03/01/massive-cargo-ship-carrying-electric-cars-sinks-in-atlantic-ocean-after-fire)
-
[snip]
I'm not as smart as you about boating so I have to use language that I know. All I know is that if you pump water into a boat it sinks.
Its a shame however that I forgot that a few hours ago when I made the previous post.
Here have a youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yG5C94qM2Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yG5C94qM2Y)
If you put too much water, it will sink. Some ships with special uses adjust their height by filling with more or less water. For example Platform supply vessel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_supply_vessel). Now the question is about flowing water into the cargo bay without putting buoyancy in jeopardy, there could be some leeway about that.
-
Balance on a ship is pretty important. Water sloshing around freely is killing for any form of balance. Also water ingress is not to be taken lightly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Herald_of_Free_Enterprise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Herald_of_Free_Enterprise)
-
Balance on a ship is pretty important. Water sloshing around freely is killing for any form of balance. Also water ingress is not to be taken lightly.
This whole tangent is pretty silly, but the Washington State car ferries (which, living on an island, I use a lot) have multiple firehoses located on all the car decks. These boats have two levels of deck, and all car decks are designed so that water runs off through "scuppers" (holes in the side) and drains overboard. ICE, hybrid, and BEVs are all welcome on board. About the only type of vehicle not allowed are the big fuel-carrying tanker trucks -- these go by private barge/ferry.
-
It would be interesting to see what procedure is used regarding EVs (such as disconnecting batteries) for sea transport.
Insurance companies are keeping a close watch on developments around EVs.
One example is https://www.zurich.co.uk/news-and-insight/the-insurance-considerations-for-electric-vehicles (https://www.zurich.co.uk/news-and-insight/the-insurance-considerations-for-electric-vehicles) and that references https://www.zurich.co.uk/-/media/news-and-insight/documents/useful-documents/electric_vehicles_risk_topic.pdf (https://www.zurich.co.uk/-/media/news-and-insight/documents/useful-documents/electric_vehicles_risk_topic.pdf)
The latter includes...
EV Repair costs and timing
There are several aspects that contribute to the increased cost of repairs for EVs. Unique to EVs is that when any repair work is undertaken on one it is necessary to decommission the battery to ensure that the vehicle is safe to work on and this can take up to an hour.
Renault told me that to justify their maintenance costs on my Zoé. Although Midas do it for cheaper. Who should we trust?
But my remark was more about preparing the vehicle for transport on ships.
I realise you were talking about preparing for ships.
"Trust" doesn't come into it; if you have to pay then you have to pay. It wouldn't surprise me if the cost depends on the vehicle. It sounds labour intensive, as if doing two vehicles takes two hours.
How much will delaying a ferry for an hour while the battery is "decommissioned" and "recommissioned" cost? Typically ferry stops are highly optimised for a quick turnaround, and any delay decomissioning and recommmissioning will put a spanner in their operations.
-
Wow, "Service work must be proceeded by Battery disconnect / decommission...taking up to an hour".
That is starting to edge into legal territory.
I can now imagine a new California LAW, prohibiting any'tinkering', or Saturday afternoon repairs / upgrades, unless QUALIFIED AND CERTIFIED automotive technician involved.
That's because you want your procedures and labor to be safe, not in the hands of, (gasp), some random fool, with a wrench.
-
There's no reason you should need to discharge the EV battery before travelling on a ship. The precaution comes from the possibility of a thermal event if the battery is damaged in the workshop, there is a risk of fire. That could happen in any way, cars fall off lifts for instance, or welding near a battery pack. I can't see it reducing the risk of electrocution though. Like any new technology, manufacturers will need to figure out the issues with servicing these vehicles. But since most EV's only need a brake fluid flush every 50k and a tyre rotation/replacement now and then, there also won't be that much for the garages to do outside of repairs.
-
Wow, "Service work must be proceeded by Battery disconnect / decommission...taking up to an hour".
That is starting to edge into legal territory.
I can now imagine a new California LAW, prohibiting any'tinkering', or Saturday afternoon repairs / upgrades, unless QUALIFIED AND CERTIFIED automotive technician involved.
That's because you want your procedures and labor to be safe, not in the hands of, (gasp), some random fool, with a wrench.
In California, there is no equivalent requirement for ICE vehicles and I do seem to recall 'tinkering' with our Dodge Chargers for drag racing. Strictly as a hobby, of course.
There are currently just 4 classes of license for technicians: Smog Inspector, Smog Repair Technician, Brake Adjuster and Lamp Adjuster.
https://www.bar.ca.gov/industry/licensure-faq (https://www.bar.ca.gov/industry/licensure-faq)
Some states require annual inspection and require a certificate decal on the FRONT windshield thus precluding it being seen from the rear of the vehicle. This provides all the cause necessary to stop a vehicle to see if their sticker is up to date.
That doesn't fly in California!
-
The requirement to battery disconnect is no different from having an empty fuel tank prior to having the fuel pump changed.
You do NOT need to discharge the HV system to change a bumper cover, or to change brake fluid or filters. You do need to discharge and make safe the system if doing anything on the HV system (like a motor/inverter swap) or a major structural repair, involving welding near the battery for instance, due to the risk of starting a fire.
My PHEV did not require a HV disconnect after it had a rear end shunt, as it just required a bumper repair and respray. (And it needed a second visit because they painted it with the wrong shade of blue.)
-
You are 10 years late with that criticism. It already happened, and it was viable after all. Sorry.
:-+
Further, some operators are installing substantial solar arrays to help further reduce the cost of charging their EV trucks.
Until charging gets taxed. Its not a question of "if" but "when". As for viability, well a 10 year old car needing a new battery that costs multiples of the cars current value says a lot of its non-existent viability.
-
Until charging gets taxed. Its not a question of "if" but "when". As for viability, well a 10 year old car needing a new battery that costs multiples of the cars current value says a lot of its non-existent viability.
Very difficult to imagine how you could tax charging, given you can charge from an ordinary wall outlet. Existing public charging could be taxed (and is, in the UK) but not easy to tax private charging.
If there is going to be some tax, then I'd imagine road charging (tolls to enter city centres, or a per mile for certain roads.) Whole road tolling seems unlikely and impractical unless you fit trackers to each car which is a privacy nightmare, or cover the countryside in CCTV, which is extremely expensive.
-
That's the most basic form of road charging. It's easy enough to do in busy city centres when the only option you have is a given route (e.g. a toll bridge). As the UK government discovered with the "M6 Toll", if an alternative exists that is nearly as fast (the non-toll M6) then people will preferably use that.
-
Simply put every BEV probably has a cellular connection. Should be a simple matter of taxing based upon the amount of kWh that the BEV consumes.
This would almost certainly contravene GDPR, and won't happen. The simplest way is to tax electricity at the point of use, and to charge more, the more is used, rather than discounting it for heavier users.
-
Simply put every BEV probably has a cellular connection. Should be a simple matter of taxing based upon the amount of kWh that the BEV consumes.
This would almost certainly contravene GDPR, and won't happen. The simplest way is to tax electricity at the point of use, and to charge more, the more is used, rather than discounting it for heavier users.
GDPR has no connection with it. Also government is excerpted from GPDR when taxation and other order of business is in question. Their only responsibility to GDPR is not to publish data in public. They can use it internally whatever they want...
-
And taxes are the answer to everything else anyway, like 42.
-
This would almost certainly contravene GDPR, and won't happen. The simplest way is to tax electricity at the point of use, and to charge more, the more is used, rather than discounting it for heavier users.
And solar users pay no tax? No, road charging is the only way to make it fair, on the basis of replacing fuel tax.
-
This would almost certainly contravene GDPR, and won't happen. The simplest way is to tax electricity at the point of use, and to charge more, the more is used, rather than discounting it for heavier users.
And solar users pay no tax? No, road charging is the only way to make it fair, on the basis of replacing fuel tax.
Sure but there's only one fair way to do it. Forget about taxing power, that's just plain dumb as who knows where it's generated.
Instead institute a Road User Charge (RUC) system based on vehicle class, axle/tire count and Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) like we do in NZ for all diesel road vehicles.
Vehicles used offroad are exempt as the RUC taxes only apply to kilometers travelled on public roads. Still however some claim back system needs be added for some vehicle types that travel public roads between rural offroad jobs.
A fertiliser spreader truck is such an example.
With a properly constructed RUC system levies can be properly assigned to the classes of vehicle that subjects the roading network to the most wear and tear for them each to contribute X$/1000km travelled based on odometer or hubometer readings.....which reminds me, ours are increasing at midnight tonight so better get a few 1000 more.
-
This would almost certainly contravene GDPR, and won't happen. The simplest way is to tax electricity at the point of use, and to charge more, the more is used, rather than discounting it for heavier users.
And solar users pay no tax? No, road charging is the only way to make it fair, on the basis of replacing fuel tax.
Yep. In the NL there are also plans to tax per distance travelled. But the problem is that the NL is a small country and there is a significant number of people that drive significant distances outside the country.
-
or cover the countryside in CCTV, which is extremely expensive.
shouldn't cost much in the uk,every were you look there seems to be a bugger watching you
-
Until charging gets taxed. Its not a question of "if" but "when". As for viability, well a 10 year old car needing a new battery that costs multiples of the cars current value says a lot of its non-existent viability.
Very difficult to imagine how you could tax charging, given you can charge from an ordinary wall outlet. Existing public charging could be taxed (and is, in the UK) but not easy to tax private charging.
If there is going to be some tax, then I'd imagine road charging (tolls to enter city centres, or a per mile for certain roads.) Whole road tolling seems unlikely and impractical unless you fit trackers to each car which is a privacy nightmare, or cover the countryside in CCTV, which is extremely expensive.
Oh you can just charge those rich folks in the city, who don't have their own driveway. I think most of us could get behind that.
Congestion charge, and public charger charge, parking charge, bridge charge, insurance, charging insurance, tax on insurance, insurance on tax on insurance, and interest rate on charging network ppp loan. But only in the big smoke, plus the street where Boris Johnson lives.
-
This would almost certainly contravene GDPR, and won't happen. The simplest way is to tax electricity at the point of use, and to charge more, the more is used, rather than discounting it for heavier users.
And solar users pay no tax? No, road charging is the only way to make it fair, on the basis of replacing fuel tax.
Yep. In the NL there are also plans to tax per distance travelled. But the problem is that the NL is a small country and there is a significant number of people that drive significant distances outside the country.
:-DD and that is somehow completely different from people buying fuel (with its high taxes to offset the externalities such as road costs its use creates) in one jurisdiction but driving in another?
Per km road use fees already exist to solve this funding "problem" for EVs:
https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/registration/registration-fees/zlev-road-user-charge (https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/registration/registration-fees/zlev-road-user-charge)
the 2.6c/km rate puts EVs at equivalent taxation to a fossil burner with 5.9l/100km fuel consumption (perhaps a little higher than the current EU new car average)
-
Alternately……
Buy an EV if you really want one and it works for you
Or
Dont buy one if you cant afford it or it doesnt work for you or if you just prefer the roar of a v8 to a whirr.
Ill be letting the fanbois spaff all their cash on ironing out the wrinkles in EV construction use and early life failures. Once the infrastructure is largely in place and the issues has been ironed out…then ill look at them.
8-)
-
I'd have no problem paying 2.6c/km road tax - though it would just about double my 'electric' bill for my vehicle :o - it still retains a very low cost per mile.
-
Until charging gets taxed. Its not a question of "if" but "when". As for viability, well a 10 year old car needing a new battery that costs multiples of the cars current value says a lot of its non-existent viability.
Very difficult to imagine how you could tax charging, given you can charge from an ordinary wall outlet. Existing public charging could be taxed (and is, in the UK) but not easy to tax private charging.
If there is going to be some tax, then I'd imagine road charging (tolls to enter city centres, or a per mile for certain roads.) Whole road tolling seems unlikely and impractical unless you fit trackers to each car which is a privacy nightmare, or cover the countryside in CCTV, which is extremely expensive.
Oh you can just charge those rich folks in the city, who don't have their own driveway. I think most of us could get behind that.
Congestion charge, and public charger charge, parking charge, bridge charge, insurance, charging insurance, tax on insurance, insurance on tax on insurance, and interest rate on charging network ppp loan. But only in the big smoke, plus the street where Boris Johnson lives.
Many folks with cars in cities are poor.
Recently introduced congestion charges near me are crippling some of them, e.g. home helps for the elderly and sick. They are paid almost minimum wage and have to supply their own vehicles. Obviously public transport isn't an option.
And then there are the disabled with specially adapted vehicles. Tough shit for them.
In London they are offering <=£2000 trade in when cheap secondhand EVs are £20000. Notice the different number of zeros. According to a source I normally distrust, 65% of those hit say they can't afford a new vehicle.
Currently BoJo is looking at schools in his old constituency of Henley.
-
This would almost certainly contravene GDPR, and won't happen. The simplest way is to tax electricity at the point of use, and to charge more, the more is used, rather than discounting it for heavier users.
And solar users pay no tax? No, road charging is the only way to make it fair, on the basis of replacing fuel tax.
Yep. In the NL there are also plans to tax per distance travelled. But the problem is that the NL is a small country and there is a significant number of people that drive significant distances outside the country.
:-DD and that is somehow completely different from people buying fuel (with its high taxes to offset the externalities such as road costs its use creates) in one jurisdiction but driving in another?
Ofcourse that is different. You'd be paying taxes twice! On top of that there are several countries in Europe where you have to pay to use the highways (toll roads).
-
This would almost certainly contravene GDPR, and won't happen. The simplest way is to tax electricity at the point of use, and to charge more, the more is used, rather than discounting it for heavier users.
And solar users pay no tax? No, road charging is the only way to make it fair, on the basis of replacing fuel tax.
Yep. In the NL there are also plans to tax per distance travelled. But the problem is that the NL is a small country and there is a significant number of people that drive significant distances outside the country.
:-DD and that is somehow completely different from people buying fuel (with its high taxes to offset the externalities such as road costs its use creates) in one jurisdiction but driving in another?
Of course that is different. You'd be paying taxes twice! On top of that there are several countries in Europe where you have to pay to use the highways (toll roads).
Currently you fill up with petrol in [country A] which has similar taxation and pricing to [country B], beyond some heavy vehicles scheduling their fills it averages out. Where is the double taxation? Why is this somehow unfair to people driving into other jurisdictions?
future situation....
Each country charges you per km use either annually with registration/warrant/insurance, or by some automated toll like realtime magic, but they all use the same method. Where is the double taxation? Why is this somehow unfair to people driving into other jurisdictions?
Right now that division in Australia is by what fuel your vehicle uses, so no double taxation, and no issues with driving into other jurisdictions. You are shouting about some boogeyman situation that no-one is suggesting. But do continue posting up inflammatory and misleading crap, since you cannot find any practical/real problems?
-
I'd have no problem paying 2.6c/km road tax - though it would just about double my 'electric' bill for my vehicle :o - it still retains a very low cost per mile.
Thats it, even when charged an almost identical fee for road use as the fossil burners the world doesn't end and EVs aren't priced out of the market. Talking to owners of EVs they say 2 things: its not that much money (in the total ownership), and they drive so few km it doesn't really add that much.
EVs are roughly cost parity in Australia with ICE or hybrids (like for like, mid size sedans). As I've mentioned before the Australian car market, with almost no government intervention at this point, really does find equilibrium.
-
All the taxes mostly exist, just will be adjusted
You have:
annual fixed tax per vehicle
tolls for highways
fee to entering city (most big cities have or soon will have this in Europe)
parking fees (as only "free" parking is on own land now)
and annual mileage is recorded by mandatory emision/safety checks, also it is recorded with every change of the owner (most European countries do this)
ICE have now tax in the fuel, but so is tax in electricity (just lower, but this can be and will be adjusted)
And you can easily have tax calculated from your traveled distance, because they have this data.
-
If they tax ev's like ice in the uk it will need to be a double tax to cover both the lost fuel duty and the vat on the fuel duty
-
If they tax ev's like ice in the uk it will need to be a double tax to cover both the lost fuel duty and the vat on the fuel duty
EV charging already has 20% VAT applied if in public, and 5% at home.
-
If they tax ev's like ice in the uk it will need to be a double tax to cover both the lost fuel duty and the vat on the fuel duty
It’s very unlikely that charging BEVs will be taxed as regulating that’s tax is technically difficult. Attempts to capture that data from the car would fall foul of EU freedom charter at present.
Certainly the working group I was on found road pricing to be preferable this would be made up of a tag based toll system ( already in existence for motorways ) plus a fixed annual charge based on mileage , this would then replace the taxes on fuel ( duty is high plus vat ) of course thd gov is already getting vat on the electricity anyway except for home generated power
Tbd overall feeling fron the dept of finance guys on the group that replacing the fuel duties would not be insurmountable and road pricing was a fairer principle then fuel taxes anyway. The view was road pricing was much more likely to influence user behaviour then the current fuel tax regime anyway.
Thd overall view was that consistent with data protection. GPS based road pricing was both fairer and better for social and road planning objectives and more likely to influence driver behaviour then the current fuel orientated tax system.
-
If they tax ev's like ice in the uk it will need to be a double tax to cover both the lost fuel duty and the vat on the fuel duty
It’s very unlikely that charging BEVs will be taxed as regulating that’s tax is technically difficult. Attempts to capture that data from the car would fall foul of EU freedom charter at present.
Mileage is recorded at every annual inspection.
-
And you can easily have tax calculated from your traveled distance, because they have this data.
The problem is that this data does not tell where you have travelled and thus it can not be used to base road taxes on. Cars on hydrogen would solve this tax problem nicely because the tax can be calculated at the filling station.
-
And you can easily have tax calculated from your traveled distance, because they have this data.
The problem is that this data does not tell where you have travelled and thus it can not be used to base road taxes on. Cars on hydrogen would solve this tax problem nicely because the tax can be calculated at the filling station.
It's a pretty fringe reason to use one fuel/energy type over another.
Of course the other argument is we could just collect the tax another way, like an annual levy on owning a car or just income tax (which might be the fairest way as those earning the most probably can most afford higher tax for private car use.)
-
If they tax ev's like ice in the uk it will need to be a double tax to cover both the lost fuel duty and the vat on the fuel duty
It’s very unlikely that charging BEVs will be taxed as regulating that’s tax is technically difficult. Attempts to capture that data from the car would fall foul of EU freedom charter at present.
Mileage is recorded at every annual inspection.
Well every 4 years here on under 10 year old and then 2 years
The view from the finance people was that small progressive tax systems are better as they lead to changes in behaviour. What road and urban planners wanted was to have the road pricing system change user behaviour with for example routes with good public transport being dearer then say a rural route with no public transport etc
The technical and privacy issues were acknowledged but they felt it was surmountable
-
And you can easily have tax calculated from your traveled distance, because they have this data.
The problem is that this data does not tell where you have travelled and thus it can not be used to base road taxes on. Cars on hydrogen would solve this tax problem nicely because the tax can be calculated at the filling station.
It's a pretty fringe reason to use one fuel/energy type over another.
Of course the other argument is we could just collect the tax another way, like an annual levy on owning a car or just income tax (which might be the fairest way as those earning the most probably can most afford higher tax for private car use.)
In the working group I was in the tax and finance dept had several clear reasons
1. Was to make legacy ice expensive so as to convince people to change as soon as they could afford
2. To change driver behaviour not just extract money
3. To allow taxes to be progressive , ie excessive mileage results in higher tax. Their stats showed working class workers tended to favour public transport and or car sharing and pooling etc whereas higher earners often undertook frivolous journeys that could be also done by public transport.
Hehce the primary perspective was to change user behaviour in favour of less overall unnecessary travel and to encourage carbon free ( or low carbon) methods
The revenue raised from ice fuel sales while significant was not seen as that significant in the overall tax regime and replacing it was not seen as that big a task
-
Attempts to capture that data from the car would fall foul of EU freedom charter at present.
As were no longer in the EU we've no need to bother about that
-
Attempts to capture that data from the car would fall foul of EU freedom charter at present.
As were no longer in the EU we've no need to bother about that
Indeed. No doubt your country will now ignore any personal freedoms as it has a good historical record of trampling over most !!
The view of one eu data protection unit was that user “ opt in” gos based road pricing would be legal whereas widespread imposition would not be possible , hence consideration was given to incentivising the opt in over the alternative
-
Attempts to capture that data from the car would fall foul of EU freedom charter at present.
As were no longer in the EU we've no need to bother about that
Indeed. No doubt your country will now ignore any personal freedoms as it has a good historical record of trampling over most !!
The view of one eu data protection unit was that user “ opt in” gos based road pricing would be legal whereas widespread imposition would not be possible , hence consideration was given to incentivising the opt in over the alternative
You can "voluntarily" opt-in or pay tax like driving 100k km annually ::)
-
No doubt your country will now ignore any personal freedoms as it has a good historical record of trampling over most !
hey,at least were good at something,
-
Attempts to capture that data from the car would fall foul of EU freedom charter at present.
As were no longer in the EU we've no need to bother about that
Indeed. No doubt your country will now ignore any personal freedoms as it has a good historical record of trampling over most !!
The view of one eu data protection unit was that user “ opt in” gos based road pricing would be legal whereas widespread imposition would not be possible , hence consideration was given to incentivising the opt in over the alternative
You can "voluntarily" opt-in or pay tax like driving 100k km annually ::)
Yes some aspect of a fixed fee or range of fres based on your address or an opt in system. Equally many road planners there felt that for various reasons many new roads would have number plate recognition as standard for speeding etc and this system could easily be expanded to do general road pricing The overall view was replacing ice fuel taxes was not insurmountable at all.
The planners felt “ road pricing “ was more in line with the “ polluter pays “ principle
-
If I were you guys I would start debating the failure modes of old BEVs with lots of miles on them cause we may be seeing a lot of them around.
What failure modes. We have BEVs since 2010 and we’re not seeing “ failure nodes” I have a 6 year old leaf with 250,000km still going strong and residuals are better then equivalent ice.
-
The biggest risk is individual cells failing.
On vehicles like the Leaf this is easy enough to fix, the same applies to older Model S and most newer EVs. Newer Tesla's seem to use batteries that are glued together and are a lot more difficult to service.
Some older EVs have shorter battery lifespans than desirable, e.g. older Leaf's. Those are ones to avoid, though still ok for local journeys, road tripping in a degraded battery 24kWh Leaf would not be fun.
The battery pack on my PHEV is holding up well and it gets cycled brutally, the thing that worries me is more the gearbox, that judders now and then, which is a common issue on DSGs as the clutches recalibrate. You don't have automatic gearboxes on pure EVs. There's also the worry of the turbo dying. Strangely enough EV's don't have those either.
-
The biggest risk is individual cells failing.
On vehicles like the Leaf this is easy enough to fix, the same applies to older Model S and most newer EVs. Newer Tesla's seem to use batteries that are glued together and are a lot more difficult to service.
Some older EVs have shorter battery lifespans than desirable, e.g. older Leaf's. Those are ones to avoid, though still ok for local journeys, road tripping in a degraded battery 24kWh Leaf would not be fun.
The battery pack on my PHEV is holding up well and it gets cycled brutally, the thing that worries me is more the gearbox, that judders now and then, which is a common issue on DSGs as the clutches recalibrate. You don't have automatic gearboxes on pure EVs. There's also the worry of the turbo dying. Strangely enough EV's don't have those either.
As I said PHEVS are transitory and the benefits are largely illusional. I don’t see the “ breed” surviving as taxes on ice rise and PHEVS are much more expensive to make than BEVS. Where I live BEVs outsell phevs 2:1
So long term phev is not a factor anyway
BEVs have now longer battery life then most ICE engines or nearly so
The original leaf issues were largely associated with high ambient use whereas those leafs in temperate climate have performed well. I know several people with 6-8 year old leafs
Furthermore the replacement battery industry will arrive in time once Bev populations are high enough just like you can buy replacement ice engines today for leafs for example it’s already possible to do battery replacement
As for Tesla’s I don’t see them as the dominant Bev company over the long term tbd big car companies will dominate the lower end of the market. Tesla is a premium brand but there’s lots of market space for lower cost models.
-
I think Tesla missed the ball by focusing too much on NA, they had a really good foothold on the EV market in Europe but will lose that to VW/Stellantis/Nissan. They should have released a Golf-like Model 3 and the Model Y a bit sooner. However the one advantage they do have is massive battery manufacturing capacity which means other manufacturers will be playing catch up for some time. Remains to be seen how long that continues.
PHEVs are still important vehicles over the next 10yrs but yes arguably we are already approaching the point where BEVs are cheaper than PHEVs - engines, exhaust systems and multi speed gearboxes aren't free.
-
And you can easily have tax calculated from your traveled distance, because they have this data.
The problem is that this data does not tell where you have travelled and thus it can not be used to base road taxes on. Cars on hydrogen would solve this tax problem nicely because the tax can be calculated at the filling station.
It's a pretty fringe reason to use one fuel/energy type over another.
Of course the other argument is we could just collect the tax another way, like an annual levy on owning a car or just income tax (which might be the fairest way as those earning the most probably can most afford higher tax for private car use.)
The problem is that the NL government wants to replace taxes from fuel towards taxes on road use. Part of that is given by the use of BEVs which is hard to tax when people charge at home or from other non-taxes sources. So, it is not a fringe reason. It likely is going to end up with BEV owners paying more tax for owning the car though. In the NL there are already different tax tariffs depending on the kind of fuel a car is using.
-
The problem is that the NL government wants to replace taxes from fuel towards taxes on road use. Part of that is given by the use of BEVs which is hard to tax when people charge at home or from other non-taxes sources. So, it is not a fringe reason. It likely is going to end up with BEV owners paying more tax for owning the car though. In the NL there are already different tax tariffs depending on the kind of fuel a car is using.
I don't know about the specifics in NL but in the UK fuel duty is 3% of all tax receipts. It's not nothing but it doesn't feel impossible to fill that hole with other things. It could cost a lot more to implement road charging or some other way to tax EVs compared to just biting the bullet and adding say 1% to income tax. You would need a much more compelling reason to support hydrogen vehicles IMO.
-
In the NL 60% (or even more) of the fuel price is taxes. I'm quite sure the UK government is receiving way more taxes on fuel than 3%.
-
In the NL 60% (or even more) of the fuel price is taxes.
That's about the same for the UK, a fixed 53p/L fuel duty plus 20% VAT on the overall price, works out to about 55% of the total price at current ~£1.40/L pricing. Not sure if the VAT is hypothecated from the fuel duty, so it might be closer to 3.5-4% that needs to be replaced if not.
-
As I opined I think road pricing is seen as the way forward. More progressive , targeted and capable of changing habits
-
This would almost certainly contravene GDPR, and won't happen. The simplest way is to tax electricity at the point of use, and to charge more, the more is used, rather than discounting it for heavier users.
And solar users pay no tax? No, road charging is the only way to make it fair, on the basis of replacing fuel tax.
If you've a solar rig big enough to charge an EV as well as power your house, then yes, why not? I suspect that would be very few people, in reality, certainly in Northern European countries.
-
Depends on how you use it, but a 4.5kW array on my house (Midlands/South-East England) is projected to have many days of surplus during the day that could be used for EV charging in the summer months. Upwards of 10kWh could be added in addition to normal household loads. Definitely not the case during winter, though.
-
I think until the grid is in peril from private PV we will not see taxes on PV
-
As I opined I think road pricing is seen as the way forward. More progressive , targeted and capable of changing habits
Taxing is not going to work at all to change habits. Anyone thinking that is a complete fool. It has been tried to death in the NL and it didn't reduce the number of cars (quite the opposite) and only drove up inflation. People have to get from A to B to earn money. There should be less taxes on cars because cars enable people to make more money (spending less time travelling or not doing any work at all) and thus generate more revenue from income taxes and economic growth as a whole.
-
As I opined I think road pricing is seen as the way forward. More progressive , targeted and capable of changing habits
Taxing is not going to work at all to change habits. Anyone thinking that is a complete fool. It has been tried to death in the NL and it didn't reduce the number of cars (quite the opposite) and only drove up inflation. People have to get from A to B to earn money.
Yep.
But maybe not in one decade from now. People will just be ordered to stay at home, work and live their private life in a metaverse. :-DD
-
As I opined I think road pricing is seen as the way forward. More progressive , targeted and capable of changing habits
Taxing is not going to work at all to change habits. Anyone thinking that is a complete fool. It has been tried to death in the NL and it didn't reduce the number of cars (quite the opposite) and only drove up inflation. People have to get from A to B to earn money. There should be less taxes on cars because cars enable people to make more money (spending less time travelling or not doing any work at all) and thus generate more revenue from income taxes and economic growth as a whole.
That’s a nonsense comment. It’s well accepted that taxation policy does influence people’s actions. Ireland brought in a plastic bag tax within 6 months bag usage dropped 80 %. Same with Bev incentives , smoking taxes etc etc. taxation is a major way governments make social change
There’s no evidence private cars make people money. Employment makes people money , hence modern policy is to encourage less car usage in getting to and from work with for example tax free annual bus or rail tickets or even in Ireland a tax free “ bike to work “ scheme.
Again taxation policy directly influences people , domestic solar pv is a classic example as is the huge rise in BEV usage
Modern urban planners want a far less “ car centric “ future hence the rise in pedestrian areas , conjestion areas, one way systems , restrictions on parking spaces in new apartments etc etc and more investments in metros and light rail etc. there will be increasing disincentives to use a car in an urban area. That’s for sure.
BEV cars play a part in decarbonising private transport. Government policy and planing policy can act to disincentivise private car usage where practical.
The private car is past its zenith , the future will not be based around it.
( as an example I know two shopping centres and an big apartment complex refused planning because they’d car parking area were too numerous. Both shops had to reduce their spaces by 30% and put in place bus access facilities etc. a recent change in planning allows apartment complexs within 1km of a rail station to forgo having ANY car parking in the complex !! )
-
The private car is past its zenith , the future will not be based around it.
Another fool's idea. The reality is that without a car you are just stuck at one place with the same people all around you. You could call living in a transportless ghetto 'urban cocooning'. But that is just a trend that will reverse quickly when young people (re) discover a car gives you a lot of freedom of movement. In the NL it is expected that the number of cars will keep increasing during the next decade.
-
As I opined I think road pricing is seen as the way forward. More progressive , targeted and capable of changing habits
Taxing is not going to work at all to change habits. Anyone thinking that is a complete fool. It has been tried to death in the NL and it didn't reduce the number of cars (quite the opposite) and only drove up inflation. People have to get from A to B to earn money.
But maybe not in one decade from now. People will just be ordered to stay at home, work and live their private life in a metaverse. :-DD
They won’t need to be ordered , covid showed people liked not having to go into the office !!
Yep.
-
I see a lot of volume, of discussion; Good there, but that does indicate much lack, of agreement, on action(s) going forward.
Listen to what some leaders have stated;
Pres. Obama:.
"...We at least know, that with wholesale switch, to fully electric transportation systems, that electricity prices will, necessarily skyrocket."
Now; somebody call him a liar, then ?
-
Err, sorry, I meant to say, in the switch-over to green energy source, prices will skyrocket...but similar dynamic.
-
The private car is past its zenith , the future will not be based around it.
Another fool's idea. The reality is that without a car you are just stuck at one place with the same people all around you. You could call living in a transportless ghetto 'urban cocooning'. But that is just a trend that will reverse quickly when young people (re) discover a car gives you a lot of freedom of movement. In the NL it is expected that the number of cars will keep increasing during the next decade.
Interesting I have two adult kids in well paid jobs living on major European centres. Neither they nor they’re friends own cars. They rent as needed but have no desire to own one
This trend is evident in all major urban centres anongst that demographic
Planners are actively removing cats from urban areas , conjrdtion chsrgijg , removing or restricting car parking , pedestrianisation, investments in light and heavy rail etc.
The car is now seen as an unfortunate evil in large urban areas and will increasingly be restricted and taxed.
-
I see a lot of volume, of discussion; Good there, but that does indicate much lack, of agreement, on action(s) going forward.
Listen to what some leaders have stated;
Pres. Obama:.
"...We at least know, that with wholesale switch, to fully electric transportation systems, that electricity prices will, necessarily skyrocket."
In a previous discussion I already wrote that electricity is likely to become a scarse commodity so it is not a good idea at all to become fully dependant on electricity for all energy supply. Unfortunately, for too many electricity is something that comes out of a socket in the wall magically. Yesterday there was an article in the newspaper saying 2 out of 3 people in the NL are utterly clueless about their energy use and costs. They will be in for a nasty surprise especially since gas and electricity prices have tripled or even quadrupled.
-
Err, sorry, I meant to say, in the switch-over to green energy source, prices will skyrocket...but similar dynamic.
Actually in markets reaching high levels of renewable energy generation , spot grid pricing is falling and is causing issues for regulators as they are forced to stop renewable generation at peak times to maintain the economics of base load generators or otherwise such base load generators would in effect fail economically.
-
The private car is past its zenith , the future will not be based around it.
Another fool's idea. The reality is that without a car you are just stuck at one place with the same people all around you. You could call living in a transportless ghetto 'urban cocooning'. But that is just a trend that will reverse quickly when young people (re) discover a car gives you a lot of freedom of movement. In the NL it is expected that the number of cars will keep increasing during the next decade.
Interesting I have two adult kids in well paid jobs living on major European centres. Neither they nor they’re friends own cars. They rent as needed but have no desire to own one
That is just anecdotal evidence. The youngsters my kids hang out with bought a car as soon as they had a driver's license and could afford a car. Give it a few years, a few salary increases and your kids plus all their friends will have a car. I've seen that happen often enough when working with youngers people at customers. First they go 'I don't need a car, will rent one', but when they start doing the math and see how much freedom they gain from owning a car, they will buy one. Usually this happens when they move to a bigger home as well.
-
I see a lot of volume, of discussion; Good there, but that does indicate much lack, of agreement, on action(s) going forward.
Listen to what some leaders have stated;
Pres. Obama:.
"...We at least know, that with wholesale switch, to fully electric transportation systems, that electricity prices will, necessarily skyrocket."
In a previous discussion I already wrote that electricity is likely to become a scarse commodity so it is not a good idea at all to become fully dependant on electricity for all energy supply. Unfortunately, for too many electricity is something that comes out of a socket in the wall magically. Yesterday there was an article in the newspaper saying 2 out of 3 people in the NL are utterly clueless about their energy use and costs. They will be in for a nasty surprise especially since gas and electricity prices have tripled or even quadrupled.
There us no credible evidence that “ electricity will become scarce “. There is evidence of the opposite in many countries whete large capacity renewables are coming on stream. What is also evident is that some countries have woefully underinvested in their grid and Grren energy’s generation and will suffer temporary supply issues until they’ve sort things out
Over the expectedly Bev conversion time scales there’s plenty of time to fix grid issues.
-
The private car is past its zenith , the future will not be based around it.
Another fool's idea. The reality is that without a car you are just stuck at one place with the same people all around you. You could call living in a transportless ghetto 'urban cocooning'. But that is just a trend that will reverse quickly when young people (re) discover a car gives you a lot of freedom of movement. In the NL it is expected that the number of cars will keep increasing during the next decade.
Interesting I have two adult kids in well paid jobs living on major European centres. Neither they nor they’re friends own cars. They rent as needed but have no desire to own one
That is just anecdotal evidence. The youngsters my kids hang out with bought a car as soon as they had a driver's license and could afford a car.
It well maybe anecdotal but if you ask motor sales tracking orgs these days you’ll see a very different demographic buying cars nowadays then when i was 20.
The age of car centric planning and thinking is over.
-
I see a lot of volume, of discussion; Good there, but that does indicate much lack, of agreement, on action(s) going forward.
Listen to what some leaders have stated;
Pres. Obama:.
"...We at least know, that with wholesale switch, to fully electric transportation systems, that electricity prices will, necessarily skyrocket."
In a previous discussion I already wrote that electricity is likely to become a scarse commodity so it is not a good idea at all to become fully dependant on electricity for all energy supply. Unfortunately, for too many electricity is something that comes out of a socket in the wall magically. Yesterday there was an article in the newspaper saying 2 out of 3 people in the NL are utterly clueless about their energy use and costs. They will be in for a nasty surprise especially since gas and electricity prices have tripled or even quadrupled.
There us no credible evidence that “ electricity will become scarce “.
What is there not to understand about 'prices have quadrupled'? Cost efficient storage is a problem that has not been solved at all; that is just getting started with pilot projects.
-
Don't waste your time with people that can't even see reality.
-
I see a lot of volume, of discussion; Good there, but that does indicate much lack, of agreement, on action(s) going forward.
Listen to what some leaders have stated;
Pres. Obama:.
"...We at least know, that with wholesale switch, to fully electric transportation systems, that electricity prices will, necessarily skyrocket."
In a previous discussion I already wrote that electricity is likely to become a scarse commodity so it is not a good idea at all to become fully dependant on electricity for all energy supply. Unfortunately, for too many electricity is something that comes out of a socket in the wall magically. Yesterday there was an article in the newspaper saying 2 out of 3 people in the NL are utterly clueless about their energy use and costs. They will be in for a nasty surprise especially since gas and electricity prices have tripled or even quadrupled.
There is no credible evidence that “ electricity will become scarce “.
What is there not to understand about 'prices have quadrupled'? Cost efficient storage is a problem that has not been solved at all; that is just getting started with pilot projects.
Energy price rises have happened due to the Ukrainian situation there is a log of evidence many suppliers have been profiteering and chickens will come home to roost with countries limiting prices rises , France has already done so.
Hence as tbd Ukrainian situation is resolved and calm is restored. Pricing will stabilise
In fact I was talking to a grid regulator ( he’s a friend ) avd he said that tbd Ukrainian situation has spurred massive interest in domestic solar and insulation schemes and that within 10 years there would be too much generation capacity and a crisis as a result.
-
Don't waste your time with people that can't even see reality.
I know it’s very hard putting across arguments to people that haven’t smelled the coffee beans and seen what’s happening around them or are stick in some 60s wonderland.
-
As I opined I think road pricing is seen as the way forward. More progressive , targeted and capable of changing habits
Taxing is not going to work at all to change habits. Anyone thinking that is a complete fool. It has been tried to death in the NL and it didn't reduce the number of cars (quite the opposite) and only drove up inflation. People have to get from A to B to earn money. There should be less taxes on cars because cars enable people to make more money (spending less time travelling or not doing any work at all) and thus generate more revenue from income taxes and economic growth as a whole.
This is how it works in reality:
(https://miro.medium.com/max/664/1*FwMiVzMexDyJ2kufESQrWA.png)
People switch from cars to alternative transport if cars are expensive. Which is an unfortunate event, shouldn't really be the end goal of any administration, because it only means that they are creating a failed society.
When they cancelled the price stop in Hungary, the number of cars on the road decreased significantly. The price of fuel went up by ~25% in a day. Here the same happens if the living cost would be even remotely comparable. It's not, we don't have to pay 130% of the average salary for mortgage.
What you are describing is that the cost of transport is in the elastic part of this graph (if you extend it the straight line becomes a hyperbole)
What is there not to understand about 'prices have quadrupled'? Cost efficient storage is a problem that has not been solved at all; that is just getting started with pilot projects.
Frank energie. The price this year was 10c to 30c per kwh this year. Fixed price should be banned.
-
People switch from cars to alternative transport if cars are expensive. Which is an unfortunate event, shouldn't really be the end goal of any administration, because it only means that they are creating a failed society.
In most developed European countries the goal is to reduce dependance on private car usage. New motorways are now considered bad planning and commuter rail is preferred. Aggressive car reduction projects like conjestion charging restricting car access and reducing car parking are being introduced. Couple this with increased taxes on fuel and annual car ownership and you can see the general trend in urban planning is decidedly anti car
So the voting public largely supporting “ green policies” reject your ridiculous asertion this is creating a “ failed society “
everywhere you look you see cars on the back foot. Road engineering is disincentivising cars , parking bans , wholesale urban pedestrian areas , the return of road based light rail , restrictions on car access , reductions in allowances for cars and 20kph speed restrictions etc
All this points tons successful society not a failed one. The supremacy of the car is over , in my capital city historic streets were vandalised to accomadate more cars in tneb60s and seventies , this would be unthinkable nowadays. In fact now roads are smaller as cycle lanes , pedestrian areas and other road works have removed car road space dignificantly
These are not social failures they are successes where people quality of living is prioritised over polluting private transport
-
People switch from cars to alternative transport if cars are expensive. Which is an unfortunate event, shouldn't really be the end goal of any administration, because it only means that they are creating a failed society.
In most developed European countries the goal is to reduce dependance on private car usage. New motorways are now considered bad planning and commuter rail is preferred. Aggressive car reduction projects like conjestion charging restricting car access and reducing car parking are being introduced. Couple this with increased taxes on fuel and annual car ownership and you can see the general trend in urban planning is decidedly anti car
So the voting public largely supporting “ green policies” reject your ridiculous asertion this is creating a “ failed society “
everywhere you look you see cars on the back foot. Road engineering is disincentivising cars , parking bans , wholesale urban pedestrian areas , the return of road based light rail , restrictions on car access , reductions in allowances for cars and 20kph speed restrictions etc
All this points tons successful society not a failed one. The supremacy of the car is over , in my capital city historic streets were vandalised to accomadate more cars in tneb60s and seventies , this would be unthinkable nowadays. In fact now roads are smaller as cycle lanes , pedestrian areas and other road works have removed car road space dignificantly
These are not social failures they are successes where people quality of living is prioritised over polluting private transport
Town planner: someone who plans towns in order to make enough money not to have to live in one.
-
People switch from cars to alternative transport if cars are expensive. Which is an unfortunate event, shouldn't really be the end goal of any administration, because it only means that they are creating a failed society.
In most developed European countries the goal is to reduce dependance on private car usage. New motorways are now considered bad planning and commuter rail is preferred. Aggressive car reduction projects like conjestion charging restricting car access and reducing car parking are being introduced. Couple this with increased taxes on fuel and annual car ownership and you can see the general trend in urban planning is decidedly anti car
So the voting public largely supporting “ green policies” reject your ridiculous asertion this is creating a “ failed society “
everywhere you look you see cars on the back foot. Road engineering is disincentivising cars , parking bans , wholesale urban pedestrian areas , the return of road based light rail , restrictions on car access , reductions in allowances for cars and 20kph speed restrictions etc
All this points tons successful society not a failed one. The supremacy of the car is over , in my capital city historic streets were vandalised to accomadate more cars in tneb60s and seventies , this would be unthinkable nowadays. In fact now roads are smaller as cycle lanes , pedestrian areas and other road works have removed car road space dignificantly
These are not social failures they are successes where people quality of living is prioritised over polluting private transport
Town planner: someone who plans towns in order to make enough money not to have to live in one.
Ah. Cynics the people that struggle to get out of bed each day
-
People switch from cars to alternative transport if cars are expensive. Which is an unfortunate event, shouldn't really be the end goal of any administration, because it only means that they are creating a failed society.
In most developed European countries the goal is to reduce dependance on private car usage. New motorways are now considered bad planning and commuter rail is preferred.
Again: this has been tried to death in the NL already and failed missarably. Nowadays they are catching up on building new and more roads over here. On top of that people may receive a higher allowance for work related car travel. The NL government has given up chasing what is a pipe dream.
The problem is that public transport goes from one hub to another. I have worked at various companies that are located in large industrial areas that had no public transport connection at all. IOW: if your home is close to a train station and your work is close to a train station, public transport works. Otherwise it just doesn't. Making owning a car more expensive doesn't change the situation. It just makes working more expensive for many people. I've seen various good engineers leaving companies due to travel time and costs. A real loss for the company involved but completely understandable.
-
People switch from cars to alternative transport if cars are expensive. Which is an unfortunate event, shouldn't really be the end goal of any administration, because it only means that they are creating a failed society.
In most developed European countries the goal is to reduce dependance on private car usage. New motorways are now considered bad planning and commuter rail is preferred. Aggressive car reduction projects like conjestion charging restricting car access and reducing car parking are being introduced. Couple this with increased taxes on fuel and annual car ownership and you can see the general trend in urban planning is decidedly anti car
So the voting public largely supporting “ green policies” reject your ridiculous asertion this is creating a “ failed society “
everywhere you look you see cars on the back foot. Road engineering is disincentivising cars , parking bans , wholesale urban pedestrian areas , the return of road based light rail , restrictions on car access , reductions in allowances for cars and 20kph speed restrictions etc
All this points tons successful society not a failed one. The supremacy of the car is over , in my capital city historic streets were vandalised to accomadate more cars in tneb60s and seventies , this would be unthinkable nowadays. In fact now roads are smaller as cycle lanes , pedestrian areas and other road works have removed car road space dignificantly
These are not social failures they are successes where people quality of living is prioritised over polluting private transport
Town planner: someone who plans towns in order to make enough money not to have to live in one.
Ah. Cynics the people that struggle to get out of bed each day
People who want to plan other people's lives build dystopias, not utopias.
-
The end goal is for public transit to reach the convenience of the private car (or to substitute that in another way). In many European cities this is already the case for personal transport. For instance in London it's usually faster to take public transport than drive, especially so in rush hours. The public transport infrastructure can cope with this demand. The road infrastructure, on the other hand, can't really cope with the number of people who want to drive -- roads grind to a relative halt. The average speed on London roads is about 10 mph during day time and even lower during rush hour. Some dream of car ownership, that. Thing is, this kind of pattern is seen all over the world in big cities. The only way to escape it is to not live in a big city, but about 70% of the western world does, so you can't ignore it.
I think that as autonomous vehicles come about the model of private car ownership will get completely shaken up. People will still own cars, in some cases it will be more convenient. But if you could get a car on demand at a similar convenience to owning a car, whilst having none of the inconvenience and fixed costs that owning a car entails, that could be pretty attractive. The real benefit here is optimisation. You often don't need a 5 seater car, not for your commute and not to go to the shop. You'd be happy with a 1 or 2 seater. So that's what you hire. If you're going to the airport you get the 4 seater with extra luggage space. (But that car doesn't park at the airport - it drops you off and then gets another customer.) If you're going to buy a sofa you hire the auto-van with space for your load. No more buying a massive SUV because twice a year you go to the dump and you'd rather not do a second trip. On the highway all vehicles heading in the same direction join together in a convoy to maximise range and efficiency. It changes the dynamic of a private car completely. It also dispels issues with range anxiety, because for a long trip, you just hire the 150kWh car, but the small car is using a 30kWh battery.
Autonomous vehicles is where public transport is heading. Of course autonomous technology needs to catch up, it's still in the nascent stage, but it's coming. It's really going to endanger millions of jobs too, but that's another discussion.
-
A major problem with any organized public transportation system is sometimes called "the last mile", or how I get from the Jefferson Park 'L' station (Chicago Transit Authority) to my house roughly a mile away.
Autonomous vehicles (on demand) could be a solution for that issue.
-
A major problem with any organized public transportation system is sometimes called "the last mile", or how I get from the Jefferson Park 'L' station (Chicago Transit Authority) to my house roughly a mile away
walk,wont even take 20 minutes, added bonus you can cancel the gym membership.
-
A major problem with any organized public transportation system is sometimes called "the last mile", or how I get from the Jefferson Park 'L' station (Chicago Transit Authority) to my house roughly a mile away
walk,wont even take 20 minutes, added bonus you can cancel the gym membership.
Another from some other reality where it never rains or snows. ::)
-
Another from some other reality where it never rains or snows
erm i'm in the uk and it certainly rains,however a decent set of waterproofs tends to keep you dry
-
Autonomous vehicles (on demand) could be a solution for that issue.
By the time you have enough not to get oversubscription in rush hour, you might as well just let people have their own cars.
You could still make new cities where within city limits they have to be on autonomous mode.
-
A major problem with any organized public transportation system is sometimes called "the last mile", or how I get from the Jefferson Park 'L' station (Chicago Transit Authority) to my house roughly a mile away
walk,wont even take 20 minutes, added bonus you can cancel the gym membership.
I'm an old man with arthritic knees. Thanks for the advice, especially today with icy sidewalks.
-
A major problem with any organized public transportation system is sometimes called "the last mile", or how I get from the Jefferson Park 'L' station (Chicago Transit Authority) to my house roughly a mile away
walk,wont even take 20 minutes, added bonus you can cancel the gym membership.
I'm an old man with arthritic knees. Thanks for the advice, especially today with icy sidewalks.
Idealists don’t give a shit due to the rose tinted glasses they wear.
They’d expect the pregnant housewife with a tribe of kiddies at foot to do that mile walk in all weathers too.
Have we not advanced in the last 100 years for the better and not need to return to the dark ages. :-//
-
People switch from cars to alternative transport if cars are expensive. Which is an unfortunate event, shouldn't really be the end goal of any administration, because it only means that they are creating a failed society.
In most developed European countries the goal is to reduce dependance on private car usage. New motorways are now considered bad planning and commuter rail is preferred.
Again: this has been tried to death in the NL already and failed missarably. Nowadays they are catching up on building new and more roads over here. On top of that people may receive a higher allowance for work related car travel. The NL government has given up chasing what is a pipe dream.
The problem is that public transport goes from one hub to another. I have worked at various companies that are located in large industrial areas that had no public transport connection at all. IOW: if your home is close to a train station and your work is close to a train station, public transport works. Otherwise it just doesn't. Making owning a car more expensive doesn't change the situation. It just makes working more expensive for many people. I've seen various good engineers leaving companies due to travel time and costs. A real loss for the company involved but completely understandable.
The fact that it tried and possibly failed in NL is more a specific failure of NL governance than a general statement that such public policy cannot work elsewhere. In other countries better progress towards a less car centric living is making progress and social change is occurring to support that with both planning changes altering the built environment and societal changes to people’s attitudes leading away from a “ car centric. “ solution
In my country offices are now built near public transport hubs. ( seee Google’s European HQ for example ) this is what attracts high quality employees not car parking spaces.
That’s not go say thd private car will disappear. But the point is the built environment is no longer being tailored to it.
-
A major problem with any organized public transportation system is sometimes called "the last mile", or how I get from the Jefferson Park 'L' station (Chicago Transit Authority) to my house roughly a mile away
walk,wont even take 20 minutes, added bonus you can cancel the gym membership.
I'm an old man with arthritic knees. Thanks for the advice, especially today with icy sidewalks.
Idealists don’t give a shit due to the rose tinted glasses they wear.
They’d expect the pregnant housewife with a tribe of kiddies at foot to do that mile walk in all weathers too.
Have we not advanced in the last 100 years for the better and not need to return to the dark ages. :-//
No one is suggesting the future has no cars in it. Possibly we will see a mix of solutions including car rental , increased taxi style solutions as well as continued car ownership plus better public transport solutions etc.
Hence th “pregnant housewife” will have a range of options even if it’s s typical BS edge case argument . Used by people who have no thought out counter argument and resort to picking edge cases out of thin air
Again no one is arguing all cars will disappear what I’m a saying is the future will not be as “ car centric “ as the recent past has been. People will increasing choose non car ownership or adopt other solutions maybe around shared or rental style solutions etc. what’s clear is the cost of ownership will rise quite dramatically and the hassle of urban car ownership will increase.
Driving your kids to school has proven societal disadvantages. Many schools run bus collections or encourage walk to school solutions etc. I travelled to my schools in the 60s by bus my kids traveled to their schools by commuter rail
-
People switch from cars to alternative transport if cars are expensive. Which is an unfortunate event, shouldn't really be the end goal of any administration, because it only means that they are creating a failed society.
In most developed European countries the goal is to reduce dependance on private car usage. New motorways are now considered bad planning and commuter rail is preferred. Aggressive car reduction projects like conjestion charging restricting car access and reducing car parking are being introduced. Couple this with increased taxes on fuel and annual car ownership and you can see the general trend in urban planning is decidedly anti car
So the voting public largely supporting “ green policies” reject your ridiculous asertion this is creating a “ failed society “
everywhere you look you see cars on the back foot. Road engineering is disincentivising cars , parking bans , wholesale urban pedestrian areas , the return of road based light rail , restrictions on car access , reductions in allowances for cars and 20kph speed restrictions etc
All this points tons successful society not a failed one. The supremacy of the car is over , in my capital city historic streets were vandalised to accomadate more cars in tneb60s and seventies , this would be unthinkable nowadays. In fact now roads are smaller as cycle lanes , pedestrian areas and other road works have removed car road space dignificantly
These are not social failures they are successes where people quality of living is prioritised over polluting private transport
Town planner: someone who plans towns in order to make enough money not to have to live in one.
Ah. Cynics the people that struggle to get out of bed each day
People who want to plan other people's lives build dystopias, not utopias.
Cynics need to get out more , interact with others and open their eyes and smell the coffee
-
People switch from cars to alternative transport if cars are expensive. Which is an unfortunate event, shouldn't really be the end goal of any administration, because it only means that they are creating a failed society.
In most developed European countries the goal is to reduce dependance on private car usage. New motorways are now considered bad planning and commuter rail is preferred.
Again: this has been tried to death in the NL already and failed missarably. Nowadays they are catching up on building new and more roads over here. On top of that people may receive a higher allowance for work related car travel. The NL government has given up chasing what is a pipe dream.
The problem is that public transport goes from one hub to another. I have worked at various companies that are located in large industrial areas that had no public transport connection at all. IOW: if your home is close to a train station and your work is close to a train station, public transport works. Otherwise it just doesn't. Making owning a car more expensive doesn't change the situation. It just makes working more expensive for many people. I've seen various good engineers leaving companies due to travel time and costs. A real loss for the company involved but completely understandable.
The fact that it tried and possibly failed in NL is more a specific failure of NL governance than a general statement that such public policy cannot work elsewhere.
That poster is a one sided propaganda machine, other people in The Netherlands see it very differently:
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2021/05/19/rotterdam-takes-an-important-step-towards-becoming-a-cycle-friendly-city/
Ripping out roads in busy areas is something that is continuing, and continuing to find people against it!
-
This thread as is typical is now a circular set of arguments amongst some who cannot see alternatives It has outlived its usefulness
-
Hence th “pregnant housewife” will have a range of options even if it’s s typical BS edge case argument . Used by people who have no thought out counter argument and resort to picking edge cases out of thin air
By that argument all people with disabilities are "edge cases", and their requirements can be ignored.
We can infer that you are able bodied and young, and probably have not been involved in ensuring an eldely relative can continue to live independently.
-
Cynics need to get out more , interact with others and open their eyes and smell the coffee
Given the implications of your comments for the elderly and disabled, you might consider doing that too.
-
By that argument all people with disabilities are "edge cases", and their requirements can be ignored.
We already have provision for disabled people. Those on blue badges are exempt from paying the congestion charge and can park in many areas of central London, for instance, free of charge. There's no reason a future system couldn't consider disability/accessibility too. I know a 65 year old woman in south London who refuses to drive, she hates it, takes the bus and train every day using her walking stick. Is it a bit of hard work - yes, of course - but just because you are old does not mean you are unable to use public transport. She actually gets upset when people offer her a seat, funny character.
-
Despite this forum having lots of members, it’s time to put these opinions into perspective:
# You are electronics people, ergo have a higher than average probability of being biased towards electric or electronic systems. Fact.
# You are one miniscule fraction of an already tiny, tiny fraction of a fraction of the populous of the countries planning these schemes. You are likely 0.00000000000000000000000001% of the population of your country, and even if a million of you got together and lobbied all day every day for EVs, that’s still a tiny fraction of your overall population that say they want it.
That doesn’t change the fact that logic, physics, economics and plain old fashioned day to day practicality en mass are not always able to be overcome by the words “Road map”, “eco” or “policy”.
This is an echo chamber. Never forget that. Also never forget that almost no one online will admit to wanting to always be “right”. I’m in no way saying I’m right nor will be, but good old fashioned (very UN)common sense is a distant memory, and as much as you may have utopian fantasies A La “Buck Rogers”… as much as you, your govt and your EV fanatics want to force your childhood sci-fi fantasies to come to pass, nothing stops logic in the end. Logic is the overruling power of sanity.
The world is full of bullshitters and idealistic futurists who live in a fantasy world of their imaginations. It ain’t gonna happen. Watch and see - and no need to reply to “prove you wrong” - one who is secure in the absolute knowledge that the sun will rise and set, has no need to “prove it” to people - it’s a given. EVs, sadly for you, are very much NOT a given - as much as you desperately want them to be. They are exist in minority quantities, they’re toys, and that’s the end of it.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptI6BRVC1Kw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptI6BRVC1Kw)
-
Hence th “pregnant housewife” will have a range of options even if it’s s typical BS edge case argument . Used by people who have no thought out counter argument and resort to picking edge cases out of thin air
By that argument all people with disabilities are "edge cases", and their requirements can be ignored.
We can infer that you are able bodied and young, and probably have not been involved in ensuring an eldely relative can continue to live independently.
Just build a "special area" for disabled people and move them there. They will have all services and surely will live there happily ever after.
And won't sully bright future.
It was already tried many times at various places.
But yes, it can be solved by for example with taxi credit or a similar solution. Just like they have now incentives for cars and free parking.
-
People switch from cars to alternative transport if cars are expensive. Which is an unfortunate event, shouldn't really be the end goal of any administration, because it only means that they are creating a failed society.
In most developed European countries the goal is to reduce dependance on private car usage. New motorways are now considered bad planning and commuter rail is preferred.
Again: this has been tried to death in the NL already and failed missarably. Nowadays they are catching up on building new and more roads over here. On top of that people may receive a higher allowance for work related car travel. The NL government has given up chasing what is a pipe dream.
The problem is that public transport goes from one hub to another. I have worked at various companies that are located in large industrial areas that had no public transport connection at all. IOW: if your home is close to a train station and your work is close to a train station, public transport works. Otherwise it just doesn't. Making owning a car more expensive doesn't change the situation. It just makes working more expensive for many people. I've seen various good engineers leaving companies due to travel time and costs. A real loss for the company involved but completely understandable.
The fact that it tried and possibly failed in NL is more a specific failure of NL governance than a general statement that such public policy cannot work elsewhere. In other countries better progress towards a less car centric living is making progress and social change is occurring to support that with both planning changes altering the built environment and societal changes to people’s attitudes leading away from a “ car centric. “ solution
In my country offices are now built near public transport hubs. ( seee Google’s European HQ for example ) this is what attracts high quality employees not car parking spaces.
The point you missed is that your country is lagging behind. That phase has already passed in the NL. I also see it with my own customers that where so unfortunate to rent offices in such areas: it is an utter nuisance for suppliers and -more importantly- potential customers to visit the office. And 'good' employees is only limited to youngsters fresh out of school. The experienced senior level work force with homes in suburban areas are not going to take a job in a place they can't reach with a car.
-
By that argument all people with disabilities are "edge cases", and their requirements can be ignored.
We already have provision for disabled people. Those on blue badges are exempt from paying the congestion charge and can park in many areas of central London, for instance, free of charge. There's no reason a future system couldn't consider disability/accessibility too. I know a 65 year old woman in south London who refuses to drive, she hates it, takes the bus and train every day using her walking stick. Is it a bit of hard work - yes, of course - but just because you are old does not mean you are unable to use public transport. She actually gets upset when people offer her a seat, funny character.
I didn't realise the blue badge scheme included modifications to vehicles to allow for disabilities. I thought is was just related to where you could and couldn't park a vehicle. Could you please let us know where that is stated.
Thanks for correcting our misapprehensions.
-
Hence th “pregnant housewife” will have a range of options even if it’s s typical BS edge case argument . Used by people who have no thought out counter argument and resort to picking edge cases out of thin air
By that argument all people with disabilities are "edge cases", and their requirements can be ignored.
We can infer that you are able bodied and young, and probably have not been involved in ensuring an eldely relative can continue to live independently.
Just build a "special area" for disabled people and move them there. They will have all services and surely will live there happily ever after.
And won't sully bright future.
It was already tried many times at various places.
But yes, it can be solved by for example with taxi credit or a similar solution. Just like they have now incentives for cars and free parking.
Taxis frequently refuse to take people with wheelchairs.
Taxis aren't relevant where vehicles have to be modified.
-
Hence th “pregnant housewife” will have a range of options even if it’s s typical BS edge case argument . Used by people who have no thought out counter argument and resort to picking edge cases out of thin air
By that argument all people with disabilities are "edge cases", and their requirements can be ignored.
We can infer that you are able bodied and young, and probably have not been involved in ensuring an eldely relative can continue to live independently.
Just build a "special area" for disabled people and move them there. They will have all services and surely will live there happily ever after.
And won't sully bright future.
It was already tried many times at various places.
But yes, it can be solved by for example with taxi credit or a similar solution. Just like they have now incentives for cars and free parking.
Taxis frequently refuse to take people with wheelchairs.
Taxis aren't relevant where vehicles have to be modified.
Then your law needs changing. Here a certain percentages of issued licences must be wheelchair compatible. Hehce it’s no issue to hail a compatible one.
Your objections are a failure of government not a basic fundamental problem
New Buses are all wheelchair compatible as are all new buildings including new private homes.
None of these issues are any impediment to a less car dense future or a Bev based private car environment.
Wheelchair and disabled access is now a huge factor in modern design
People are just “ inventing “ edge cases as if it justifies retaining ICE . Nothing justifies retaining ICE. hopefully by about 30 years private ice usage will have ended. Included 2nd hand ice too. In my view the transistion will be quicker as people see the benefits and change voluntarily.
-
Hence th “pregnant housewife” will have a range of options even if it’s s typical BS edge case argument . Used by people who have no thought out counter argument and resort to picking edge cases out of thin air
By that argument all people with disabilities are "edge cases", and their requirements can be ignored.
We can infer that you are able bodied and young, and probably have not been involved in ensuring an eldely relative can continue to live independently.
Just build a "special area" for disabled people and move them there. They will have all services and surely will live there happily ever after.
And won't sully bright future.
It was already tried many times at various places.
But yes, it can be solved by for example with taxi credit or a similar solution. Just like they have now incentives for cars and free parking.
Taxis frequently refuse to take people with wheelchairs.
Taxis aren't relevant where vehicles have to be modified.
Then your law needs changing. Here a certain percentages of issued licences must be wheelchair compatible. Hehce it’s no issue to hail a compatible one.
There's no need to change the laws; it is already a condition of having a licence.
There are also laws about killing people and defrauding people. So that's those problems solved too. Or not.
Your objections are a failure of government not a basic fundamental problem
New Buses are all wheelchair compatible as are all new buildings including new private homes.
None of these issues are any impediment to a less car dense future or a Bev based private car environment.
Wheelchair and disabled access is now a huge factor in modern design
You need more than busses being compatible. You also need bus stops being compatible, train stations being compatible (e.g. being able to avoid stairs), pavements being compatible.
Sure, new ones are compatible, just as new homes are required to have charging facilities for EVs. So that's those problems solved too. Or not.
All is sweetness and light, for suitable definitions of "sweetness" and "light".
People are just “ inventing “ edge cases as if it justifies retaining ICE . Nothing justifies retaining ICE. hopefully by about 30 years private ice usage will have ended. Included 2nd hand ice too. In my view the transistion will be quicker as people see the benefits and change voluntarily.
People are just ignoring the real world, and concentrating on an ideal world populated by ideal people. In my view the transition will be quicker when fanbois and shills acknowlege the problems and voluntarily propose workable solutions.
-
The point is none of these “ edge “ arguments changes the timescales and transistion to a BEV future certainly for private motoring initially. Specific sectors may take more time and or newer Bev technology
One thing is certain the day of the 19th century bag of bolts that is an ice car is drawing to a close
-
The point is none of these “ edge “ arguments changes the timescales and transistion to a BEV future certainly for private motoring initially. Specific sectors may take more time and or newer Bev technology
One thing is certain the day of the 19th century bag of bolts that is an ice car is drawing to a close
The transition will take as long as it did to replace horses and dogs[1]: about half a century.
Deal with that. Provide workable paths from here to there, and the world will make you very rich.
[1] From around WW1, possibly France or Belgium
(https://vintagestereoscopicglassslides.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/dogpullingcart.png)
-
The world is full of bullshitters and idealistic futurists who live in a fantasy world of their imaginations.
Such as your status quo bias.
Putler, Poo and the Ayotollah don't really give a shit about your faith in that nothing can change ... don't believe the propaganda. History is littered with utter irrational actions on a world scale, this time will be no different. You can try to give them a finger because of your faith, then they will try to take your hand and your status quo will still collapse. Without Russia and Iran peak oil would hit like a ton of bricks, a transition to electricity and hydrogen would be forced regardless.
Meanwhile in 30 years the demographics especially in Eastern EU will be so catastrophically bad that much of current society simply can't function as is.
One way or another this is the end of the end of history, things will change, the metastable state we entered into in the 80s is ending.
-
The point is none of these “ edge “ arguments changes the timescales and transistion to a BEV future certainly for private motoring initially. Specific sectors may take more time and or newer Bev technology
One thing is certain the day of the 19th century bag of bolts that is an ice car is drawing to a close
The transition will take as long as it did to replace horses and dogs[1]: about half a century.
Deal with that, and provide workable paths from here to there.
[1] From around WW1, possibly France or Belgium
(https://vintagestereoscopicglassslides.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/dogpullingcart.png)
I think any intelligent commentator will agree that the complete transistion will take 50 years not withstanding that events may change time scales. “ events dear boy events dear boy as a famous PM said “
I do think we underestimate the role technology will play in speeding change , we are only at the start of this effect.
What is clear that the transition is underway even if it’s progresses in fits and starts.
-
The world is full of bullshitters and idealistic futurists who live in a fantasy world of their imaginations.
Such as your status quo bias.
Putler, Poo and the Ayotollah don't really give a shit about your faith in that nothing can change ... don't believe the propaganda. History is littered with utter irrational actions on a world scale, this time will be no different. You can try to give them a finger because of your faith, then they will try to take your hand and your status quo will still collapse. Without Russia and Iran peak oil would hit like a ton of bricks, a transition to electricity and hydrogen would be forced regardless.
Meanwhile in 30 years the demographics especially in Eastern EU will be so catastrophically bad that much of current society simply can't function as is.
One way or another this is the end of the end of history, things will change, the metastable state we entered into in the 80s is ending.
The portents of doom mothering are hypnotic and often comforting. In practice change happens faster then commentators expect.
-
The point is none of these “ edge “ arguments changes the timescales and transistion to a BEV future certainly for private motoring initially. Specific sectors may take more time and or newer Bev technology
One thing is certain the day of the 19th century bag of bolts that is an ice car is drawing to a close
The transition will take as long as it did to replace horses and dogs[1]: about half a century.
Deal with that. Provide workable paths from here to there, and the world will make you very rich.
Last summer I was driving through Italy and passed a truck from an Italian trucking company. It showed a horse & carriage with the text 'Since 1959'.
-
The point is none of these “ edge “ arguments changes the timescales and transistion to a BEV future certainly for private motoring initially. Specific sectors may take more time and or newer Bev technology
One thing is certain the day of the 19th century bag of bolts that is an ice car is drawing to a close
The transition will take as long as it did to replace horses and dogs[1]: about half a century.
Deal with that, and provide workable paths from here to there.
[1] From around WW1, possibly France or Belgium
(https://vintagestereoscopicglassslides.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/dogpullingcart.png)
I think any intelligent commentator will agree that the complete transistion will take 50 years not withstanding that events may change time scales. “ events dear boy events dear boy as a famous PM said “
This thread is full of people that ignore the problems - both politicians and fanbois.
As I edited my post shortly before your response above: "Provide workable paths from here to there, and the world will make you very rich"
I do think we underestimate the role technology will play in speeding change , we are only at the start of this effect.
But technology isn't sufficient, although it is necessary.
What is clear that the transition is underway even if it’s progresses in fits and starts.
It has been underway for over a century.
For the first 40 years of my life EVs were visible on every road - but not since the 90s.
There is even a yootoob vid of Edison in an EV.
-
For the first 40 years of my life EVs were visible on every road
But only if you was up early or returning from the pub late.
-
Despite this forum having lots of members, it’s time to put these opinions into perspective:
# You are electronics people, ergo have a higher than average probability of being biased towards electric or electronic systems. Fact.
# You are one miniscule fraction of an already tiny, tiny fraction of a fraction of the populous of the countries planning these schemes. You are likely 0.00000000000000000000000001% of the population of your country, and even if a million of you got together and lobbied all day every day for EVs, that’s still a tiny fraction of your overall population that say they want it.
That doesn’t change the fact that logic, physics, economics and plain old fashioned day to day practicality en mass are not always able to be overcome by the words “Road map”, “eco” or “policy”.
This is an echo chamber. Never forget that. Also never forget that almost no one online will admit to wanting to always be “right”. I’m in no way saying I’m right nor will be, but good old fashioned (very UN)common sense is a distant memory, and as much as you may have utopian fantasies A La “Buck Rogers”… as much as you, your govt and your EV fanatics want to force your childhood sci-fi fantasies to come to pass, nothing stops logic in the end. Logic is the overruling power of sanity.
The world is full of bullshitters and idealistic futurists who live in a fantasy world of their imaginations. It ain’t gonna happen. Watch and see - and no need to reply to “prove you wrong” - one who is secure in the absolute knowledge that the sun will rise and set, has no need to “prove it” to people - it’s a given. EVs, sadly for you, are very much NOT a given - as much as you desperately want them to be. They are exist in minority quantities, they’re toys, and that’s the end of it.
The fact is the transistion to BEV is well underway. Yes it will take time to convert all private cars but the fact is the car industry has decided Bev is the future. This is backed by government who are in agreement in many countries.
There are always ”naysayers” like you , that largely for personal vested interests simply refuse to acknowledge the pace of change. People like you missed the computer revolution, the internet and mobile comms. Etc.
The pace of change is accelerating driven by the desire to decarbonise many day to day activities. Such policies have broad support by younger voters etc. these voters are the future electorate.
Bev are better cars than ice. Quieter More powerful and much less pollution at the point of usage which is the major issue in urban car usage.
The zenith of the personal car is over increasingly planners are de-prioritising car usage in favour of other modes. Millions are being invested in alternative transport solutions
There are always people like you that argue against change , they were there when railways displaced canals , when flight displaced railways.
There are always people arguing the status who will prevail. History shows is that this is NOT what happens once sufficient momentum builds. In fact the pace of change can surprise “ conservative “ commentators.
Sure it’s a natural human emotion not to embrace change but it’s a foolish one as change occurs anyway
The European car industry is largely comfortable BEVs are its future and all major suppliers are gearing up model lines. In fact most anti BEV commentators have never driven or owned a BEv and largely “ invent “ reasons why they are not suitable. The reality is they are increasingly suitable and more and more as each new model year rolls by. The Bev today is far superior to my old Leaf for example
The private car industry has a workable alternative and has decided to put its “ eggs” in that basket , this is true whether you like it or not. You can’t buy a car that isn’t made.
-
Bev are better cars than ice. Quieter
They maybe should consider a minimum noise level,especially for those with sight problems
-
Bev are better cars than ice. Quieter
They maybe should consider a minimum noise level,especially for those with sight problems
Or hearing problems.
Or reading mobile phone "problems".
Or blocked (with earbuds) problems.
-
When railways were introduced one person commented that they would be a failure as the human body was not designed to be transported at speeds in excess of a running horse !!
There are always those resistant to change and argue against it, even in the face of such change happening in front of them.
Decarbonisation is a societal goal amongst increasing proportions of the electorate especially the young. Such pressure will force change and progress
-
Or hearing problems.
shouldn't affect them as they see the silent approach
Or reading mobile phone "problems".
Or blocked (with earbuds) problems.
no cure for stupidity.
-
There are always ”naysayers” like you , that largely for personal vested interests simply refuse to acknowledge the pace of change. People like you missed the computer revolution, the internet and mobile comms.
It is both irritating and amusing to be dismissed as a luddite or a 'naysayer' simply for being observant and reasonable. Here are some examples of my observations about the 'pace of change'.
Mobile comms: ~25 years ago the phone company botched the transfer of my business phone lines, leaving my small service business without a phone line. I quickly ported the business lines to a Motorola bag phone and my personal StarTac handheld. Cell phone service was still rather new and pricey. This kept everything going for week until the phone company could do their work. This showed me for the first time that landlines could eventually go away entirely. And over the next few decades, cell service became cheaper and coverage became wider. Today, I live in a well-populated and estabished suburban area but for technical reason, my home has very poor cell service. My choices to mitigate this are 1) a repeater 2) landlines or 3) fiber data plus a small device that acts as a small cell tower. I have the third, plus the first (1G/3G) for guests. Many of my neighbors still have landlines. So landlines are still here 25 years later.
Internet and computers: I've had 'internet' since before the WWW. I've used computers since the 70's. The post office still delivers mail to my house every day except Sunday. Gee, that didn't go away or even abate, did it?
Once things are well established in the marketplace, they will only change if there is good reason for them to. That's why our electrical plugs are more or less compatible with stuff from 100 years ago. I still listen to FM radio in my cars. Although I have modern streaming via a self-made HTPC, I still have working OTA television and many, many people here do as well, in large part due to smaller ethnic-specific channels in SoCal.
Sometimes technologies come along that are 'better', but they aren't better enough to stick around and they fade out while both their predecessors and successors live on. Blu-ray and HD Radio (the US Ibiquity boondoggle) are both dying out, for example, even though HBO and regular FM are still going. I've been driving an EV for nearly a decade, yet I still wonder if they are the future or will go the way of the Blu-Ray. I know of early-adopter EV owners that have gone back to ICE. A friend recently purchased a new BMW SUV, all ICE, at a cost similar to a Model Y or XC40 EV. Predictions of a quick and certain demise for the ICE seem to be rather silly to me.
-
Predictions of a quick and certain demise for the ICE seem to be rather silly to me.
Quick maybe not , certain , well the writing is on the wall from manufactures preference , regulation, tax’s public policy , consumer preferences. Etc. the Bev is only starting is technological introduction. Ice is largely near its end.
Note surveys show most Bev owners do not return to ice , in fact they typically trade up to more sophisticated BEV models if they can afford to.
The fact remains the regulatory environment to own an ice will get increasingly difficult and expensive. That alone will convince many to change
-
I didn't realise the blue badge scheme included modifications to vehicles to allow for disabilities. I thought is was just related to where you could and couldn't park a vehicle. Could you please let us know where that is stated.
Thanks for correcting our misapprehensions.
I don't even know what point you're arguing for now. But you can, if you're on a low income, get modifications done to your private vehicle at the taxpayer's expense. This would be covered under PIP, DLA or Motability (which covers leasing an adapted vehicle) if you're eligible for those kinds of things.
As for taxis, it is definitely illegal for a Hackney cab to refuse a fare from a disabled person, and it is *usually* illegal for minicabs to do the same (though they can 'reasonably refuse' if they couldn't fit the wheelchair in the car, for instance). It is also not allowed to refuse assistance dogs and the like without a medical certificate of allergy. But these vehicles are driven by people, and people are free agents who can break the law. None of that has anything to do with maintaining private vehicle access to city centres, the vast, vast majority of which are driven by perfectly able bodied people. But sure, you can include provisions for people with blue badges and the like to access these areas, this is actually commonly employed, along with access for loading/unloading goods or special events.
-
When railways were introduced one person commented that they would be a failure as the human body was not designed to be transported at speeds in excess of a running horse !!
In the age that that was written there was no seatbelts nor any safety equipment to speak of so technically its true for the technical time period in which it was said.
When was the last time you wore a seatbelt on a train? It wasn't true then and it isn't now, it was nothing but ignorant fear.
-
When was the last time you wore a seatbelt on a train? It wasn't true then and it isn't now, it was nothing but ignorant fear.
Train fatalities per billion km: 2.1 (UK)
Passenger car fatalities per billion km: 3.8 (UK, 2010)
It's surprisingly close. But it's arguable the typical type of collision in a train wouldn't benefit from a seatbelt, as derailment isn't exactly something you survive if only you had a 3 point belt.
-
When was the last time you wore a seatbelt on a train? It wasn't true then and it isn't now, it was nothing but ignorant fear.
Train fatalities per billion km: 2.1 (UK)
Passenger car fatalities per billion km: 3.8 (UK, 2010)
It's surprisingly close. But it's arguable the typical type of collision in a train wouldn't benefit from a seatbelt, as derailment isn't exactly something you survive if only you had a 3 point belt.
Pretty sad number for trains, really, on the flip side, those trains are carrying several hundred people, not one. I think seatbelts would probably help quite a lot though.
Doesn't change the speed having nothing to do with matters - humans don't die because you accelerate gently to 40mph.
-
I didn't realise the blue badge scheme included modifications to vehicles to allow for disabilities. I thought is was just related to where you could and couldn't park a vehicle. Could you please let us know where that is stated.
Thanks for correcting our misapprehensions.
I don't even know what point you're arguing for now.
My response was to your statements - which you chose to snip. Do read, don't snip; that makes life easier for everybody.
But you can, if you're on a low income, get modifications done to your private vehicle at the taxpayer's expense. This would be covered under PIP, DLA or Motability (which covers leasing an adapted vehicle) if you're eligible for those kinds of things.
So you are saying "those that don't have to pay get it for free". Well, duh; who would have think that.
What about those that do have to pay? I suppose it is acceptable that they are screwed again.
What which EVs can be modified for the disabilities - and which can't?
As for taxis, it is definitely illegal for a Hackney cab to refuse a fare from a disabled person, and it is *usually* illegal for minicabs to do the same (though they can 'reasonably refuse' if they couldn't fit the wheelchair in the car, for instance). It is also not allowed to refuse assistance dogs and the like without a medical certificate of allergy. But these vehicles are driven by people, and people are free agents who can break the law. None of that has anything to do with maintaining private vehicle access to city centres, the vast, vast majority of which are driven by perfectly able bodied people.
And screw the minority. Twas ever thus.
-
Once things are well established in the marketplace, they will only change if there is good reason for them to.
Necessity can be a very good reason. The EU for instance can act economically irrational by the viewpoint of some people here, but even with rather bad economic consequences it can still force the issue ... as long as a state doesn't fail outright, the market is powerless against it except through democratic means (which don't work so well at EU level).
The market is a soft force except in extrema, the state is a strong force except in extrema.
-
Once things are well established in the marketplace, they will only change if there is good reason for them to.
Necessity can be a very good reason. The EU for instance can act economically irrational by the viewpoint of some people here, but even with rather bad economic consequences it can still force the issue ... as long as a state doesn't fail outright, the market is powerless against it except through democratic means (which don't work so well at EU level).
The market is a soft force except in extrema, the state is a strong force except in extrema.
Now you are assuming there is no lobbying going on. If you look at EU decission / law making, you can clearly see there is always a strong force coming from industry to oppose changes or weaken policies that are benificial to the economy and / or health. Good examples are the WLTP car fuel economy testing method (which is just as crappy as the NEDC test) and denying fishers to use a much better (more fuel efficient and lower impact) way of catching fish due to opposition from the industry itself.
-
Bev are better cars than ice. Quieter
They maybe should consider a minimum noise level,especially for those with sight problems
Many EVs have a low speed noise maker to warn people in the vicinity of an EV moving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_warning_sounds
-
When railways were introduced one person commented that they would be a failure as the human body was not designed to be transported at speeds in excess of a running horse !!
In the age that that was written there was no seatbelts nor any safety equipment to speak of so technically its true for the technical time period in which it was said.
Yes, but quoting stuff out of context to make a point is easy and can even make you look smart! :popcorn:
-
My response was to your statements - which you chose to snip. Do read, don't snip; that makes life easier for everybody.
Sigh, why do I even bother. You always moan at me trimming quotation blocks. You can just click the 'name' in a quote to see the prior context. It makes the page cluttered if you don't do it, so I'm going to continue to do it.
PS - you were responding to to MadScientist regarding the accessibility and use cases of private cars; I can't see how you were responding to any of my statements, unless you just mean in general, in this thread. You'd need to point out a particular one. I've made a few.
So you are saying "those that don't have to pay get it for free". Well, duh; who would have think that.
What about those that do have to pay? I suppose it is acceptable that they are screwed again.
What which EVs can be modified for the disabilities - and which can't?
What? What does this have to do with anything? Yes disabled people have a rough life and yes in the UK they often have to pay for their own adaptations. I would say that should change.
As for EVs that can't be modified, the only difficulty I've heard of is wheelchair lifts. The location of the HV battery on some cars precludes their installation. This is the case for Tesla Model Y at least, but certainly not all EVs. For instance the Peugeot and Mercedes mini-electric-vans do have some wheelchair lift conversions.
-
Now you are assuming there is no lobbying going on. If you look at EU decission / law making, you can clearly see there is always a strong force coming from industry to oppose changes or weaken policies that are benificial to the economy and / or health. Good examples are the WLTP car fuel economy testing method (which is just as crappy as the NEDC test) and denying fishers to use a much better (more fuel efficient and lower impact) way of catching fish due to opposition from the industry itself.
EU lobbying (particularly from the car manufacturers) is one major reason EVs and carbon taxation have taken so long to actually happen.
I want to see an SUV ban next (with some exemptions for disabled people perhaps), but I know I'd be dreaming, it won't happen.
-
My response was to your statements - which you chose to snip. Do read, don't snip; that makes life easier for everybody.
Sigh, why do I even bother. You always moan at me trimming quotation blocks. You can just click the 'name' in a quote to see the prior context. It makes the page cluttered if you don't do it, so I'm going to continue to do it.
See SiliconWizard's point to bigfoot22 in the message (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/ev-based-road-transportation-is-not-viable/msg4675768/#msg4675768) before yours. The point he makes about bigfoot can be applied to you too: "Yes, but quoting stuff out of context to make a point is easy and can even make you look smart! :popcorn:"
So you are saying "those that don't have to pay get it for free". Well, duh; who would have think that.
What about those that do have to pay? I suppose it is acceptable that they are screwed again.
What which EVs can be modified for the disabilities - and which can't?
What? What does this have to do with anything?
And that demonstrates why your claim about "just clicking 'name'" is a load of rubbish.
Read what I was responding to. Go on. Try it.
Yes disabled people have a rough life and yes in the UK they often have to pay for their own adaptations. I would say that should change.
As for EVs that can't be modified, the only difficulty I've heard of is wheelchair lifts. The location of the HV battery on some cars precludes their installation. This is the case for Tesla Model Y at least, but certainly not all EVs. For instance the Peugeot and Mercedes mini-electric-vans do have some wheelchair lift conversions.
Wheelchair/buggy lifts are a very common modification for the elderly; there is a whole minor industry satisfying the need.
Having seen what was necessary for my mother to continue living at home (cf a nursing home which she hated), I know how important buggy lifts are. I presume you are lucky enough never to have been compelled to see that.
-
I want to see an SUV ban next (with some exemptions for disabled people perhaps), but I know I'd be dreaming, it won't happen.
So I'm a bit old and creaky and I find my old SUV a bit easier to get in and out of. And sometimes I haul things and it seats 5 comfortably occasionally when needed. It is also much safer than average. You would require me to apply to some government bureacracy for permission to replace it when it wears out? And perhaps get rejected because I"m not disabled enough?
-
I want to see an SUV ban next (with some exemptions for disabled people perhaps), but I know I'd be dreaming, it won't happen.
So I'm a bit old and creaky and I find my old SUV a bit easier to get in and out of. And sometimes I haul things and it seats 5 comfortably occasionally when needed. It is also much safer than average. You would require me to apply to some government bureacracy for permission to replace it when it wears out? And perhaps get rejected because I"m not disabled enough?
My (inherited) Toyota Yaris Verso has a neat trick: the rear seats disappear under the front seats, leaving a flat boot from bumper to front seat.
Very useful when moving fridges, rubbish - and my mother's buggy.
-
I want to see an SUV ban next (with some exemptions for disabled people perhaps), but I know I'd be dreaming, it won't happen.
So I'm a bit old and creaky and I find my old SUV a bit easier to get in and out of. And sometimes I haul things and it seats 5 comfortably occasionally when needed. It is also much safer than average. You would require me to apply to some government bureacracy for permission to replace it when it wears out? And perhaps get rejected because I"m not disabled enough?
As Mark Twain wrote: "It were not best that we should all think alike; it is difference of opinion that makes horse races."
I know some older people who find it difficult to get into a SUV-based taxi due to the high step.
Others, including myself, find it difficult to get into the rear seat of most taxis due to the small door and my bad knees.
If I ruled the world and wrote the regulations to deal with things I find icky, I would start with urban use of over-sized pick-up trucks by non-farmers.
-
I do read every post in good detail. If you communicate so unclearly as to be frequently misunderstood, maybe it is you that needs to explain their point more clearly, and not the fault of the reader for interpreting otherwise. I'm not going to bother responding to that line of conversation any more unless you clarify because quite honestly I can't see what I'm misreading.
Wheelchair/buggy lifts are a very common modification for the elderly; there is a whole minor industry satisfying the need.
Having seen what was necessary for my mother to continue living at home (cf a nursing home which she hated), I know how important buggy lifts are. I presume you are lucky enough never to have been compelled to see that.
Right, and these people will just have to buy an EV which can be converted, of which there are plenty. Like the electric minivans I mentioned, or pretty much any wheelchair lift that can fit atop the boot floor. The only reason I mention the Model Y is an acquaintance mulled converting theirs for a disabled family member and the company said it might be possible but they'd never done one before and they didn't know if they'd need to cut near the battery pack which could present headaches in terms of warranty and safety for the engineers.
As these cars become more common no doubt there will be more conversions available, and the coachbuilders will get more confident modifying them. There's nothing inherent about these vehicles that precludes such modifications and in fact, many aspects that might better enable them, like a flat loading floor and a high-current DC-DC converter (typically 200A+) that can power bulky lift motors etc. without the need to run an engine.
With anti-EV people it's rather hilarious what arguments you'll construe against these vehicles; it's like a cognitive dissonance has taken you over. See, I can see the obvious arguments, where range and charging could be a headache for some use cases and for which gradual improvement in both infrastructure and range/affordability of these cars will accommodate more use cases soon enough. What I don't get is this insistence that these problems are somehow unsolvable, that they will never be solved and therefore we'll never see EVs en-masse. It doesn't add up at all.
-
I want to see an SUV ban next (with some exemptions for disabled people perhaps), but I know I'd be dreaming, it won't happen.
Just two words, fuck you !
For sure it will never happen as for many of us there has never been such a useful vehicle !
Long gone are the days of the 2.25L 4cyl Landrover and its legendary fuel consumption (NOT !) where today modern similarly capable SUV's have 1000km range, double as a minivan with 1.5m3 luggage capacity and provide the comfort and seating capacity of a passenger car......not all at the same time though.
BUT, if you've never owned or needed such versatility how would/could you know ?
You don't ! Period !
That's the big trouble with todays world, Aholes only good for shining chairs in highrise buildings thinking they know best and pushing stupid rules onto the real workers in society. ::) :--
-
I want to see an SUV ban next (with some exemptions for disabled people perhaps), but I know I'd be dreaming, it won't happen.
Define SUV. There are actually very few extraordinarily large vehicles on the road (which I why you notice them as exceptions in the first place). Most cars that are called SUV are just regular cars with the suspension raised and made to look a bit more rectangular at the rear. Not very practical by any means (I call them 'Slow Use Vehicle). But a ban ain't gonna happen because it serves no purpose. Your Golf GTE likely is larger compared to most SUV styled cars.
-
So I'm a bit old and creaky and I find my old SUV a bit easier to get in and out of. And sometimes I haul things and it seats 5 comfortably occasionally when needed. It is also much safer than average. You would require me to apply to some government bureacracy for permission to replace it when it wears out? And perhaps get rejected because I"m not disabled enough?
Calling SUVs safer than average is a bit much. They're only safer because cars are so much heavier now. If similarly sized cars have a collision with each other, the overall safety is not much different to SUVs colliding. But you feel obliged to buy an SUV because everyone else has one. If you look at Europe, where car sizes are proportionally quite a lot smaller than the US, we have lower traffic fatality rates than North America. (There are obviously confounding factors, but it shows that you don't need big vehicles to have safer roads.) The other problem with SUVs is they're a lot more dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists in accidents.
But my main objection to SUVs is that they take up a disproportionate amount of road space for the utility they provide, whilst also requiring a lot more energy to propel and producing more pollution. Most people (based on surveys, mind, so you might know an exception or two) actually use less space in an SUV on average than other cars; their average occupancy is lower than a typical hatchback. These vehicles are often sold on the basis of marketing around "Freedom" and "Adventure" but spend their time crawling through suburbia and urban areas. At least in Europe, the SUV is a new invention, they've only been around for 20 years or so, yet have exploded in popularity in the last 10 years, becoming the 'must have', despite average family sizes falling (so it's not as if we have a lot of four-children families to fit inside these cars.)
I always enjoy the look in the IKEA car park of someone just having bought some large book-case trying to stuff it into the back of their SUV. They might manage, and they usually look quite proud of themselves, but seriously: you paid another £5,000 for that monstrosity, so that you can save £12.99 on delivery from IKEA? Ok, maybe they visit every week and have a family of 4 too... but probably not.
I know we'll never ban SUVs for good but I'd seriously like to see automakers discouraged from making more of them. If we need bigger cars, we should be building more estate cars (better aero footprint and less weight) and giving people better access to rental vans and the like.
-
I want to see an SUV ban next (with some exemptions for disabled people perhaps), but I know I'd be dreaming, it won't happen.
Define SUV. There are actually very few extraordinarily large vehicles on the road. Most cars that are called SUV are just regular cars with the suspension raised and made to look a bit more rectangular at the rear. Not very practical by any means (I call them 'Slow Use Vehicle). But a ban ain't gonna happen because it serves no purpose.
To be clear, while I think cars like, say, the Nissan Juke or Vauxhall/Opel Mokka are ugly (looks only a mother could love and so on) they aren't a big problem. They are clearly being bought by some people who like the looks, the market is what it is.
The problem is things like BMW X3-7, Audi Q5+, Land Rover (Evoque/Discovery) and so on.
Most of these cars still have 5 seats, like a hatchback or a mini-SUV like the Juke. But while the Juke might weight 1300kg in its heaviest trim, the Evoque weighs over 2100kg.
-
Time passes. It will continue to pass, and what comes to pass will come to pass, no matter HOW enthused you are. Physics will remain the same, practicality will remain the same. Insanity will continue to grow. Words are not actions - wishful thinking guarantees zero.
EVs will still remain a tiny minority niche, even in 2040. We humans love to over-estimate how "advanced" we think we are. WE AIN'T. This is all a stage set - a delusion in an echo chamber of equally delusional enthusiasts and fake "green" agenda pushers. You guys are all sucked in, it's actually quite pitiful to watch SO MANY and see how brainwashed they've all become.
It's A CAR - it MOVES YOU somewhere - that is ALL that is interesting or useful about it. This nonsense has been tried before, and failed then. All this horse shit about "New battery tech emerging"... yeah? So where is it? It's in la la land is where, the land of clouds and daydreams. Wake up.
Employ some PROPER critical thinking - set to it for a year or so, do some research, rest for a few days, come back to it. Stop with the confirmation bias searches (quitting forums that echo your own feelings would be a head start - the echo chamber) and one day you may just grasp how moronic it all is. Maybe...
-
I would treat any prediction of the market share for different types of automobile twenty years out as unreliable, as the technology improves and costs change.
However, the automobile companies have economists in their marketing departments that spend a lot of money to direct their investment, and the current opinions there seem to point to increased EV sales.
A simple (dangerous) extrapolation of recent sales trends would indicate more than a niche market for EVs.
Typical article from the business press in US: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/13/ford-vs-gm-same-industry-two-increasingly-different-companies.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/13/ford-vs-gm-same-industry-two-increasingly-different-companies.html)
The two companies differ on autonomous vehicles, but both are ramping up EVs, putting real money into their strategies.
-
Yeah, well, eti seems to have a good grasp, and well spoken summary of the situation. Quote from eti:
"...insanity will continue to grow...". It's a blizzard, man!
Other writers respond with, (sigh) "You can walk that last mile to transit station". Ok, thanks for the discrimination against, like a bunch of groups. Even mentioning / hinting, that a person "could use some GYM time". Sounds like fat-shaming and where's the justice in that.
I say "Let's enforce that 2X daily walking requirement...against that wanna-be regulator."
Don't forget to 'throw' your arms out, wildly, every couple seconds, as you plan our green future.
We can walk, yeah, advanced stuff there.
-
I really think plug in hybrids would become dominant for a long time. At some point, it no longer makes sense to keep adding battery capacity to cover the infrequent long trips.
-
I really think plug in hybrids would become dominant for a long time. At some point, it no longer makes sense to keep adding battery capacity to cover the infrequent long trips.
With Bev rsnge approaching 600 km and fast chargers abounding in many countries. Just how long do you intend a single journey to be. Most people don’t drive those distances without breaks and they can easily charge while having a coffees no need for phevs
-
I really think plug in hybrids would become dominant for a long time. At some point, it no longer makes sense to keep adding battery capacity to cover the infrequent long trips.
With Bev rsnge approaching 600 km and fast chargers abounding in many countries. Just how long do you intend a single journey to be. Most people don’t drive those distances without breaks and they can easily charge while having a coffees no need for phevs
What is the range reduction when driven (or stored) in cold weather?
What is the range reduction when laden?
What is the range reduction when going up hill and down dale? Or up mountains higher than the UK definition of mountains (2kft!).
If you say "none", then you are living in an advertisement.
If you can't give an answer, then say where answers can be found.
-
If it will takes hours to recharge a car's batteries, then they need to have quickly removable batteries. And instead of waiting for "your" battery to charge, you just drop off yours, and take a full one. And put a tracker on it so no one steals it or something. Otherwise, you can wait in line for 2-3hrs, then another 2-3 or whatever, to charge up.
-
The term 'Soon enough' isn't reassurance, in practical terms, regarding infrastructure maturity.
After the 1989 planet Neptune fly-by (Voyager), there were folks, actually stating that:
"No worries...we'll be living on other planets, like Neptune, soon..."
Science and, uh, nonsense. I want the professionals, when some large project, like a big bridge, gets built. Not an agenda-driven dystopia. Yeah, John Kerry's private jet DOES conflict with proposing bans.
I dumped my vehicle because could not afford basic maintainance. ICE or EV wasn't the issue.
I didn't tell myself 'prices and costs will come down, soon enough.
Yeah, soon enough for others, it always turns out.
-
I wonder if LH2 takes off for trucking, if a fuel cell range extender would make sense as a rental. It doesn't need to deliver peak power, it can be relatively light weight.
You can even use SOFC, you can keep it warm with vacuum insulation just like you can keep the LH2 cold ... for a bit.
-
EV range:
http://abetterrouteplanner.com (http://abetterrouteplanner.com)
Choose an EV, choose starting conditions (battery %), choose a start point and a destination, alter road conditions (headwind, temperature), and see how the range of the EV does and how often you would need to charge (if at all).
Nice thing about EVs is their efficiency is practically a linear function, so more weight or greater incline can be calculated for all EVs with minimal data points from one car. I guess the same probably applies for ICE but there's the complication of gearing and engine efficiency at varying load.
-
To be clear, while I think cars like, say, the Nissan Juke or Vauxhall/Opel Mokka are ugly (looks only a mother could love and so on) they aren't a big problem. They are clearly being bought by some people who like the looks, the market is what it is.
The problem is things like BMW X3-7, Audi Q5+, Land Rover (Evoque/Discovery) and so on.
Most of these cars still have 5 seats, like a hatchback or a mini-SUV like the Juke. But while the Juke might weight 1300kg in its heaviest trim, the Evoque weighs over 2100kg.
They were marketing the Juke and other cars like this for young people. All the ads were teenagers skateboarding with headphones. And who is buying these cars? 50-60+ year olds.
It's just a hatchback with extra 10cm on the bottom, costing an extra 5-10KEUR.
If we are talking about problematic SUVs, how about Volvo XC90 with 2900kg? American classification: mid size >:(
-
I really think plug in hybrids would become dominant for a long time. At some point, it no longer makes sense to keep adding battery capacity to cover the infrequent long trips.
With Bev rsnge approaching 600 km and fast chargers abounding in many countries. Just how long do you intend a single journey to be. Most people don’t drive those distances without breaks and they can easily charge while having a coffees no need for phevs
I routinely drive 700km (8hrs) with just a stop for fuel or a pee in my approaching 30yr old SUV whereas a buddy that called by today in a comparable but much nicer and very modern Jeep V6 TDI can do 1200km on a tank.
Seriously tempted to get one and wave bye bye to Asian SUV's that don't seem to have as advanced ICE.
-
I really think plug in hybrids would become dominant for a long time. At some point, it no longer makes sense to keep adding battery capacity to cover the infrequent long trips.
With Bev rsnge approaching 600 km and fast chargers abounding in many countries. Just how long do you intend a single journey to be. Most people don’t drive those distances without breaks and they can easily charge while having a coffees no need for phevs
This remark is only made by people that have absolutely no clue about what it is actually like to drive long journeys with a car. How much coffee do you want to drink in a day? As someone with decades of experience driving long distances with a car, I can tell you that you will want to keep stops to a minimum and don't eat or drink along highways because everything there is overpriced & crap. On top of that, time is better spend getting at your hotel early, eat dinner at a good restaurant, go for a swim, take a walk through a beautyfull city center, go to sleep on time, etc, etc. Literally anything is better than waiting at a charging station. :palm:
-
I really think plug in hybrids would become dominant for a long time. At some point, it no longer makes sense to keep adding battery capacity to cover the infrequent long trips.
With Bev rsnge approaching 600 km and fast chargers abounding in many countries. Just how long do you intend a single journey to be. Most people don’t drive those distances without breaks and they can easily charge while having a coffees no need for phevs
Range at reasonable highway speeds is just a fraction of this. Even things like Model S have about a 50-60% range at 120 kmh/75mph. And SUVs are way worse.
Forcing people to drive slowly increases accidents and aggressivity. This can be overcome with self-driving, it might come by 2030 but who knows.
200-300 km range is probably enough range for European distances. But still, city use makes way more sense.
For long trip diesel engine with over 40% efficiency is still the winner in all categories.
btw I have a city range in my gasoline ICE of about 400 km. And it doesn't have a small tank.
btw for that disabled transport topic. Here in Prague city provides transport for wheelchair users. It is heavily overbooked nowadays, so one needs to book its way half a year upfront. So not the most convenient, but it exists and is possible.
-
I really think plug in hybrids would become dominant for a long time. At some point, it no longer makes sense to keep adding battery capacity to cover the infrequent long trips.
The problem is an engine for the twice-a-year 600km+ road trip is quite an expense and creates its own headaches.
BMW had it right with the i3 REx as the range extender took a 150km EV up to 300km. But nowadays 150km EV range is nothing, standard is 400km and most models are doing 600km. So you are addressing an ever smaller part of the range problem.
Also remember an engine used infrequently can suffer wear, it needs to run or the oil will sludge, and petrol goes off eventually. So you've added a maintenance bill and petrol bill to a car that is mostly EV.
You also have packaging. An ICE needs a gearbox, exhaust, and bigger cooling systems. An EV needs one or more motors and inverters and its own cooling. Looking at the packaging inside my PHEV's engine compartment, it's incredible that so much can be made to fit. But it's only a 100hp motor and 150hp engine. You'd probably want a bigger electric motor for longer range usage. And that means a bigger inverter, bigger motor casing, more cooling, etc. So it becomes a real squeeze to get that in. Plus added weight and the vehicle has to have a larger engine compartment (see how 'snub nose' some EVs are now, which really helps their turning circle and aero profile.)
As EV battery prices fall per kWh the PHEV just stops making sense.
Edit: corrected stupid typo :palm:
-
...
As EV battery prices fall per kWh the PHEV just stops making sense.
We have one small problem here. It looks like battery prices already hit the bottom as demand goes up and pushes raw material prices.
Current cell prices are very near the input costs. And those going up.
It might be just a temporary glitch caused by the pandemic. But right now it does not look for a bright green battery future.
(https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/BNEF-Figure-1-Volume-weighted-average-lithium-ion-battery-pack-and-cell-price-split.png)
-
This remark is only made by people that have absolutely no clue about what it is actually like to drive long journeys with a car. How much coffee do you want to drink in a day? As someone with decades of experience driving long distances with a car, I can tell you that you will want to keep stops to a minimum and don't eat or drink along highways because everything there is overpriced & crap. On top of that, time is better spend getting at your hotel early, eat dinner at a good restaurant, go for a swim, take a walk through a beautyfull city center, go to sleep on time, etc, etc. Literally anything is better than waiting at a charging station. :palm:
You clearly have better bladder range than me! I generally stop every 2.5-3 hours on a long journey. I might not get a coffee, but there are plenty of places by motorways here that aren't overpriced for coffee, charging, etc. Stopping at the actual services is usually a mugs game, no matter what the country (though I will say the 1.50 EUR espresso I had on the Italian autostrada blew my mind compared to what £4.50 gets you here in a normal Starbucks, but that's another matter.)
A 10-15 minute stop every 3 hours is fine IMO. But everyone's different. Some EV's already achieve this e.g. Model 3 LR will do it. Something like the ID.3 requires 25-30 mins per stop.
Once a journey is over 800-1000km then I start looking at the train or flights, a car for that long is hell. Too much to concentrate on for 8 hours. Maybe autonomous highway cruising will resolve that but we're not there yet. ACC takes some of the workload off but certainly still have to be very attentive.
You still have neglected to consider while that extra 15-30 minutes stop every 3 hours is inconvenient for a long road trip, you would never need to stop for ordinary daily usage which is covered by home/street/work charging. Not everyone can do that yet, but it will get there eventually. If you need to stop every 2-3 weeks - 10-15 mins to get petrol and pay - then you would need to road trip a lot for rapid charging to be a net time sink.
-
I really think plug in hybrids would become dominant for a long time. At some point, it no longer makes sense to keep adding battery capacity to cover the infrequent long trips.
I agree. At this moment there simply is no good replacement for ICE where it comes to range & refuel times.
-
This remark is only made by people that have absolutely no clue about what it is actually like to drive long journeys with a car. How much coffee do you want to drink in a day? As someone with decades of experience driving long distances with a car, I can tell you that you will want to keep stops to a minimum and don't eat or drink along highways because everything there is overpriced & crap. On top of that, time is better spend getting at your hotel early, eat dinner at a good restaurant, go for a swim, take a walk through a beautyfull city center, go to sleep on time, etc, etc. Literally anything is better than waiting at a charging station. :palm:
You clearly have better bladder range than me! I generally stop every 2.5-3 hours on a long journey. I might not get a coffee, but there are plenty of places by motorways here that aren't overpriced for coffee, charging, etc. Stopping at the actual services is usually a mugs game, no matter what the country (though I will say the 1.50 EUR espresso I had on the Italian autostrada blew my mind compared to what £4.50 gets you here in a normal Starbucks, but that's another matter.)
A 10-15 minute stop every 3 hours is fine IMO. But everyone's different. Some EV's already achieve this e.g. Model 3 LR will do it. Something like the ID.3 requires 25-30 mins per stop.
Once a journey is over 800-1000km then I start looking at the train or flights, a car for that long is hell. Too much to concentrate on for 8 hours. Maybe autonomous highway cruising will resolve that but we're not there yet. ACC takes some of the workload off but certainly still have to be very attentive.
You still have neglected to consider while that extra 15-30 minutes stop every 3 hours is inconvenient for a long road trip, you would never need to stop for ordinary daily usage which is covered by home/street/work charging.
That doesn't matter at all. Like most people, I buy a car to do long trips conveniently. In my case that is also the primary use of the car anyway. Cars get bought to suit 2% of the use cases. If you don't think that is true, then ask yourself why people buy cars with 4 seats to drive to work alone... IIRC you have a Golf GTE but drive that to work alone. Why didn't you get a Renault Twizzy?
-
btw for that disabled transport topic. Here in Prague city provides transport for wheelchair users. It is heavily overbooked nowadays, so one needs to book its way half a year upfront. So not the most convenient, but it exists and is possible.
So somewhat "suboptimal" for my normal use case for busses: getting to a hospital appointment in the centre of town :)
-
... don't eat or drink along highways because everything there is overpriced & crap. On top of that, time is better spend getting at your hotel early, eat dinner at a good restaurant, go for a swim, take a walk through a beautyfull city center, go to sleep on time, etc, etc. Literally anything is better than waiting at a charging station. :palm:
Exactly, in every respect.
-
With Bev rsnge approaching 600 km and fast chargers abounding in many countries.
Fast chargers seem to abound in a couple of countries. In most the lack of solid, reliable, properly maintained chargers on a high capacity mains feed is a big problem. How many fast chargers in your country actually give the power they claim, and how many are heavily throttled because the feed they are attached to is power limited? How many are actually working when you get there?
-
...
As EV battery prices fall per kWh the PHEV just stops making sense.
We have one small problem here. It looks like battery prices already hit the bottom as demand goes up and pushes raw material prices.
Current cell prices are very near the input costs. And those going up.
It might be just a temporary glitch caused by the pandemic. But right now it does not look for a bright green battery future.
(https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/BNEF-Figure-1-Volume-weighted-average-lithium-ion-battery-pack-and-cell-price-split.png)
Sure, current tech. Solid state will drive the price and size lower and it's a huge upgrade safety wise.
-
That doesn't matter at all. Like most people, I buy a car to do long trips conveniently. In my case that is also the primary use of the car anyway. Cars get bought to suit 2% of the use cases. If you don't think that is true, then ask yourself why people buy cars with 4 seats to drive to work alone... IIRC you have a Golf GTE but drive that to work alone. Why didn't you get a Renault Twizzy?
Of course I don't deny this, that's the whole debate over SUVs... people buy the big SUV so twice a year they can go to the tip with a bootful of crap or once in a blue moon pick up their cousin and three children from the airport with seventeen bags of luggage. But then the problem is it's difficult/expensive to hire cars on demand, in some cities services like Zipcar make this easy but it's far from universal.
A Twizy wouldn't have the range of my GTE (I have a 90 mile round trip commute and can't charge at the office yet) nor would it have the performance to drive on a motorway, but I have mulled getting something like a Leaf just for the commute. In the end the performance of the GTE on the roads I drive is too nice to give up and I don't go to the office often enough to justify a 2nd car, so decided instead to wait until a pure EV is within my budget that meets my requirements. I think that will happen before this summer. I don't buy new cars, so have been watching used prices follow as the new models come off lease and supply chains improve.
If you road trip weekly or monthly you would definitely find an "average EV" less convenient right now but that's definitely changing. Take a look at the data by Bjorn Nyland on the 1000km challenge in Norway. That is, how fast can you travel in EV vs ICE (he tested a PHEV).
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V6ucyFGKWuSQzvI8lMzvvWJHrBS82echMVJH37kwgjE/edit#gid=15442336
So right now the high end of EVs matches the convenience of ICE and towards the lower end we are getting some competition, for instance EV6/Ioniq5 and VW ID5 are only 1hr slower in a 10hr trip. It won't be long before similar models are competitive, it's really just down to charging performance, getting that fast charging curve up, which as tszaboo suggests is coming more with solid state batteries and other improvements. It wasn't until 2016 or so that Tesla introduced battery pre-warming to get to the supercharging speeds seen now, and denser batteries are being fitted to average cars. VW launched the e-Golf with 24kWh battery, then refreshed it with 35.5kWh, then the ID.3 (basically the successor to e-Golf) comes with 58kWh standard. That's in 8 years of production, the battery capacity more than doubled. I think batteries will level out around 60kWh for average vehicles, but more effort will be expended on getting them to charge faster.
So even if you feel EV isn't for you today I doubt you will be saying the same in 2025 - 2030. Meanwhile where are all the hydrogen models to compete with EVs?
-
I think future battery tech will bear little relation to current battery tech no
No More then a current ice is similar to a model T ford engine
-
BEVs will offer as good or better transport experience over time. The negatives are largely illusional or in fact will disappear as habits change
Inventing drawbacks or negating Bev because it’s not an identical experience is really nonsensical. The future will be different, car usage will be different too , things are changing
-
BEVs will offer as good or better transport experience over time. The negatives are largely illusional or in fact will disappear as habits change
Inventing drawbacks or negating Bev because it’s not an identical experience is really nonsensical. The future will be different, car usage will be different too , things are changing
lol. Keep dreaming
-
I've got no problems with a moving/camping trailer that has a massive inbuilt battery bank. That would actually be quite useful on a camping trip for powering/cooking various devices and it should theoretically increase the travel range of a vehicle by at least another 600km, provided it is in good condition.
Future SUV/BEVs would require a charging port at the rear of the vehicle for trailers only, bidirectional. There would also need to be a second cable going to the front of the vehicle dedicated for the trailers power supply to be used by the engine soley and a way to charge both battery banks, trailer and vehicle, independently of each other.
Yeah, I do wonder if any of the "lifestyle camper" manufacturers have thought of this yet. Traditional CCS does not allow charging if the vehicle is not in 'park' but that's a software limit rather than anything. Would be "easy" to have 20-30kW coming from a trailer to top up the main vehicle battery easily compensating for the range loss from towing. Needs the vehicle manufacturers to get on board with allowing the charge port to run while driving (when connected to the right equipment, Ionity might not be so pleased when you run off with their cable and pedestal because you forgot it was attached.)
It would make caravans etc. more expensive but then I've never quite appreciated why anyone in their right mind would spend ~30,000 EUR on a caravan and a more expensive SUV to tow that thing when you could easily buy numerous holidays abroad or a hotel stay with breakfast at your table, instead of a muddy field with a gas stove. :-//
-
a hotel stay with breakfast at your table, instead of a muddy field with a gas stove.
i'll take the field and stove thanks.
-
So even if you feel EV isn't for you today I doubt you will be saying the same in 2025 - 2030. Meanwhile where are all the hydrogen models to compete with EVs?
You are forgetting charging costs... an ICE hybrid is cheaper to run over long distances for the next decade. Hydrogen comes second cost wise. I have already done that math and likely other, cost consience, people have done that as well. There is an 80% chance I'll skip BEV and 2 cars from now, I'll be driving around in an FCEV. Charging costs are what is going to limit BEV adoption.
-
You are forgetting charging costs... an ICE hybrid is cheaper to run over long distances for the next decade. Hydrogen comes second cost wise. I have already done that math and likely other, cost consience, people have done that as well. There is an 80% chance I'll skip BEV and 2 cars from now, I'll be driving around in an FCEV. Charging costs are what is going to limit BEV adoption.
ICE only becomes even slightly competitive if you exclusively use fast charging stations. If you charge at home or at night, it's between 1/5th and 1/3rd the cost per mile in the UK. Yes, even in this time of high energy prices. Then you add lower TCO like reduced servicing.
As for the purchase cost, depends if you're comparing used to new. Brand new Prius costs almost the same as a mid-range EV now. £24,500 for the Prius vs £26,000 for the MG4 EV.
Or looking at 2 year old models (as this is when a load of EVs were launched) - cheapest Vauxhall Corsa-e ~£18k on Autotrader (https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202301253609455) versus 2 year old Yaris - cheapest £14k (https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202301103111854).
The price gap is closing, and it's closing fast. You'd have to do very few miles, or only charge on high power DC, for a £4k difference to be not worth it. (I pay 2.5p per mile, petrol is about 15p per mile, so difference in cost is made up after 32,000 miles, or about 3-4 years of normal usage.)
But of course you can buy a 15-20 year old Prius, can't do that yet for EVs.
As I said, if you are travelling every day long distances, then EV might not make sense yet, but that's rapidly changing.
Anyway, I suspect this thread is going round in circles...
-
You are forgetting charging costs... an ICE hybrid is cheaper to run over long distances for the next decade. Hydrogen comes second cost wise. I have already done that math and likely other, cost consience, people have done that as well. There is an 80% chance I'll skip BEV and 2 cars from now, I'll be driving around in an FCEV. Charging costs are what is going to limit BEV adoption.
ICE only becomes even slightly competitive if you exclusively use fast charging stations. If you charge at home or at night, it's between 1/5th and 1/3rd the cost per mile in the UK. Yes, even in this time of high energy prices. Then you add lower TCO like reduced servicing.
For long trips you can't charge at home so that is out. And you seriously overestimate the cost of servicing a car or even TCO. Number 1 cost is fuel, number 2 is suspension & tires, number 3 is road taxes, number 4 is the rest but at this stage you are in noise. Looking at the cost of my current car: I've spend about 35k euro on fuel, about 6k euro suspension & tires, another 5k euro on road taxes, 4k euro to write it off and about 3k euro on servicing. Cost per km is around 21 eurocents. Next car is going to be a hybrid and I hope to drive the cost per km down to 18 eurocents. If you actually know about the real servicing costs of a car, then you'd know a BEV is not going to be cheaper to maintain but more expensive due to more wear & tear on the suspension. Ofcourse, these costs are low in the first 5 years of a car's life (which all comparisons are based on) but over the entire lifetime, that picture looks entirely different.
-
For long trips you can't charge at home so that is out.
Not true, you start with a full battery, unless you forgot to charge it. So the cost per mile increases the further away from this starting charge you get. But if you only need to charge once on your trip, e.g. for the return, then it's half the cost and so on.
And you seriously overestimate the cost of servicing a car or even TCO. Number 1 cost is fuel, number 2 is suspension & tires, number 3 is road taxes, number 4 is the rest but at this stage you are in noise.
Servicing for my car is £200 per year (done at an independent shop) because it's a plugin hybrid everything needs to be changed at 10k miles/1yr rather than a regular ICE which might go longer. Gearbox oil is £300 every 3-4 years (VW ATF is expensive) and timing belt should be done every 6-7 years which is about £1,200. So all in I reckon £500 per year in servicing. Definitely much less than fuel but not nothing. And definitely nowhere close to tyres which are £450 for a set which last about 3-4yrs. The only service an EV really needs is brake fluid and maybe coolant at the 4yr mark.
Sure I could do it all myself but the idea of climbing under my car on the driveway is not attractive at all. I'd probably screw it up too, knowing my luck.
Looking at the cost of my current car: I've spend about 35k euro on fuel, about 6k euro suspension & tires, another 5k euro on suspension, 4k euro to write it off and about 2k euro on servicing. Cost per km is around 21 eurocents.
Definitely agree depreciation is a huge part of the cost (I guess that's what you put as write off.) So far my GTE has depreciated at about the same rate as the fuel used to power it (50000 miles, £6500 value lost = 13p/mile.) As for suspension, what are you doing to your car? I have never needed more than tie rod ends done on my cars and that was a really old knackered piece of crap car. The suspension on my Golf is fine and it's a 7 year old car. Worst it has is a slight creak in the back going over a bump, it just needs lubing now and then. We have plenty of pot holes around here and I've hit a few at speed without breaking anything. I'd definitely say that's abnormal to have to spend so much on suspension repairs unless you live on a road that is a rumble strip.
Next car is going to be a hybrid and I hope to drive the cost per km down to 18 eurocents. If you actually know about the real servicing costs of a car, then you'd know a BEV is not going to be cheaper to maintain but more expensive due to more wear & tear on the suspension.
We must have completely different experiences because I kept all the costs for my car and used it to build a cost model in Excel. The EV wins by (literal) miles. The PHEV is still pretty good but once you go out of its battery range, the cost per mile starts making it harder to justify. Hence why I'd be looking to replace it soon enough.
-
If you actually know about the real servicing costs of a car, then you'd know a BEV is not going to be cheaper to maintain but more expensive due to more wear & tear on the suspension.
So the bushes and shocks wear out before they rust into a solid mass and consequently take a third the time to replace with lower material costs.
-
Neighbor buddy went last week for a few days at a popular beach some 200km away and took his work BMW is it an I3 ?
New to EV's he is just this year after changing jobs and commented range anxiety nearly spoiled the trip however the addition costs of a public fast charge was the final straw. Some NZD75 charging costs while no such issues with ICE hasn't exactly made a convert of him.
-
Its even worse in Australia. People buy caravans to go and look at a vast empty wasteland for 2 weeks.
Some do some don't.
Our son in Perth uses his $30k tandem camper lots over 1000's of km north and south WA.
Before he got it we did the brewery and winery trips and stayed at various south WA tourist spots but that gets expensive and you're never away from the crowd. Some ppl really value that.
Camping trailers OTOH do provide substantially more fruits than a tent as they are equipped with a stove, fridge, sink etc that provide some self sufficiency to allow more than just a night or two to explore a new region while you're figuring out where to take Ma and Pa next time they're over for Xmas. ;)
When here just a fortnight ago they borrowed our V6 VXII doing 2000km to a few touristy things and visiting friends and family he hadn't seen for years. Even the 20yr old Commodore returned 800km/tank and capable of more when filled with decent fuel rather than this modern low octane crap.
-
Camping trailers OTOH do provide substantially more fruits than a tent as they are equipped with a stove, fridge, sink etc that provide some self sufficiency to allow more than just a night or two to explore a new region
sounds more like glamping.
-
Camping trailers OTOH do provide substantially more fruits than a tent as they are equipped with a stove, fridge, sink etc that provide some self sufficiency to allow more than just a night or two to explore a new region
sounds more like glamping.
Or necessary protection from the creeping slivering crawlies, some of which are nasty poisonous things.
Ground camping in Oz is full of challenges and some you wouldn't even expect until you've been there.
While not poisonous their Bull ants are a fine example ...... and the fuckers will chase you. :scared:
-
For long trips you can't charge at home so that is out.
Not true, you start with a full battery, unless you forgot to charge it. So the cost per mile increases the further away from this starting charge you get. But if you only need to charge once on your trip, e.g. for the return, then it's half the cost and so on.
And you seriously overestimate the cost of servicing a car or even TCO. Number 1 cost is fuel, number 2 is suspension & tires, number 3 is road taxes, number 4 is the rest but at this stage you are in noise.
Servicing for my car is £200 per year (done at an independent shop) because it's a plugin hybrid everything needs to be changed at 10k miles/1yr rather than a regular ICE which might go longer. Gearbox oil is £300 every 3-4 years (VW ATF is expensive) and timing belt should be done every 6-7 years which is about £1,200. So all in I reckon £500 per year in servicing. Definitely much less than fuel but not nothing. And definitely nowhere close to tyres which are £450 for a set which last about 3-4yrs. The only service an EV really needs is brake fluid and maybe coolant at the 4yr mark.
Sure I could do it all myself but the idea of climbing under my car on the driveway is not attractive at all. I'd probably screw it up too, knowing my luck.
Looking at the cost of my current car: I've spend about 35k euro on fuel, about 6k euro suspension & tires, another 5k euro on suspension, 4k euro to write it off and about 2k euro on servicing. Cost per km is around 21 eurocents.
Definitely agree depreciation is a huge part of the cost (I guess that's what you put as write off.) So far my GTE has depreciated at about the same rate as the fuel used to power it (50000 miles, £6500 value lost = 13p/mile.) As for suspension, what are you doing to your car? I have never needed more than tie rod ends done on my cars and that was a really old knackered piece of crap car. The suspension on my Golf is fine and it's a 7 year old car. Worst it has is a slight creak in the back going over a bump, it just needs lubing now and then. We have plenty of pot holes around here and I've hit a few at speed without breaking anything. I'd definitely say that's abnormal to have to spend so much on suspension repairs unless you live on a road that is a rumble strip.
Next car is going to be a hybrid and I hope to drive the cost per km down to 18 eurocents. If you actually know about the real servicing costs of a car, then you'd know a BEV is not going to be cheaper to maintain but more expensive due to more wear & tear on the suspension.
We must have completely different experiences because I kept all the costs for my car and used it to build a cost model in Excel. The EV wins by (literal) miles. The PHEV is still pretty good but once you go out of its battery range, the cost per mile starts making it harder to justify. Hence why I'd be looking to replace it soon enough.
As the owner of a 6 year old BEV ( leaf ) with. 250,000km on it. Serving has been negligible and talking other leaf owners suspension issues are non existent , service costs are negligible.
Fast chargers are currently similar pricing to domestic day rates and hence cost per mile is way way lower then current petrol costs.
Add in lower annual tax Costs, cheaper fuel , cheaper insurance , very low service costs etc. the annual TCO of the BEV is way lower then the equivalent ICE car.
-
So even if you feel EV isn't for you today I doubt you will be saying the same in 2025 - 2030. Meanwhile where are all the hydrogen models to compete with EVs?
You are forgetting charging costs... an ICE hybrid is cheaper to run over long distances for the next decade. Hydrogen comes second cost wise. I have already done that math and likely other, cost consience, people have done that as well. There is an 80% chance I'll skip BEV and 2 cars from now, I'll be driving around in an FCEV. Charging costs are what is going to limit BEV adoption.
This is abject nonsense, the annual TCO of my leaf Bev including a combination of home and fast chargers is WAY less than the equivalent ICE car. This is especially true where significant mileage is being clocked up.
This is only getting worse recently as fuel recently rocketed and carbon taxes are being introduced , in additional annual car tax is way higher for the same sized ICE. Not to mention residuals have hejd up better on the BEV . Annual serving costs of the BEV are negligible compared to the ICE.
The BEV costs a fraction to run annually compared to a similar ICE. We tracked our running costs with our daily commute our Bev paid for itself in three years fron the running cost savings alone. Hence we had a nice modern new car essentially pay for itself in running cost savings over running a second hand ice.
Our experience is mirrored by many BEV owners
-
Fast chargers are currently similar pricing to domestic day rates and hence cost per mile is way way lower then current petrol costs.
Stop making statements without qualifying them as they don't apply everywhere !
That's just plain garbage as here in NZ fast charging station rates are much dearer than standard stations.
While we all know you are blindly pushing the EV agenda your experiences are NOT universal.
Add in lower annual tax Costs, cheaper fuel , cheaper insurance , very low service costs etc. the annual TCO of the BEV is way lower then the equivalent ICE car.
Where do you dream up such BS as a BEV car cannot in anyway be considered an equivalent to an ICE car. ::) :bullshit:
-
What kind of ICE are you talking about here? A Rolls Royce?
A Range Rover perhaps?
No. I'm writing about a bog standard Ford Focus. But I drove it for about 260k km -so far-. At around 8.2 liters per 100km and average fuel price of 1.6 euro, it quietly adds up to quite a large amount.
@Tom66: you should have bought a Prius... Your Golf GTE is an outright money pit! 1200 pounds for a timing belt? Is it made out of gold and unicorn hair or so? I pay 450 euro for the changing the beld on my Ford Focus including the water pump. And that is not even at the cheapest garage I can find. Next car I'm looking at is a Toyota Auris and I expect the servicing costs to be lower compared to the Ford Focus because it has a timing chain.
@Madscientist: if you drive a car for 260k km without changing the shock absorbers, you are a lunatic. Your car will wobble allover the place when you need make an evasive manouvre and thus kill you in the process. Or try braking really hard. Shock absorbers are fundamental in giving the tires traction; they are typically worn after 120k km to 150k km. Ofcourse you are always driving safely, it is just that others won't and thus you can still end up with needing your suspension in excellent condition. I certainly make sure my car's suspension & tires are in perfect condition. I value the life of my loved ones and my own above anything else.
-
Where do you dream up such BS as a BEV car cannot in anyway be considered an equivalent to an ICE car. ::) :bullshit:
As propagandists know well, if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth (and the truth becomes MSM alt-truth).
Fanbois are propagandists' useful fools.
-
What kind of ICE are you talking about here? A Rolls Royce?
A Range Rover perhaps?
I guess the fuel costs do add up. But have you taken into account the cost of a new battery into your math? Or did you somehow magically lose that somewhere?
Why would I want a new battery after 6 years and 250,000km my leaf battteth is only down two bars and the car reliably lies 130km on a single full charge
-
Fast chargers are currently similar pricing to domestic day rates and hence cost per mile is way way lower then current petrol costs.
Stop making statements without qualifying them as they don't apply everywhere !
That's just plain garbage as here in NZ fast charging station rates are much dearer than standard stations.
While we all know you are blindly pushing the EV agenda your experiences are NOT universal.
Add in lower annual tax Costs, cheaper fuel , cheaper insurance , very low service costs etc. the annual TCO of the BEV is way lower then the equivalent ICE car.
Where do you dream up such BS as a BEV car cannot in anyway be considered an equivalent to an ICE car. ::) :bullshit:
I make no allowances for retrograde countries that penalise BEV usage. Our political agenda back by voters is to decarbonise private transport as quickly as practical. To that end taxation policy and gov owned fast charging network has implemented incentives to encourage Bev adoption, those incentives are clearly working
Fast charging pricing is similar to normal day rate electricity rates. Day rate electricity is not particularly cheap either. Recently a number of private companies have entered the fast charger marketplace pricing competition is evident.
Then you add in cheaper annual car tax , cheaper car insurance , access to certain free car parking , etc. the net result is a BEV is much cheaper to run
I’m sorry if your democracy isn’t coping our experience tracking our Bev costs and comparing it to our previous ICE car ( small fiat) was thd bev was 1/3 of the running costs of the ICE and that cash benefit could be seen clearly in our bank account
I fully acknowledge current BEVs have drawbacks but the nonsense ( shock absorbers etc) been spouted here by last gasp ICE adherents is ridiculous and uniformed
-
Fast chargers are currently similar pricing to domestic day rates and hence cost per mile is way way lower then current petrol costs.
Stop making statements without qualifying them as they don't apply everywhere !
That's just plain garbage as here in NZ fast charging station rates are much dearer than standard stations.
While we all know you are blindly pushing the EV agenda your experiences are NOT universal.
Add in lower annual tax Costs, cheaper fuel , cheaper insurance , very low service costs etc. the annual TCO of the BEV is way lower then the equivalent ICE car.
Where do you dream up such BS as a BEV car cannot in anyway be considered an equivalent to an ICE car. ::) :bullshit:
I make no allowances for retrograde countries that penalise BEV usage. Our political agenda back by voters is to decarbonise private transport as quickly as practical. To that end taxation policy and gov owned fast charging network has implemented incentives to encourage Bev adoption, those incentives are clearly working
Fast charging pricing is similar to normal day rate electricity rates. Day rate electricity is not particularly cheap either. Recently a number of private companies have entered the fast charger marketplace pricing competition is evident.
Then you add in cheaper annual car tax , cheaper car insurance , access to certain free car parking , etc. the net result is a BEV is much cheaper to run
I’m sorry if your democracy isn’t coping our experience tracking our Bev costs and comparing it to our previous ICE car ( small fiat) was thd bev was 1/3 of the running costs of the ICE and that cash benefit could be seen clearly in our bank account
I fully acknowledge current BEVs have drawbacks but the nonsense ( shock absorbers etc) been spouted here by last gasp ICE adherents is ridiculous and uniformed
:-DD
You are from another planet if you have no idea of what our Gubbermint has done in the effort to have us swallow all this EV BS.
I've already reported in this thread how all the really useful vehicles sold here are taxed to subsidise EV purchases well before the nationwide charging infrastructure is even fit for purpose. To further subsidize the EV bludgers I've also reported here they contribute zero/zip/zilch to maintaining the roading infrastructure and to top it all off large numbers of the population having had all this inconvenience foisted upon them by some so far removed from reality and only fit to shine the seat of a chair will be evicted from NZ halls of power in a few months with a landslide defeat due to their policies being so unpopular.
Should further efforts to get ICE cars from these roads be foisted upon the population many without means to upgrade to more efficient cars will become unemployed as our public transport is so bad. It could even bring about public revolt from some sectors of society.
With rose tinted glasses and idealistic vision from a high altitude this all seems easy and straightforward but the truth at ground level is very very different.
-
I fully acknowledge current BEVs have drawbacks but the nonsense ( shock absorbers etc) been spouted here by last gasp ICE adherents is ridiculous and uniformed
Yeeezzz... your BEV doesn't have shock absorbers then?? How about wheels then? Does your Leaf even have wheels? I mean, there are wheels on ICE cars so BEVs in their superiority don't have wheels but likely sit on rubber donuts.
You are so wound up that you don't even recognise potentially life saving advice even if it hits you full on in the face :-DD
-
What kind of ICE are you talking about here? A Rolls Royce?
A Range Rover perhaps?
I guess the fuel costs do add up. But have you taken into account the cost of a new battery into your math? Or did you somehow magically lose that somewhere?
Why would I want a new battery after 6 years and 250,000km my leaf battteth is only down two bars and the car reliably lies 130km on a single full charge
That's a revealing statement, arguably contradicting the "scientist" and accentuating the "mad" parts of your moniker.
Surely losing 2/3 of capacity is cause for replacement :)
-
What kind of ICE are you talking about here? A Rolls Royce?
A Range Rover perhaps?
I guess the fuel costs do add up. But have you taken into account the cost of a new battery into your math? Or did you somehow magically lose that somewhere?
Why would I want a new battery after 6 years and 250,000km my leaf battteth is only down two bars and the car reliably lies 130km on a single full charge
That's a revealing statement, arguably contradicting the "scientist" and accentuating the "mad" parts of your moniker.
Surely losing 2/3 of capacity is cause for replacement :)
Two thirds? It's a 30kWh first-gen Leaf. 120km is 75% of the marketing range of that vehicle.
This post brought to you by 18.3 seconds of fact checking.
-
Assuming society holds together and the state pushes the issue here are the solutions for long range driving :
- Expensive synth fuel kept around for legacy users, using this for day to day driving would be seriously expensive.
- Hydrogen mainly intended for trucking, but with gigafactories spitting out fuel cells for the trucking industry and massively bringing down costs, someone is likely going to make a range extender out of it.
- Hyperfast chargers. In 15 years chemistry and charging connectors will likely allow an order of magnitude increase in charging speed, might need coolant connectors on the charging port at that point though.
-
- Hydrogen mainly intended for trucking, but with gigafactories spitting out fuel cells for the trucking industry and massively bringing down costs, someone is likely going to make a range extender out of it.
Or as is more likely, preexisting ICE technology converted to run on hydrogen:
https://www.cummins.com/news/releases/2022/05/09/cummins-inc-debuts-15-liter-hydrogen-engine-act-expo (https://www.cummins.com/news/releases/2022/05/09/cummins-inc-debuts-15-liter-hydrogen-engine-act-expo)
-
For a range extender an hydrogen ICE makes no sense. For day to day running costs a hydrogen ICE will likely be too expensive, same as using synthetic hydrocarbons.
Hydrogen prices would have to become ridiculously low for hydrogen ICE to make much sense.
-
Camping trailers OTOH do provide substantially more fruits than a tent as they are equipped with a stove, fridge, sink etc that provide some self sufficiency to allow more than just a night or two to explore a new region
sounds more like glamping.
I detest all these “cool titles” people use to try and make mundane stuff sound appealing. If you are “glamping” you’re not camping at all - you’re caravanning. I’d rather go to the Isle of Wight and stay in a static home, or just get a simple tent and camp properly. All this extra BS misses the point of the simple pleasure of basic camping.
-
Fast chargers are currently similar pricing to domestic day rates and hence cost per mile is way way lower then current petrol costs.
Stop making statements without qualifying them as they don't apply everywhere !
That's just plain garbage as here in NZ fast charging station rates are much dearer than standard stations.
While we all know you are blindly pushing the EV agenda your experiences are NOT universal.
Add in lower annual tax Costs, cheaper fuel , cheaper insurance , very low service costs etc. the annual TCO of the BEV is way lower then the equivalent ICE car.
Where do you dream up such BS as a BEV car cannot in anyway be considered an equivalent to an ICE car. ::) :bullshit:
I make no allowances for retrograde countries that penalise BEV usage. Our political agenda back by voters is to decarbonise private transport as quickly as practical. To that end taxation policy and gov owned fast charging network has implemented incentives to encourage Bev adoption, those incentives are clearly working
Fast charging pricing is similar to normal day rate electricity rates. Day rate electricity is not particularly cheap either. Recently a number of private companies have entered the fast charger marketplace pricing competition is evident.
Then you add in cheaper annual car tax , cheaper car insurance , access to certain free car parking , etc. the net result is a BEV is much cheaper to run
I’m sorry if your democracy isn’t coping our experience tracking our Bev costs and comparing it to our previous ICE car ( small fiat) was thd bev was 1/3 of the running costs of the ICE and that cash benefit could be seen clearly in our bank account
I fully acknowledge current BEVs have drawbacks but the nonsense ( shock absorbers etc) been spouted here by last gasp ICE adherents is ridiculous and uniformed
“ last gasp ICE adherents”?
You’re not in a world where EVs are the majority; they’re a middle class tinker toy, one which is being foisted on people to further this crock “green” agenda. Don’t fall off your high horse.
-
Currently, the efficiency of hydrogen ICE vs FC is very close in steady load ie trucking, and other long range travel.
it is like ~40% vs ~50%
With ICE you still get things like NOx and other minor pollutants from the burning process
But the operating costs can be interesting
-
What kind of ICE are you talking about here? A Rolls Royce?
A Range Rover perhaps?
I guess the fuel costs do add up. But have you taken into account the cost of a new battery into your math? Or did you somehow magically lose that somewhere?
Why would I want a new battery after 6 years and 250,000km my leaf battteth is only down two bars and the car reliably lies 130km on a single full charge
That's a revealing statement, arguably contradicting the "scientist" and accentuating the "mad" parts of your moniker.
Surely losing 2/3 of capacity is cause for replacement :)
Two thirds? It's a 30kWh first-gen Leaf. 120km is 75% of the marketing range of that vehicle.
This post brought to you by 18.3 seconds of fact checking.
Claims are not facts until they are backed with evidence. Also, unless we are told which highly advanced and superior democracy they live in, how can we fact check any of their claims around infrastructure and costs?
-
What kind of ICE are you talking about here? A Rolls Royce?
A Range Rover perhaps?
I guess the fuel costs do add up. But have you taken into account the cost of a new battery into your math? Or did you somehow magically lose that somewhere?
Why would I want a new battery after 6 years and 250,000km my leaf battteth is only down two bars and the car reliably lies 130km on a single full charge
That's a revealing statement, arguably contradicting the "scientist" and accentuating the "mad" parts of your moniker.
Surely losing 2/3 of capacity is cause for replacement :)
Two thirds? It's a 30kWh first-gen Leaf. 120km is 75% of the marketing range of that vehicle.
This post brought to you by 18.3 seconds of fact checking.
Claims are not facts until they are backed with evidence. Also, unless we are told which highly advanced and superior democracy they live in, how can we fact check any of their claims around infrastructure and costs?
[/quote
Yes the range is down to approx 75% of peak. As I said about 120km. Still very usable
-
Fast chargers are currently similar pricing to domestic day rates and hence cost per mile is way way lower then current petrol costs.
Stop making statements without qualifying them as they don't apply everywhere !
That's just plain garbage as here in NZ fast charging station rates are much dearer than standard stations.
While we all know you are blindly pushing the EV agenda your experiences are NOT universal.
Add in lower annual tax Costs, cheaper fuel , cheaper insurance , very low service costs etc. the annual TCO of the BEV is way lower then the equivalent ICE car.
Where do you dream up such BS as a BEV car cannot in anyway be considered an equivalent to an ICE car. ::) :bullshit:
I make no allowances for retrograde countries that penalise BEV usage. Our political agenda back by voters is to decarbonise private transport as quickly as practical. To that end taxation policy and gov owned fast charging network has implemented incentives to encourage Bev adoption, those incentives are clearly working
Fast charging pricing is similar to normal day rate electricity rates. Day rate electricity is not particularly cheap either. Recently a number of private companies have entered the fast charger marketplace pricing competition is evident.
Then you add in cheaper annual car tax , cheaper car insurance , access to certain free car parking , etc. the net result is a BEV is much cheaper to run
I’m sorry if your democracy isn’t coping our experience tracking our Bev costs and comparing it to our previous ICE car ( small fiat) was thd bev was 1/3 of the running costs of the ICE and that cash benefit could be seen clearly in our bank account
I fully acknowledge current BEVs have drawbacks but the nonsense ( shock absorbers etc) been spouted here by last gasp ICE adherents is ridiculous and uniformed
“ last gasp ICE adherents”?
You’re not in a world where EVs are the majority; they’re a middle class tinker toy, one which is being foisted on people to further this crock “green” agenda. Don’t fall off your high horse.
What I mean by “ last gasp “ is exactly directed at people like you in saying “ crock green agenda “. Ice cars deliver significant pollution and noise into compact urban areas , BEVs do not. The issue is urban car usage
-
What I mean by “ last gasp “ is exactly directed at people like you in saying “ crock green agenda “. Ice cars deliver significant pollution and noise into compact urban areas , BEVs do not. The issue is urban car usage
And not the global production footprint ?
Unless the whole picture is factored in it's a crock of shit.
-
What I mean by “ last gasp “ is exactly directed at people like you in saying “ crock green agenda “. Ice cars deliver significant pollution and noise into compact urban areas , BEVs do not. The issue is urban car usage
And not the global production footprint ?
Unless the whole picture is factored in it's a crock of shit.
Making our towns cleaner is a quantifiable win. This is not about achieving every goal at once. It’s about a series of incremental changes as time and technology allows
It’s ridiculous to negate some change simply because we can’t do all of it in one go. The same arguments are used by climate change deniers to prevent change
-
@Tom66: you should have bought a Prius... Your Golf GTE is an outright money pit! 1200 pounds for a timing belt? Is it made out of gold and unicorn hair or so? I pay 450 euro for the changing the beld on my Ford Focus including the water pump. And that is not even at the cheapest garage I can find. Next car I'm looking at is a Toyota Auris and I expect the servicing costs to be lower compared to the Ford Focus because it has a timing chain.
It is a hybrid with ~200 hp with a very compact engine bay (https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/MX3OY/s2/volkswagen-golf-gte.jpg). It's an 8 hour job apparently. Your options for comparable vehicles (at least at the time I bought it) were the Golf GTE, BMW 330e or Lexus 300h. And the GTE and BMW could be plugged in, so the GTE won because it was a hatchback. I did consider the BMW i3 REx with the 90Ah battery but heard too many stories of the REx dying on these cars putting the whole EV system into limp mode. It's also quite a weird car and only BMW will touch it.
-
What I mean by “ last gasp “ is exactly directed at people like you in saying “ crock green agenda “. Ice cars deliver significant pollution and noise into compact urban areas , BEVs do not. The issue is urban car usage
And not the global production footprint ?
Unless the whole picture is factored in it's a crock of shit.
Making our towns cleaner is a quantifiable win. This is not about achieving every goal at once. It’s about a series of incremental changes as time and technology allows
So no matter how much lithium mining might pollute some other country as long as we're making a difference at home ?
FFS and you were involved in working groups on EV's and have no conscience how their manufacture might impact other parts of the world ?
What about the possible pollution of that regions food production capability ?
No matter if they export it and have someone else eat it ?
How can you sleep at night ?
-
@Tom66: you should have bought a Prius... Your Golf GTE is an outright money pit! 1200 pounds for a timing belt? Is it made out of gold and unicorn hair or so? I pay 450 euro for the changing the beld on my Ford Focus including the water pump. And that is not even at the cheapest garage I can find. Next car I'm looking at is a Toyota Auris and I expect the servicing costs to be lower compared to the Ford Focus because it has a timing chain.
It is a hybrid with ~200 hp with a very compact engine bay (https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/MX3OY/s2/volkswagen-golf-gte.jpg). It's an 8 hour job apparently. Your options for comparable vehicles (at least at the time I bought it) were the Golf GTE, BMW 330e or Lexus 300h. And the GTE and BMW could be plugged in, so the GTE won because it was a hatchback. I did consider the BMW i3 REx with the 90Ah battery but heard too many stories of the REx dying on these cars putting the whole EV system into limp mode. It's also quite a weird car and only BMW will touch it.
I also looked at a whole bunch of hybrids but cost wise the Toyota wins due to low maintenance costs. The problem with the other choices are either high price or high cost due to unreliable / high maintenance cost engines. I get that you want a plug-in hybrid but likely the cost savings are negated by having much higher maintenance costs due to the way the engine is build. The newer Ford Focus models also have downsized engines which are expensive to maintain and prone to break downs. Maintenance and repair costs is one of the reasons I bought a gasoline car instead of a diesel BTW. A repair on a modern day diesel car easely undoes the cost saving due to slightly lower fuel prices. So far I have gotten way more mileage from the Ford Focus on gasoline than with any diesel car I have owned before (which all ended up having engine problems BTW).
-
A repair on a modern day diesel car easely undoes the cost saving due to slightly lower fuel prices. So far I have gotten way more mileage from the Ford Focus on gasoline than with any diesel car I have owned before (which all ended up having engine problems BTW).
The modern diesel with EGR has seriously compromised longevity due to the excessive contaminates the lubrication system must deal with. Even with EGR capable oils the lubrication system is challenged let alone the engine itself having to recirculate all that exhaust muck. If your vehicle tests can't detect it I advise disabling EGR in some manner that won't throw a ECU fault.
Quite simple on older cars, not so much on never ones.
-
What I mean by “ last gasp “ is exactly directed at people like you in saying “ crock green agenda “. Ice cars deliver significant pollution and noise into compact urban areas , BEVs do not. The issue is urban car usage
And not the global production footprint ?
Unless the whole picture is factored in it's a crock of shit.
Making our towns cleaner is a quantifiable win. This is not about achieving every goal at once. It’s about a series of incremental changes as time and technology allows
So no matter how much lithium mining might pollute some other country as long as we're making a difference at home ?
FFS and you were involved in working groups on EV's and have no conscience how their manufacture might impact other parts of the world ?
What about the possible pollution of that regions food production capability ?
No matter if they export it and have someone else eat it ?
How can you sleep at night ?
If you can only focus on one thing at a time sleeping at night is not so hard. If you look at the big picture you probably wouldn't be advocating for things he's advocating for in the first place. The most predatory people in the west tend to be myopic people who claim to be doing good.
-
I also looked at a whole bunch of hybrids but cost wise the Toyota wins due to low maintenance costs. The problem with the other choices are either high price or high cost due to unreliable / high maintenance cost engines. I get that you want a plug-in hybrid but likely the cost savings are negated by having much higher maintenance costs due to the way the engine is build. The newer Ford Focus models also have downsized engines which are expensive to maintain and prone to break downs. Maintenance and repair costs is one of the reasons I bought a gasoline car instead of a diesel BTW. A repair on a modern day diesel car easely undoes the cost saving due to slightly lower fuel prices. So far I have gotten way more mileage from the Ford Focus on gasoline than with any diesel car I have owned before (which all ended up having engine problems BTW).
Disagree, I'll dig out my spreadsheet that I used to justify the PHEV. Even with the loan interest I used to stretch my budget, my GTE was pretty much cost neutral to my 1.8L petrol powered Focus. (Man that car was a pile of crap! But that's what you get for buying a cheap used car I guess.) That was on economy7 electricity at 8p/kWh which has pretty much not changed for the last 4 years, only difference is the time period moved after getting a smart meter. I managed to go to and from work on electricity alone, over 3000 miles to a petrol tank in one stint at one point. I had to pay for charging at work, but I was paying about £15 a month in winter and £7 a month in the summer. So my commute was costing me about £20 a month in electricity (75% of that being work electricity), for 500 miles a month... about 4p/mile. For comparison, tyres are about 2p/mile and the Focus was about 16p/mile on fuel.
The biggest problem with PHEVs is you need to stay within their battery range and religiously charge them to get the best economy and to be honest I'm getting tired of having to find random AC chargers in car parks to get max economy... the infrastructure for PHEVs oddly has to be better than pure EVs (if you want to actually use the battery.) I just want a car that within 200 miles or so has good economy, and for that few percent of longer journeys a bit of planning using ABRP is fine, even if I do pay 50p/kWh or something for fast charging.
Also you have to realise that while I could probably achieve 70mpg with something like a Prius I don't want to drive a Prius. The nice thing with EVs is you can have a 200hp car and still get 4mi/kWh. One of the most efficient EVs out there is Model 3 RWD and that's got a 302hp motor.
-
What kind of ICE are you talking about here? A Rolls Royce?
A Range Rover perhaps?
I guess the fuel costs do add up. But have you taken into account the cost of a new battery into your math? Or did you somehow magically lose that somewhere?
Why would I want a new battery after 6 years and 250,000km my leaf battteth is only down two bars and the car reliably lies 130km on a single full charge
That's a revealing statement, arguably contradicting the "scientist" and accentuating the "mad" parts of your moniker.
Surely losing 2/3 of capacity is cause for replacement :)
Two thirds? It's a 30kWh first-gen Leaf. 120km is 75% of the marketing range of that vehicle.
This post brought to you by 18.3 seconds of fact checking.
Sigh.
I was obliquely pointing out that "down two bars" is meaningless - by presuming that there were only three bars. If you had said two out of 8 or two out of 10 then you would have conveyed some information.
That elementary error and consequent meaninglessness of your statement was the source of my snarky comment about "mad" and "scientist".
-
EV range:
http://abetterrouteplanner.com (http://abetterrouteplanner.com)
Choose an EV, choose starting conditions (battery %), choose a start point and a destination, alter road conditions (headwind, temperature), and see how the range of the EV does and how often you would need to charge (if at all).
Not that I can see. (I thought I saw it yesterday, but maybe that was another site)
Nice thing about EVs is their efficiency is practically a linear function, so more weight or greater incline can be calculated for all EVs with minimal data points from one car. I guess the same probably applies for ICE but there's the complication of gearing and engine efficiency at varying load.
Today's news, from https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2023/01/tesla-fined-by-korean-regulator-for-exaggerating-the-range-of-its-evs/ with my emphasis...
Tesla has been fined ₩2.85bn (£1.84m) by South Korean regulators for exaggerated claims over the range of its electric vehicles.
The car firm, which is headed by Elon Musk, claims that its Model S can drive up to 360 miles between charges.
According to the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), Tesla had been exaggerating the “driving ranges of its cars on a single charge, their fuel cost-effectiveness compared to gasoline vehicles as well as the performance of its Superchargers” on its official local website from August 2019 until recently.
The KFTC also added that driving ranges for Tesla EVs could plummet by as much as 50 per cent in cold temperatures.
Some studies have shown that in extremely low temperatures, the likes of which were recently experienced in the US (around -20°C), Tesla vehicles could lose up to 50 per cent of their range from an equivalently charged battery.
Tesla/Musk isn't exactly a reliable source of info about the capabilities of their vehicles.
-
No country or process can solve the environmental issues in every country in the world. So all that can be done is to focus on the possibles while over a much longer period focus on the bigger picture
What’d not acceptable is to keep claiming nothing should be done until “ everything « can be done. To often this excuse is tried by “ deniers “ to claim no reform is possible
Lithium is both abundant and not environmentally difficult to extract
Western developed countries have huge urban based road pollution with very high no , C0 and hydrocarbon waste prodigy’s on the air, water and ground. This coupled with noise and other social pollutants means if we can act on private transport we should
Hence we act where we can.
This means where the technology can deliver better alternatives than we should and can act.
This is the reasoning behind the switch to BEVs. We have no workable alternative and the BEV solution can deliver for a big proportion of “ private “ drivers.
-
What kind of ICE are you talking about here? A Rolls Royce?
A Range Rover perhaps?
I guess the fuel costs do add up. But have you taken into account the cost of a new battery into your math? Or did you somehow magically lose that somewhere?
Why would I want a new battery after 6 years and 250,000km my leaf battteth is only down two bars and the car reliably lies 130km on a single full charge
That's a revealing statement, arguably contradicting the "scientist" and accentuating the "mad" parts of your moniker.
Surely losing 2/3 of capacity is cause for replacement :)
Two thirds? It's a 30kWh first-gen Leaf. 120km is 75% of the marketing range of that vehicle.
This post brought to you by 18.3 seconds of fact checking.
Sigh.
I was obliquely pointing out that "down two bars" is meaningless - by presuming that there were only three bars. If you had said two out of 8 or two out of 10 then you would have conveyed some information.
That elementary error and consequent meaninglessness of your statement was the source of my snarky comment about "mad" and "scientist".
I had wrongly assumed you actually knew something about BEVs. ( and one of the most common models ) Clearly you don’t ,so I’m sorry I assumed something.
The range figures are based on what I actually get rather then your hypothetical computation
-
What I mean by “ last gasp “ is exactly directed at people like you in saying “ crock green agenda “. Ice cars deliver significant pollution and noise into compact urban areas , BEVs do not. The issue is urban car usage
And not the global production footprint ?
Unless the whole picture is factored in it's a crock of shit.
Making our towns cleaner is a quantifiable win. This is not about achieving every goal at once. It’s about a series of incremental changes as time and technology allows
So no matter how much lithium mining might pollute some other country as long as we're making a difference at home ?
FFS and you were involved in working groups on EV's and have no conscience how their manufacture might impact other parts of the world ?
What about the possible pollution of that regions food production capability ?
No matter if they export it and have someone else eat it ?
How can you sleep at night ?
If you can only focus on one thing at a time sleeping at night is not so hard. If you look at the big picture you probably wouldn't be advocating for things he's advocating for in the first place. The most predatory people in the west tend to be myopic people who claim to be doing good.
This type of “ cop-out “reasoning is used everywhere by deniers of one type or another
Pollution has to tackled at a national level. I ( or my gov) can’t influence other nations directly.
Yes a car has to built from a polluting process and materials. That’s true of most western manufactured goods and that pollution is largely independent of use
What we can influence is thd pollution associated with “ use “ and that’s the focus of Bev. To primarily reduce pollution” at the point of use “ as this has been indefinited in car dense environments to be very bad.
Hehce saying “ do nothing “ cause we can’t “ do everything “ is true denier way out. We see the same nonsense arguments around climate change being advanced
Yet around me incremental change in the last 15 years has brought cleaner city air better water quality a reduction in roadside waste pollution etc. I see hedge roes regenerating and dolphins returning to waterways they had abandoned etc.
Site we can’t fix everything in one go but in no way should that be used to excuse all initiatives. Bev transistion will bring quantifiable advances to private motoring , hehce it’s justifiable in that alone.
We simply must stop letting the pollution agenda driving any arguments
-
What kind of ICE are you talking about here? A Rolls Royce?
A Range Rover perhaps?
I guess the fuel costs do add up. But have you taken into account the cost of a new battery into your math? Or did you somehow magically lose that somewhere?
Why would I want a new battery after 6 years and 250,000km my leaf battteth is only down two bars and the car reliably lies 130km on a single full charge
That's a revealing statement, arguably contradicting the "scientist" and accentuating the "mad" parts of your moniker.
Surely losing 2/3 of capacity is cause for replacement :)
Two thirds? It's a 30kWh first-gen Leaf. 120km is 75% of the marketing range of that vehicle.
This post brought to you by 18.3 seconds of fact checking.
Sigh.
I was obliquely pointing out that "down two bars" is meaningless - by presuming that there were only three bars. If you had said two out of 8 or two out of 10 then you would have conveyed some information.
That elementary error and consequent meaninglessness of your statement was the source of my snarky comment about "mad" and "scientist".
I had wrongly assumed you actually knew something about BEVs. ( and one of the most common models ) Clearly you don’t ,so I’m sorry I assumed something.
The range figures are based on what I actually get rather then your hypothetical computation
Strawman arguments...
I have never claimed knowledge of the front panel display in a Leaf. But my point doesn't require that.
I never challenged your computation. And my point doesn't require that.
I did - and do - point out the statement "...battteth[sic] is only down two bars and..." is an elementary error that conveys no information about the battteth battery. But it (and your subsequent responses) dos convey information about you.
-
What kind of ICE are you talking about here? A Rolls Royce?
A Range Rover perhaps?
I guess the fuel costs do add up. But have you taken into account the cost of a new battery into your math? Or did you somehow magically lose that somewhere?
Why would I want a new battery after 6 years and 250,000km my leaf battteth is only down two bars and the car reliably lies 130km on a single full charge
That's a revealing statement, arguably contradicting the "scientist" and accentuating the "mad" parts of your moniker.
Surely losing 2/3 of capacity is cause for replacement :)
Two thirds? It's a 30kWh first-gen Leaf. 120km is 75% of the marketing range of that vehicle.
This post brought to you by 18.3 seconds of fact checking.
Sigh.
I was obliquely pointing out that "down two bars" is meaningless - by presuming that there were only three bars. If you had said two out of 8 or two out of 10 then you would have conveyed some information.
That elementary error and consequent meaninglessness of your statement was the source of my snarky comment about "mad" and "scientist".
I had wrongly assumed you actually knew something about BEVs. ( and one of the most common models ) Clearly you don’t ,so I’m sorry I assumed something.
The range figures are based on what I actually get rather then your hypothetical computation
Strawman arguments...
I have never claimed knowledge of the front panel display in a Leaf. But my point doesn't require that.
I never challenged your computation. And my point doesn't require that.
I did - and do - point out the statement "...battteth[sic] is only down two bars and..." is an elementary error that conveys no information about the battteth battery. But it (and your subsequent responses) dos convey information about you.
If you had any knowledge of leaf BEVs the statement would be instantly understanding
-
What kind of ICE are you talking about here? A Rolls Royce?
A Range Rover perhaps?
I guess the fuel costs do add up. But have you taken into account the cost of a new battery into your math? Or did you somehow magically lose that somewhere?
Why would I want a new battery after 6 years and 250,000km my leaf battteth is only down two bars and the car reliably lies 130km on a single full charge
That's a revealing statement, arguably contradicting the "scientist" and accentuating the "mad" parts of your moniker.
Surely losing 2/3 of capacity is cause for replacement :)
Two thirds? It's a 30kWh first-gen Leaf. 120km is 75% of the marketing range of that vehicle.
This post brought to you by 18.3 seconds of fact checking.
Sigh.
I was obliquely pointing out that "down two bars" is meaningless - by presuming that there were only three bars. If you had said two out of 8 or two out of 10 then you would have conveyed some information.
That elementary error and consequent meaninglessness of your statement was the source of my snarky comment about "mad" and "scientist".
I had wrongly assumed you actually knew something about BEVs. ( and one of the most common models ) Clearly you don’t ,so I’m sorry I assumed something.
The range figures are based on what I actually get rather then your hypothetical computation
Strawman arguments...
I have never claimed knowledge of the front panel display in a Leaf. But my point doesn't require that.
I never challenged your computation. And my point doesn't require that.
I did - and do - point out the statement "...battteth[sic] is only down two bars and..." is an elementary error that conveys no information about the battteth battery. But it (and your subsequent responses) dos convey information about you.
If you had any knowledge of leaf BEVs the statement would be instantly understanding
:-DD :-DD Very droll; thanks for the laugh!
How many people here know the details dashboard of one car?
If you are only intending your statement to be read by such people, say so.
-
If you had any knowledge of leaf BEVs the statement would be instantly understanding
If you had any knowledge of scientific method, you'd provide evidence for your claims. As it is, as far as I'm concerned, you're merely blowing smoke; none of your posts has any substance whatsoever.
-
If you had any knowledge of leaf BEVs the statement would be instantly understanding
If you had any knowledge of scientific method, you'd provide evidence for your claims. As it is, as far as I'm concerned, you're merely blowing smoke; none of your posts has any substance whatsoever.
Why not explore another rabbit hole I’m
Sure there’s many for you
If your looking for expertise in this subject EEVBLOG is not the place to debate this rubbish , it seems populated by climate deniers and alt right conspiracy nutcases
-
If you had any knowledge of leaf BEVs the statement would be instantly understanding
If you had any knowledge of scientific method, you'd provide evidence for your claims. As it is, as far as I'm concerned, you're merely blowing smoke; none of your posts has any substance whatsoever.
Why not explore another rabbit hole I’m
Sure there’s many for you
If your looking for expertise in this subject EEVBLOG is not the place to debate this rubbish , it seems populated by climate deniers and alt right conspiracy nutcases
In other words, you have no evidence for your claims, or are too lazy to produce it.
-
But it (and your subsequent responses) dos convey information about you.
Yours are conveying information also, for a start, you're not bothering to pay attention to who's speaking.
-
But it (and your subsequent responses) dos convey information about you.
Yours are conveying information also, for a start, you're not bothering to pay attention to who's speaking.
You're right; my mistake. I must have seen the initial "M....", and incorrectly presumed that only MadScientist and I would be paying attention to this trivial sub-sub-thread.
Anyway, my apologies to MadScientist for that misattribution. My other points stand.
-
If you had any knowledge of leaf BEVs the statement would be instantly understanding
If you had any knowledge of scientific method, you'd provide evidence for your claims. As it is, as far as I'm concerned, you're merely blowing smoke; none of your posts has any substance whatsoever.
Why not explore another rabbit hole I’m
Sure there’s many for you
If your looking for expertise in this subject EEVBLOG is not the place to debate this rubbish , it seems populated by climate deniers and alt right conspiracy nutcases
There are too many zealots of all kinds, unfortunately. This forum is no exception.
-
It's just a car; you pay money and you get something to park in the garage.
Seriously, you lease the car for 3 years and at the end you either turn it back or buy it for the residual. I have done both. I didn't want to OWN battery problems so the lease was attractive and considerably less money per month (like $300 vs $600).
In any event, you might hold on to the car for, say, 10 years and then repeat the process. Maybe less if the batteries go bad. On a lease, you just turn it back and get another. The warranty will cover the first years so you're not on the hook if the batteries go awry. Figure an ongoing lease payment forever and you get a new car every 3 years.
I have no idea why I bought out the Bolt but I do like the car. It fits our needs very well.
At my age, there probably won't be a 'next car'.
-
What I mean by “ last gasp “ is exactly directed at people like you in saying “ crock green agenda “. Ice cars deliver significant pollution and noise into compact urban areas , BEVs do not. The issue is urban car usage
And not the global production footprint ?
Unless the whole picture is factored in it's a crock of shit.
Making our towns cleaner is a quantifiable win. This is not about achieving every goal at once. It’s about a series of incremental changes as time and technology allows
So no matter how much lithium mining might pollute some other country as long as we're making a difference at home ?
FFS and you were involved in working groups on EV's and have no conscience how their manufacture might impact other parts of the world ?
What about the possible pollution of that regions food production capability ?
No matter if they export it and have someone else eat it ?
How can you sleep at night ?
If you can only focus on one thing at a time sleeping at night is not so hard. If you look at the big picture you probably wouldn't be advocating for things he's advocating for in the first place. The most predatory people in the west tend to be myopic people who claim to be doing good.
This type of “ cop-out “reasoning is used everywhere by deniers of one type or another
Pollution has to tackled at a national level. I ( or my gov) can’t influence other nations directly.
Yes a car has to built from a polluting process and materials. That’s true of most western manufactured goods and that pollution is largely independent of use
What we can influence is thd pollution associated with “ use “ and that’s the focus of Bev. To primarily reduce pollution” at the point of use “ as this has been indefinited in car dense environments to be very bad.
Hehce saying “ do nothing “ cause we can’t “ do everything “ is true denier way out. We see the same nonsense arguments around climate change being advanced
Yet around me incremental change in the last 15 years has brought cleaner city air better water quality a reduction in roadside waste pollution etc. I see hedge roes regenerating and dolphins returning to waterways they had abandoned etc.
Site we can’t fix everything in one go but in no way should that be used to excuse all initiatives. Bev transistion will bring quantifiable advances to private motoring , hehce it’s justifiable in that alone.
We simply must stop letting the pollution agenda driving any arguments
And what has achieved that ?
Advances in ICE technology perhaps ?
-
You're all full of your own self-proclaimed "cleverness". More words doesn't mean something is more likely. Don't you got better things to do? I come on here maybe 1-2x a week - some of you LIVE on here. That's pretty sad, tbh. Don't you have ACTUAL LIVES?
-
You're all full of your own self-proclaimed "cleverness". More words doesn't mean something is more likely. Don't you got better things to do? I come on here maybe 1-2x a week - some of you LIVE on here. That's pretty sad, tbh. Don't you have ACTUAL LIVES?
Let me just translate this post a moment:
You're all so sad, discussing a subject I've already made my mind up about. I can't possibly be wrong, but you all are for even entertaining the thought of civil conversation. That's why I'm here five days a week insulting you all.
-
We need more math in this thread.
Yes and no.
1) There are large differences in situation, car use and electricity prices per country which highly influence cost per km and suitability of a BEV.
2) There are several seeking justification of their choice. I bought it, so it must be good. I can't be wrong. Please tell me I'm not an idiot!
3) There is a group of people that don't really care about how much they spend on a car; it just should look good to show off to the neighbours
4) There are people for whom a car is just a tool and it should be cheap to buy & run.
If you apply math & logic, then you'll largely be catering point 4 and a little bit point 1.
-
A repair on a modern day diesel car easely undoes the cost saving due to slightly lower fuel prices. So far I have gotten way more mileage from the Ford Focus on gasoline than with any diesel car I have owned before (which all ended up having engine problems BTW).
The modern diesel with EGR has seriously compromised longevity due to the excessive contaminates the lubrication system must deal with. Even with EGR capable oils the lubrication system is challenged let alone the engine itself having to recirculate all that exhaust muck. If your vehicle tests can't detect it I advise disabling EGR in some manner that won't throw a ECU fault.
Quite simple on older cars, not so much on never ones.
Yeah, one of the first things I did on my previous diesel car besides removing the catalythic converter (which was all clogged up by soot anyway). This resulted in a 5% lower fuel use as well but also a lot of extra NOx and CH output. Not very good for the environment. Nowadays you shouldn't be buying a diesel car.
-
maybe anoother varible to be added
5) those who have never owned ,nor are likely to own a vehicle ,but will still be impacted by the changes
-
People on both sides of this debate have selected "data" carefully to support their claims. In many cases the "true" data is currently unknown, contrary to the opinions on both sides.
For example: The relative costs of manufacture of EVs vs conventional ICU.
True: An ICU and transmission is much more complex than the electric motor(s) and in some cases gearbox of an electric vehicle. And at comparable manufacturing scale the electric components should be substantially cheaper. Details such as high power elx in the electric drive train are harder to evaluate, but the answer probably still applies.
But the gas tank and fuel pump in the ICE is far lower in cost than the battery of the BEV. Currently the difference greatly exceeds the cost difference of the drive trains (either that or the manufacturers of electric vehicles are making insane profits on current production). Production at scale can be expected to drive costs down, but expectations that they will come down like the costs of semiconductors are unfounded. Those familiar with production environments will be aware of the concept of a learning curve. It turns out that most technologies and products follow a trend that says that each doubling of volume reduces the cost by a fixed percentage. The term learning is often misinterpreted to mean better assembly skills, it in fact incorporates all improvements in production efficiency: Automation, training, material substitution, redesign for lower cost etc. In the real world learning curves tend to fall in the 70% to 90% range. There are arguments for what the learning curve should be for new items like BEV batteries, but they are largely hand waving. There is little reason to think they will fall outside of the traditional range. I have had trouble getting numbers for pure EV production in 2022, most sources mix them freely with the poorly defined plug in hybrid category. But roughly a million vehicles seems a likely estimate. Five doublings of that number gets you to the quantities to totally replace current ICE sales. Which then says that when (if) that sales volume occurs the battery price would reduce to about 17% of its current value assuming a very optimistic 70% learning curve, and 59% of its current value assuming the more pessimistic 90% curve. It requires substantial optimism to believe that the overall drive train costs will be materially less than ICE, and even a moderate amount of optimism to predict price parity. A pessimist or ICE enthusiast can suggest that the prices will never be comparable.
All other costs of the vehicle (interior, heating and AC, entertainment systems, power brakes and steering, safety systems and so on) should be virtually identical for truly like vehicles, with minor exceptions.
The learning curve concept has one other impact on this analysis. If legislative or social initiatives drive ICE sales down something similar to the learning curve works against them. Operating plants at far below their capacity is expensive, so ICE costs would likely go up substantially in this scenario, quite aside from any tax penalties. Something like the learning curve works in reverse as you reduce quantities. This side of the coin is somewhat terrifying to those whose use case is not well fitted to BEV.
Don't take this brief analysis as support for either side of the discussion. I am merely pointing out that it is not a simple or inevitable as the proponents on either side make it out to be. The only compelling answer to this question is to wait and see. Well, campaigning for your favorite solution is valid also and that is what many here are doing.
-
Yeah, one of the first things I did on my previous diesel car besides removing the catalythic converter (which was all clogged up by soot anyway). This resulted in a 5% lower fuel use as well but also a lot of extra NOx and CH output. Not very good for the environment. Nowadays you shouldn't be buying a diesel car.
Be aware that GPF (gasoline particulate filter) and EGR is coming to petrol engines too (not sure about petrol hybrids).
For instance, the VW up! GTI is fitted with a GPF, to meet emissions limits. I don't know if the filters are any better than the old DPF's which clog all the time if used for shorter journeys. A friend of mine had a rather interesting experience with a Suzuki diesel (Ignis, I think) which ran after it was parked. Apparently, a barely-documented feature where if it detects risk of clogging, it will run the engine despite ignition being off for about 15 minutes at reasonably high rpm to purge/regenerate the filter. You can stop it by turning the car on and then off again, but could be, err, "interesting" for people who park in garages who don't know about these features.
-
Be aware that GPF (gasoline particulate filter) and EGR is coming to petrol engines too (not sure about petrol hybrids).
You don't turn spanners much do you as our 2002 GM based 3.8L V6 Aussie Commodore had EGR but this is old technology now with much further advanced EFI in the modern car.
Does nobody think ICE manufacturers are not rising to meet the challenge from EV's with tweeks to existing technologies ? :-//
-
Yeah, one of the first things I did on my previous diesel car besides removing the catalythic converter (which was all clogged up by soot anyway). This resulted in a 5% lower fuel use as well but also a lot of extra NOx and CH output. Not very good for the environment. Nowadays you shouldn't be buying a diesel car.
Be aware that GPF (gasoline particulate filter) and EGR is coming to petrol engines too (not sure about petrol hybrids).
For instance, the VW up! GTI is fitted with a GPF, to meet emissions limits. I don't know if the filters are any better than the old DPF's which clog all the time if used for shorter journeys. A friend of mine had a rather interesting experience with a Suzuki diesel (Ignis, I think) which ran after it was parked. Apparently, a barely-documented feature where if it detects risk of clogging, it will run the engine despite ignition being off for about 15 minutes at reasonably high rpm to purge/regenerate the filter. You can stop it by turning the car on and then off again, but could be, err, "interesting" for people who park in garages who don't know about these features.
AFAIK EGR is already standard on gasoline / petrol engines for a long time. Typically only direct injection gasoline engines are prone to buildup of soot. Mitsubishi GDI comes to mind but the direct injection engines seem to be making a come back. Maybe downsized engines are less prone to problems due to the higher load. Part of maintaining an ICE based car well is letting the engine work very hard every now and then to get of residues and dirt building up.
I strongly doubt that Atkinson cycle engines as found in many hybrids will need particulate filters because the Atkinson cycle runs much cleaner as part of the basic operating principle.
-
The learning curve concept has one other impact on this analysis. If legislative or social initiatives drive ICE sales down something similar to the learning curve works against them. Operating plants at far below their capacity is expensive, so ICE costs would likely go up substantially in this scenario, quite aside from any tax penalties. Something like the learning curve works in reverse as you reduce quantities. This side of the coin is somewhat terrifying to those whose use case is not well fitted to BEV.
I doubt the latter. My assumption would be that at that point -if that ever happens- BEVs will be more versatile due to very improved batteries and charging infrastructure that can recharge a car to 600km to 800km of range in the same time and at equal costs like you can fill up a regular car with fuel nowadays.
Ofcourse there will always be people that have special needs that will be catered to. For example: Toyota still sells the Hilux with diesel engines but that is about their only model that is available with a diesel engine. It is THE standard for an offroad vehicle.
-
We need more math in this thread.
Yes and no.
1) There are large differences in situation, car use and electricity prices per country which highly influence cost per km and suitability of a BEV.
2) There are several seeking justification of their choice. I bought it, so it must be good. I can't be wrong. Please tell me I'm not an idiot! <-------------- ***
3) There is a group of people that don't really care about how much they spend on a car; it just should look good to show off to the neighbours
4) There are people for whom a car is just a tool and it should be cheap to buy & run.
If you apply math & logic, then you'll largely be catering point 4 and a little bit point 1.
Point #2: Yes, complete honesty is a rarity in people who've made an emotional and proportionally substantial investment in something:
~ They've worked themselves up into a pre-purchase mood of excitement and anticipation regarding the benefits of their (almost definely) imminent purchase.
~ They've spend weeks or months researching, price-matching, asking other *fanatics*, asking/telling friends and family (we see this syndrome play out in shows like "Dragon's Den" - a closed bubble of contacts has validated their decisions, ergo "it MUST be a good idea - GO FOR IT!"
~ They've played through the upsides into a self-confirming bias of delusion, hundreds of times, downplaying the negatives, and exaggerating how "It will improve my life SO much"
~ They've adjusted their finances to accommodate said potential purchase - this may have involved arguments with loved ones, relationship break-ups, financial hardships in other areas being strained even more, all under the unproven imagining that "It will pay for itself over time", etc, and other such speculations
~ FINALLY it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, (or, more likely, encumbering themselves with years of debt via a loan to pay for this new fandangled toy of theirs) and it's ... TIME TO COMMIT!
So no wonder people have hugely skewed, very heavily biased leanings toward their purchase. A TRULY honest person does not need to "build a case" - they would be completely emotionally detached from said investment, and look at it ONLY on rational, logical, objective basis. Since SO few of this type of person exist, and human ego is involved, never wanting to admit being wrong, well.... there we have it.
Oh, and the fad-wave rider, wanting to validate to all and sundry (like they matter) "How relevant and attuned to modern life I am"
I am sure Mr. Spock, were he real, would have a very clear view on this.
People are VERY predictable, almost amusingly so (In include myself in this closing statement).
-
As I've said a number of times I think that ICE is here for some time to stay but it won't be a common choice in vehicles. Maybe the 2030 date will be hit in the UK, it could be be pushed back, but probably only to 2035 or so. There are existential problems with ICE that cannot be solved like CO2 emissions, we are not going to solve the problem with synfuels or biofuels any time soon, not at the scale required to support the current fleet at least. So the best thing to do is retire new models and let the new technologies replace them.
And sure, ICE will definitely improve, I remember my dad talking about his old Mk2 Golf, it used to do "forty-to-a-gallon" (40mpg) on the motorway. Well that was an 800kg car, with 60-70 hp, cars are obviously heavier nowadays and have more power, yet the 1500kg 1.5 TSI model now does the same or better economy. So the improvement is pretty clear. An interesting one to watch is sparkless ignition, I think Mazda are now producing that in some numbers. And I'm sure a manufacturer or two is experimenting with microwave ignition of petrol.
Mazda have announced they will be making a rotary-range-extended EV. It appears to be using an 18kWh battery (smaller than the MX-30) with a rotary engine-generator setup. The engine never drives the wheels, so on fuel it will have a double conversion loss, unlike a typical PHEV where the engine is usually in parallel with the drive motor, but presumably the engine can run at the optimal power point all the time. I think it's a shame they didn't fit the 30kWh battery as used in the MX-30, 18kWh feels a bit too small. I wonder if they've fixed the rotary engine's reliability.
-
As I've said a number of times I think that ICE is here for some time to stay but it won't be a common choice in vehicles. Maybe the 2030 date will be hit in the UK, it could be be pushed back, but probably only to 2035 or so. There are existential problems with ICE that cannot be solved like CO2 emissions, we are not going to solve the problem with synfuels or biofuels any time soon, not at the scale required to support the current fleet at least. So the best thing to do is retire new models and let the new technologies replace them.
And sure, ICE will definitely improve, I remember my dad talking about his old Mk2 Golf, it used to do "forty-to-a-gallon" (40mpg) on the motorway. Well that was an 800kg car, with 60-70 hp, cars are obviously heavier nowadays and have more power, yet the 1500kg 1.5 TSI model now does the same or better economy. So the improvement is pretty clear. An interesting one to watch is sparkless ignition, I think Mazda are now producing that in some numbers. And I'm sure a manufacturer or two is experimenting with microwave ignition of petrol.
Mazda have announced they will be making a rotary-range-extended EV. It appears to be using an 18kWh battery (smaller than the MX-30) with a rotary engine-generator setup. The engine never drives the wheels, so on fuel it will have a double conversion loss, unlike a typical PHEV where the engine is usually in parallel with the drive motor, but presumably the engine can run at the optimal power point all the time. I think it's a shame they didn't fit the 30kWh battery as used in the MX-30, 18kWh feels a bit too small. I wonder if they've fixed the rotary engine's reliability.
** Shall we address the elephant in the room, the GLARING in its' absence and omission, topic of shifting the environmental impact (rare earth metals) & emissions (power stations etc) of EVs to another area of their life-cycle? Never mind what may or may not (likely NOT) arrive on the stage in the future, the HERE AND NOW is what matters - and deferring these issues and shooing them away to 2035 (is that supposed to be seen as a "long time and enough for VAST tech advances to be made" or something? Such hubris, as only human ego could exhibit)
You seem to have adopted the same "Pah! Internal combustion - HOW quaint!" air about you, as most EV fans seem to.
-
I strongly doubt that Atkinson cycle engines as found in many hybrids will need particulate filters because the Atkinson cycle runs much cleaner as part of the basic operating principle.
More and more cars are making use of Atkinson cycle engines to stay competitive.
I would say that rather than ban gasoline powered cars altogether, have a minimum MPG requirement that increases over time. At some point, it would no longer be practical to meet the requirement, effectively making it a ban.
-
The learning curve concept has one other impact on this analysis. If legislative or social initiatives drive ICE sales down something similar to the learning curve works against them. Operating plants at far below their capacity is expensive, so ICE costs would likely go up substantially in this scenario, quite aside from any tax penalties. Something like the learning curve works in reverse as you reduce quantities. This side of the coin is somewhat terrifying to those whose use case is not well fitted to BEV.
I doubt the latter. My assumption would be that at that point -if that ever happens- BEVs will be more versatile due to very improved batteries and charging infrastructure that can recharge a car to 600km to 800km of range in the same time and at equal costs like you can fill up a regular car with fuel nowadays.
Ofcourse there will always be people that have special needs that will be catered to. For example: Toyota still sells the Hilux with diesel engines but that is about their only model that is available with a diesel engine. It is THE standard for an offroad vehicle.
I said those who BEV vehicles do not work for will pay higher costs as production of ICE drops. You disagreed, and then gave your reason why BEV will work for almost everyone. Then admitted that some will have special needs.
So what is it that you actually disagree with?
-
I would say that rather than ban gasoline powered cars altogether, have a minimum MPG requirement that increases over time. At some point, it would no longer be practical to meet the requirement, effectively making it a ban.
Why penalise perfectly good vehicles perfectly suited to particular tasks ?
Sure a small % of the population might be using guzzlers but that is their and only their choice.
Let the marketplace decide what are the best suited to any particular task and manufacturers will adapt just as they have for the last 100 years.
As mentioned before Aholes shining chairs have no place in marketing decisions as they have no money in the game. Leave it to the professional that have done this stuff for decades to decide what will sell and provide the best solution for their valued customers.
Guide manufacturers based on efficiencies and total picture pollution targets with + incentives and leave all well alone to sort this out as it's no 5 minute fix.
As this thread well demonstrates the subject is so polarising neither side can ever be satisfied with the current state of affairs whereas those whom have the greatest investment should sort it out just as they have for decades.
I'm certainly not inclined to invest in emerging technologies at this time but rather in proven technology getting the smallest engine new car we have had in nearly 40 years, a nothing special 2L SUV of some 110KW with better economy than anything we've had in all those years therefore doing my bit in reducing my carbon footprint but with no intention to eliminate it. <---- Impossible pipe dream of idealists.
-
This thread is the gift that keeps on giving by way of the fact of demonstrating how gullible people fall for lies again and again.
Enjoy your fossil fuel cars. They’ll be here for a few more decades yet. The more people have to fervently protest that their new things “are far better”, the more the complete opposite is clearly proven to be.
People are so easily led it’s quite embarrassing for them.
“Look how modern and cutting edge we are”
Schmucks.
-
Let the marketplace decide what are the best suited to any particular task and manufacturers will adapt just as they have for the last 100 years.
The auto industry is extremely regulated and the product you get is now largely dictated by rules and regs. The same process will control the disappearance of ice cars and the rise of the Bev substitute.
This idea free markets fix anything is bunkum
Private transport is a highly regulated and taxed marketplace. That will continue to define private transport priorities into thd next several decades along with the general desire to decarbonise private motoring
-
This thread is the gift that keeps on giving by way of the fact of demonstrating how gullible people fall for lies again and again.
Enjoy your fossil fuel cars. They’ll be here for a few more decades yet. The more people have to fervently protest that their new things “are far better”, the more the complete opposite is clearly proven to be.
People are so easily led it’s quite embarrassing for them.
“Look how modern and cutting edge we are”
Schmucks.
Electric traction is a far better method than the bag of bolts that is an internal combustion engine. The issue is the “ energy store “ as batteries get better that issue begins to fade away and the objectively superior traction motor , that electric is will rise in prominence
This has nothing to do with the green agenda. That agenda has different priorities and will largely drive change through rules , regulations , tax changes and built environment changes. This may result is less than optimum technology solutions but that’s not the goal of this agenda.
Ultimately Ice cars will follow the stream locomotive into obscurity largely because the costs and regulatory environment will make the majority switch and equally manufacturing has already picked the “winning horse “
This is not about “modernity “ it’s about the public policy to decarbonise private transport and BEV technooogy offers an alternative. Even if today that alternative isn’t ideal. The desire to see decarbonisation implicitly accepts the transition has costs and drawbacks but the goal justifies it.
-
Yeah, one of the first things I did on my previous diesel car besides removing the catalythic converter (which was all clogged up by soot anyway). This resulted in a 5% lower fuel use as well but also a lot of extra NOx and CH output. Not very good for the environment. Nowadays you shouldn't be buying a diesel car.
Be aware that GPF (gasoline particulate filter) and EGR is coming to petrol engines too (not sure about petrol hybrids).
For instance, the VW up! GTI is fitted with a GPF, to meet emissions limits. I don't know if the filters are any better than the old DPF's which clog all the time if used for shorter journeys. A friend of mine had a rather interesting experience with a Suzuki diesel (Ignis, I think) which ran after it was parked. Apparently, a barely-documented feature where if it detects risk of clogging, it will run the engine despite ignition being off for about 15 minutes at reasonably high rpm to purge/regenerate the filter. You can stop it by turning the car on and then off again, but could be, err, "interesting" for people who park in garages who don't know about these features.
It's been about three years since they have been introduced (Euro 6D)
They won't clog as DPF do because the temperature is inherently higher in gasoline engines (clogging effectively begins on a longer full throttle acceleration, regeneration begins the moment you release the throttle and a couple of seconds later is done. Or so say all the data travelling on the bus)
Customers have already lamented about the GPF as the performance/rs/gr version of the car sounds effectively like a diesel (weak sound, changing the exhaust does nothing if you don't bypass the filters) and of course performance curves are worse if you compare the same car before/after they fitted the filter.
Too bad these don't do anything for particulate emission, as with euro 5 already the particulate emissions from the engine was lower than the particulate from wheels and brakes. It seems that Euro 7 will FINALLY introduce a limit on those, it was about time. It depends on where you leve but here (pianura padana) the weather, the alps blocking the perturbations from the north, the high humidity factors, we live inside a permanent fog, whenever it rains the day after i have regained 2/20 of vision, the air is so clear. And cars are not entirely to blame, certainly not diesel engines.
Which, by the way, i intend to keep using and buying. Going gasoline simply doesn't make sense for me and most people around here, real fuel consumption is still too high, hibrids that would offset the fuel cost by going on battery during work-home commute have too high initial cost to consider unless you don't need it, there is basically no public transport unless you go to bigger cities. I am trying to find a new house so i can switch to riding a bike to work most days (which i try already to do during summer) and keep the gas guzzler for the nights out and weekends and holidays, but real estate is currently a disaster. half your paycheck to pay for a single room apartment, in small towns, like it was the centre of Milan.
And next car is probably going to be a Van. My octavia is already a microcamper
Anyway, our permanent fog is composed mostly of PM10 from heating, industry/electricity, burning of wood residue from trimming and only then cars. PM10 in cars is ridiculously low already, yet they are blamed, blame the person who can't do better instead of providing the alternative (bike lane on ALL main roads between cities and towns would be a good start, more effective public transport would be nice too. It would take me 1h30 and three bus changes to go to work instead of 15-20m by car or 30-35 by bike. Bus are used almost exclusively by students going to school and coming home)
But it's wood burning is what really gets me, it's the most stupid thing anyone could do in this day and age. Not talking about burning wood for home heating (sill.. Though we do have a stove, but it's a new one, it meets the newest emission standards, and we will start using our own wood that we planted for the purpose so the cycle should become self sustained) but burning residue while instead you could chop it and use it as a fertilizer, or compost leaves, that is just insane, but it's impossible to change people's mind. You get dead birds in your lawn as a warning if you don't mind your own business. Freaking old people with their old ways. And not many years ago wood residue burning would emit more particulate than cars over a year. Cars have only become better at it
-
The point is a workable solution to many usage patterns of private ice cars exists. Therefore given its very low pollution profile it makes sense to encourage that section of users to change to Bev. Currently that sector here IS embracing BEV usage. Others are waiting to see
That’s the nature of change , as the range of Bev models increases with better range and differences in buying price coupled with carbon taxes and increased owning costs on ice cars we shall see the current changeover rate dramatically increase. The signs are already there. The private roadside fast charger network is dramatically expanding to cope with demand so the changeover pattern is establishing
-
Private transport is a highly regulated and taxed marketplace. That will continue to define private transport priorities into thd next several decades along with the general desire to decarbonise private motoring
General ? In who's view ?
Not mine or much of any population.
Reduce I have no problem with nor would most I imagine but to decarbonise ?
Lets compare the carbon footprint of an EV shall we from production to EOL.
AFAIK ICE still wins.
-
I strongly doubt that Atkinson cycle engines as found in many hybrids will need particulate filters because the Atkinson cycle runs much cleaner as part of the basic operating principle.
More and more cars are making use of Atkinson cycle engines to stay competitive.
I would say that rather than ban gasoline powered cars altogether, have a minimum MPG requirement that increases over time. At some point, it would no longer be practical to meet the requirement, effectively making it a ban.
The latter is exactly what the EU is doing! The 'nice' thing is that it is left to the market to come up with solutions rather than forcing a particular solution that may turn out not be a good fit after all.
-
The learning curve concept has one other impact on this analysis. If legislative or social initiatives drive ICE sales down something similar to the learning curve works against them. Operating plants at far below their capacity is expensive, so ICE costs would likely go up substantially in this scenario, quite aside from any tax penalties. Something like the learning curve works in reverse as you reduce quantities. This side of the coin is somewhat terrifying to those whose use case is not well fitted to BEV.
I doubt the latter. My assumption would be that at that point -if that ever happens- BEVs will be more versatile due to very improved batteries and charging infrastructure that can recharge a car to 600km to 800km of range in the same time and at equal costs like you can fill up a regular car with fuel nowadays.
Ofcourse there will always be people that have special needs that will be catered to. For example: Toyota still sells the Hilux with diesel engines but that is about their only model that is available with a diesel engine. It is THE standard for an offroad vehicle.
I said those who BEV vehicles do not work for will pay higher costs as production of ICE drops. You disagreed, and then gave your reason why BEV will work for almost everyone. Then admitted that some will have special needs.
So what is it that you actually disagree with?
I don't really disagree. I just think that in the long run -if batteries and charging infrastructure improve a lot- there will be an extremely small number of people needing non-BEV vehicles. These people are likely to needing specialised vehicles anyway in their current situation.
-
The learning curve concept has one other impact on this analysis. If legislative or social initiatives drive ICE sales down something similar to the learning curve works against them. Operating plants at far below their capacity is expensive, so ICE costs would likely go up substantially in this scenario, quite aside from any tax penalties. Something like the learning curve works in reverse as you reduce quantities. This side of the coin is somewhat terrifying to those whose use case is not well fitted to BEV.
I doubt the latter. My assumption would be that at that point -if that ever happens- BEVs will be more versatile due to very improved batteries and charging infrastructure that can recharge a car to 600km to 800km of range in the same time and at equal costs like you can fill up a regular car with fuel nowadays.
Ofcourse there will always be people that have special needs that will be catered to. For example: Toyota still sells the Hilux with diesel engines but that is about their only model that is available with a diesel engine. It is THE standard for an offroad vehicle.
I said those who BEV vehicles do not work for will pay higher costs as production of ICE drops. You disagreed, and then gave your reason why BEV will work for almost everyone. Then admitted that some will have special needs.
So what is it that you actually disagree with?
I don't really disagree. I just think that in the long run -if batteries and charging infrastructure improve a lot- there will be an extremely small number of people needing non-BEV vehicles. These people are likely to needing specialised vehicles anyway in their current situation.
I agree entirely. In fact for non specialised general purpose private motoring ( shopping, visiting grandma , running the kids to ballet classes etc. the current range of BEVs is entirely adequate. The next iteration will encompasses more and more usage patterns leaving a very small group needing ice outside of commercial users. Those private ice users will pay more and more to stay with an ice choice , that’s already happening today as annual taxes are heavily biased towards ice and annual running costs are considerably higher
-
The latter is exactly what the EU is doing! The 'nice' thing is that it is left to the market to come up with solutions rather than forcing a particular solution that may turn out not be a good fit after all.
Yes - if hydrogen is the best solution or if some other solution as yet to be seen emerges it deserves to succeed.
Currently it doesn't look like the future will be anything other than mostly electric vehicles powered by batteries but it could change. There would have to be a significant change to make me consider using a hydrogen vehicle, like hydrogen becoming dirt cheap and the cars becoming a lot more accessible and widely used.
-
Why penalise perfectly good vehicles perfectly suited to particular tasks ?
Sure a small % of the population might be using guzzlers but that is their and only their choice.
Existing cars would not be affected by that measure, only new cars. Commercial vehicles are also excluded.
Also note that efficient cars don't have to be tiny.
https://www.toyota.com/sienna/ (https://www.toyota.com/sienna/)
-
The latter is exactly what the EU is doing! The 'nice' thing is that it is left to the market to come up with solutions rather than forcing a particular solution that may turn out not be a good fit after all.
Yes - if hydrogen is the best solution or if some other solution as yet to be seen emerges it deserves to succeed.
Currently it doesn't look like the future will be anything other than mostly electric vehicles powered by batteries but it could change. There would have to be a significant change to make me consider using a hydrogen vehicle, like hydrogen becoming dirt cheap and the cars becoming a lot more accessible and widely used.
If you read distribution experts they say creating a safe and secure hydrogen distribution network is a very sizeable task. Secondly car companies have largely decide on Bev over hydrogen. You can’t buy what isvt made
BEVs are very simple cars to make and most of the car industry now has manufacturing experience of Bev production
Hence this isn’t about user choice per se. It’s about a combination of consumer preference , legislative and tax positions and manufacturing Options.
A manufacturer facing a future of increasing legal , technical and fiscal restrictions on their product. Is going to “ pivot” away to a product where more freedom is present. Ice production gets more and more regulated and costs to the user are continuously rising as governments make owning and using ice ) and private cars ) more expensive
Manufactures see the writing on the wall and several major car companies have already committed to a majority BEV future In the end you can only buy what’s practical to be manufacturered.
The other issue is in many countries is the changing societal values around private cars. Restrictions on usage , changes to roads to make car usage more difficult Conjestion limits. Urban speed limits coupled with ever increasing taxes and other regulations.
The net result is the motorist is arriving at a confluence of situations. Firstly frivolous car ownership will be increasing expensive Bev or ICE secondly societal attitudes are changing , the green agenda continua to gain traction in many developed oconomies
Increasing the “ petrol head” view is seen as anti environment and socially irrresponsible or seen as high taxes on engine capacity ( here owning a big engine is very expensive )
This confluence of events means that the whole survival of thd sector is reliant on change. That change is increasing seen in the industry’s as electric vehicles.
-
Dunno about you guys but I await the future when BEVs are obsolete and fusion energy based hybrid battery flying vehicles arrive.
I’d change your choice of recreational drug
-
I don’t quite understand the support for ICE vehicles. At the end of the day a BEV can or soon will deliver a similar motoring experience , that should satisfy most people. A car is primary a utility vehicle and once it meets that utility it meets the owner expectations. Let’s leave aside “ fanboys” they are a tiny group in any camp and are not expectation setters
Hence a BEV future will deliver similar motoring experience as today for a large section of the user community
-
Might have something to do with the fact that we will need nuclear power to power the BEVs. Which I'm not against. In fact I'm planning on playing Fallout 76 tonight.
See you in the future fellow irradiated mutant!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVvcMNqWEsU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVvcMNqWEsU)
Feedback from the grid operator here is the Bev load on the grid will be handled by expected renewable energy projects predominantly large scale PV and offshore wind.
In fact the major driving force behind two new high power interconnectors to the uk and France is the fact that peak renewable production is regularly exceeding base load capacity and renewals are being commanded to turn off production. A situation renewal investors clearly don’t like !!
-
The latter is exactly what the EU is doing! The 'nice' thing is that it is left to the market to come up with solutions rather than forcing a particular solution that may turn out not be a good fit after all.
Yes - if hydrogen is the best solution or if some other solution as yet to be seen emerges it deserves to succeed.
Currently it doesn't look like the future will be anything other than mostly electric vehicles powered by batteries but it could change. There would have to be a significant change to make me consider using a hydrogen vehicle, like hydrogen becoming dirt cheap and the cars becoming a lot more accessible and widely used.
I don't know how long you have been around, but I have seen my fair share of new technologies come and go. Some of these technologies where really good and suited my needs perfectly so I jumped on them right away. Examples are DBTV, ISDN and ADSL. I subscribed to these the day it was available at my address but all are obsolete now where I live.
When I travelled in Asia a bit and discovered ADSL was horribly expensive over there. Initially I could not understand why because in my mind ADSL was a perfect alternative to using a POTS modem. After some digging I found out that nobody was interested in using ADSL because the mobile operators already provided fast internet for a lower price. I ended up buying a dongle for my laptop to have internet (which worked excellent!). Over there they just skipped ADSL and went straight from internet through a POTS modem to mobile internet.
Bottom line: a technology that looks promising right now can easely by replaced by something else which then becomes the defacto standard.
-
In fact the major driving force behind two new high power interconnectors to the uk and France is the fact that peak renewable production is regularly exceeding base load capacity and renewals are being commanded to turn off production. A situation renewal investors clearly don’t like !!
As long as it's not a bottleneck between the producers and local consumers, the easy solution is to make incentives for local consumers to use more when there's a lot of excess renewables available.
-
I don’t quite understand the support for ICE vehicles.
1)Can be refueled in a couple of minutes
2)Real, actual, mileage is 900-1000km with a full tank
3)Doesn't suffer cold, the excess heat turns in handy
4)Is not designed from the ground up to be a rental model only
4bis)Is not designed from the ground up to be serviced by the manufacturer only, and the service is exclusively a costly replacement
5)Is not currently a global scale greenwashing operation
6)People can actually afford an ICE family car
This is more or less the list of reasons why i keep going with diesels.
Note that the list reflect my habits, the state of the roads, the alternatives to private cars, the climate i live in and i do not expect to be right over anybody else. However i expect people to understand my point of view and not just dismiss it because it's them who are right.
I am also aware that technology moves on, solutions are found, habits change and the environment around us change so i don't expect to use a diesel until the day i die, it's just the current state of things as i see them.
1)Fast refueling is a big, big deal for probably everybody that has to travel for leisure or for work. For commuting, it doesn't matter. MY small town alone of 9000 people have 10 to 20 recharge spots in parking and businesses. Place of business could/should also offer a charging station for employees. However, for travel... see 2). In this i am all for battery swap and fuel cells. Fast charge, not so much.
2)Declared range of many Electric cars is around 400km, yet you will never achieve that at highway speed. You have to severly limit the power output curve (incidentally we are working on such a device, we started developing that for teslas that had to run on the track, they went from two and a half laps to forty, same lap time. Not bad. Anyway, planning a trip and relying on high voltage chargers, maybe it needs a change of habits.
3)As we all know range is lower with cold, and you have to waste even more power to keep the cabin warm. I have been blocked in more than one snow storm, with still 60hours worth of fuel (engine idling) so i knew i would keep warm
4) and 4bis) car manufacturers are using electric models as an excuse to propose new model of businesses in which the private car is not yours, they have an insane amount of control over what you do and what you can do (see the shit merced does for example). Also, they want to kill independent repair because those cars are not really made to be serviceable - yet. The work that is being done in the battery by third parties is incredible, but there shouldn't be a need for it, the manufacturers should provide the information already. And let go with pairing every module, replacing a sensor is becoming like replacing the touch id on an iphone (I am with right to repair if it wasn't clear)
5) At the current state electric vehichles are greenwashing, period. They are currently not greener, depending on where you live, because you are still charging them with electricity coming from coal, oil, gas. If most of the electricity came from nuclear (also pro nuke here) and hydro i would be more okay with that. However they are still not green because the particulate emission from the car itself is almost the same. Why? Brakes and Tires. With Euro 6 the particulate from the engine is negligible compared to the particulate from tires and brakes, and i care about particulate because in my area that is the main problem, not NOx nor COx. Claiming to get an EV for the environment, to me, is bullshit. Just don't use that excuse please. But again, that is going to change in the future, we will get there.
6) All TCO analysis i've seen on comparing small luxury sedans and family cars, that show the TCO for electric being lower, first is completely misleading because they always omit the fact that (currently) you are not paying the income tax on the car and (currently) there are no taxes on electricity for recharging cars. Let's see how that goes when the number of EVs increase, i will be :popcorn:
And people seem to forget that those who drive older cars can't afford new ones, and if they can't afford a new one they certainly can't afford an EV, the initial cost is just too high.
-
there are no taxes on electricity for recharging cars.
I'd consider the 5%vat on domestic electricity or the 20% vat for on street charging in the uk a tax
-
The current evidence where I live te BEV sales growth suggests that recharging time is not a major decision factor. In practice people have relatively modest daily range requirements often well under 100 km per day. Hehce the requirement for lengthy charge times simply isn’t a factor for many car users.
Anti Bev always present edge case arguments as if everyone in an ice is doing 1000s of km a day. This is abject nonsense and flies in the face of known statistics
Yes a small section of high mileage ice users exist mostly commercial users. But this is not a mainstream group.
So do BEV currently meet ALL ice requirements , clearly no, but they do meet a substantial proportion of car owners requirements and that’s clearly seen in sales growth which is also hampered by a small 2nd hand market. This will change as the EV fleet and the 2nd hand market expands coupled with thd selective rise in battery replacement vendors for first generation BEVs.
The evidence suggests that leaving cost aside , Bev acceptable is growing and consumers are far less skeptical than several years ago. BEVs are common place on our roads and everyone knows somebody who has one. Word of mouth experience has been generally positive especially on reliability , running and servicing costs.
Hehce despite detractors here claiming nothing is perfect so do nothing both consumers and car manufacturers beleive the future is BEV based and can clearly see the dramatic improvements between first generation BEVs and current ( and newly announced) models.
What’s also changing is both planners and other regulatory bodies attitudes to private cars , signalling that restrictions will continue to impinge on car usage even to a lesser extent on BEVs also. These include lowering speed limits , restricted public parking and potential congestion restrictions in major urban centres. These stories are daily news.
The upshot is whether you or I like it , certainly here, public policy remains convinced to decarbonise private car ownership and equally offer alternatives to private car ownership in the first place
I own both diesel and Bev vehicles. We bought a Bev to reduce a long daily commute cost. A task the Bev accomplished extremely well.
Personally I see Bev sales growing to a tipping point where ice sales will fall away dramatically and coupled by increasingly costs and legal restrictions will tend to significantly deincentivise ice sales and usage probably then facilitating stage banning of ice vehicles.
Sure current BEVs have limits so do ice vehicles but I don’t see Bev limits in current and near future models detract a significant majority of buyers from switching to BEVs.
Of course the situation is not consistent around the world for various reasons bits that’s not really the point , many countries will and can convert to a largely Bev population in time.
As an engineer I won’t mourn the outdated 19th century bag of bolts that is the IC engine. It’s zenith is passing like many other modrs of transport have before it. Ultimately the ICE has no claim to endless dominance no more then the steam engine had
Arguments about merely changing RTR point of pollution are misleading , centralised electricity production. Is itself moving to cleaner methods like renewables , car manufacturing is itself subject to increasing environmental oversight as is processing its everyday residuals. It now costs me signifcantky more to buy tyres due to the recycle charge , same with batteries etc.
I think BEVs have drawbacks , sure , but equally I think they offer a lifeline to a future of personal private transport
-
I strongly doubt that Atkinson cycle engines as found in many hybrids will need particulate filters because the Atkinson cycle runs much cleaner as part of the basic operating principle.
More and more cars are making use of Atkinson cycle engines to stay competitive.
I would say that rather than ban gasoline powered cars altogether, have a minimum MPG requirement that increases over time. At some point, it would no longer be practical to meet the requirement, effectively making it a ban.
The latter is exactly what the EU is doing! The 'nice' thing is that it is left to the market to come up with solutions rather than forcing a particular solution that may turn out not be a good fit after all.
Under Obama, California was targeting 55 mpg fleet average by 2025. Trump changed it to 40 mpg by 2026. However, the California Air Resources Board got industry agreement of 51 mpg by 2026 from 5 manufacturers and the others will fall in line or get left out.
There is no way in the world to get to 51 mpg for the fleet average without a high percentage of vehicles being some kind of EV. Fleet average means average of ALL vehicles imported to the state by the manufacturer. ALL vehicles includes even the heavy duty trucks (apparently).
California is a sizeable market and basically drives the pollution issue. The manufacturers are going to hit the target because of EVs. Unless we want 500# cars with 5 HP engines, there is no way to get to 51 MPG average across an entire fleet of cars/trucks without EVs. Even then...
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/512414-california-finalizes-fuel-efficiency-deal-with-five-automakers/
Quoting later in the article
“While this deal is a positive interim step, we need bolder action to prevent us driving off the carbon cliff,” Katherine Hoff, a lawyer with the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement.
“To meet California’s own climate goals and to be the model the world needs, CARB must lead the way quickly in making 100 percent zero-emission vehicle sales the standard by 2030,” she added.
The target is 100% zero-emission vehicles by 2030. 100%!
Remember what I said, California is a huge market, the manufacturers can't just blow it off.
The observant will notice that there is no mention of cost. Cost is irrelevant!
-
The target is 100% zero-emission vehicles by 2030. 100%!
The problem with these slogan based targets is people will meet them. People usually meet the letter rather the spirit of most goals, and the outcomes can be horrible if the stated goals is not well formed. You see this with things like education. Saying girls and boys performance needs to be levelled up sounds like a great goal. However raising standards is much harder than pushing them down, and we've seen boys failing more and more until they are now dropping below the performance of girls. There's no real evidence girls are doing any better. Look behind any figures showing they are and you see more manipulation to meet the letter rather than the spirit of the goals. The collateral effects of 100% zero emissions, like the pollution just being moved outside the vehicle, aspects of pollution being raised (e.g. tyre particulates in city air, due to the greater weight of EVs and hybrids) and new forms of pollution, might be much worse than the original problem.
-
1)Fast refueling is a big, big deal for probably everybody that has to travel for leisure or for work. For commuting, it doesn't matter. MY small town alone of 9000 people have 10 to 20 recharge spots in parking and businesses. Place of business could/should also offer a charging station for employees. However, for travel... see 2). In this i am all for battery swap and fuel cells. Fast charge, not so much.
Battery swap has been entirely discounted as viable by all mainstream potential and current BEVs. Current ranges are approaching 600km and this is way above typical daily or even weekly average users as stats show. People do not as a mass group drive enormous daily mileages. It’s a complete myth. The average worldwide daily mileage is around 14 km per day. This suggests that most cars are used for very short journeys not long ones.
Certainly around me more and more fast and slow charging stations being installed , place of work charging is more commonplace every day as well as in hotels , supermarkets and other car parking destinations
2)Declared range of many Electric cars is around 400km, yet you will never achieve that at highway speed. You have to severly limit the power output curve (incidentally we are working on such a device, we started developing that for teslas that had to run on the track, they went from two and a half laps to forty, same lap time. Not bad. Anyway, planning a trip and relying on high voltage chargers, maybe it needs a change of habits.
3)As we all know range is lower with cold, and you have to waste even more power to keep the cabin warm. I have been blocked in more than one snow storm, with still 60hours worth of fuel (engine idling) so i knew i would keep warm
Increasing range IS being delivered by modern BEVs but as I said most daily usages of cars is with very modest mileage requirements , runs to local schools and shops , short work commutes etc.
It’s a common myth BEVs use much power to heat the cabin or run ancillaries. My 2nd gen leaf uses virtually nothing to power heat and lights it’s simply not a factor in range , it’s largely a detractors myth
4) and 4bis) car manufacturers are using electric models as an excuse to propose new model of businesses in which the private car is not yours, they have an insane amount of control over what you do and what you can do (see the shit merced does for example). Also, they want to kill independent repair because those cars are not really made to be serviceable - yet. The work that is being done in the battery by third parties is incredible, but there shouldn't be a need for it, the manufacturers should provide the information already. And let go with pairing every module, replacing a sensor is becoming like replacing the touch id on an iphone (I am with right to repair if it wasn't clear)
While some car companies have proposed a shared ownership future , it’s largely speculation and has not developed much traction , I suspect it will arrive with AI vehicles !!!!
Hence it can be dismissed currently as merely conjecture
Eu right to repair in cars mesns all equipped third party servicing means all cars including BEVs can access spare parts and specialised tools and documentation . We are seeing here the beginning of specialist Bev servicing and repair
5) At the current state electric vehichles are greenwashing, period. They are currently not greener, depending on where you live, because you are still charging them with electricity coming from coal, oil, gas. If most of the electricity came from nuclear (also pro nuke here) and hydro i would be more okay with that. However they are still not green because the particulate emission from the car itself is almost the same. Why? Brakes and Tires. With Euro 6 the particulate from the engine is negligible compared to the particulate from tires and brakes, and i care about particulate because in my area that is the main problem, not NOx nor COx. Claiming to get an EV for the environment, to me, is bullshit. Just don't use that excuse please. But again, that is going to change in the future, we will get there.
6) All TCO analysis i've seen on comparing small luxury sedans and family cars, that show the TCO for electric being lower, first is completely misleading because they always omit the fact that (currently) you are not paying the income tax on the car and (currently) there are no taxes on electricity for recharging cars. Let's see how that goes when the number of EVs increase, i will be :popcorn:
And people seem to forget that those who drive older cars can't afford new ones, and if they can't afford a new one they certainly can't afford an EV, the initial cost is just too high.
Currently running costs of BEVs are demonstrably lower often because governments are actively biased against ICE. this does not validate the comparison because the future application of future taxes is unknown we can only deal with the known situation and currently BEVs are cheaper to run
The charge of greeb washing is disingenuous. Ice cars deliver significant pollution at the point of use often in conjested urban situations , BEV deliver significantly less especially in particularly dangerous pollutants. Sure we need to equally decarbonise central electrical production. But that is also happening with the rise of renewables in that sector.
Hence the charge of do nothing because we can’t achieve 100% is classic “ denier” arguments , the real fact is everything helps including less then absolute success.
-
While some car companies have proposed a shared ownership future , it’s largely speculation and has not developed much traction , I suspect it will arrive with AI vehicles !!!!
What about leasing a vehicle? You are the Registered Owner but not the Legal Owner. If the lender happens to be a subsidiary of the manufacturer (GM and GM Financial) then it looks a lot like shared ownership to me.
Actually, purchasing a vehicle looks much the same if you finance it through the manufacturer.
-
While some car companies have proposed a shared ownership future , it’s largely speculation and has not developed much traction , I suspect it will arrive with AI vehicles !!!!
What about leasing a vehicle? You are the Registered Owner but not the Legal Owner. If the lender happens to be a subsidiary of the manufacturer (GM and GM Financial) then it looks a lot like shared ownership to me.
Actually, purchasing a vehicle looks much the same if you finance it through the manufacturer.
I think shared ownership boilds down to ride sharing where you don't own a vehicle but just pay a membership fee to use a car (if one is available). Either way, it will be more expensive compared to buying a vehicle with money that is on hand. Personally I'm not a fan of not owning my transport. A long time ago my employer went bankrupt and I had to turn in the company car. This left me with no income (had to wait to get paid) and no transport to go hunting for a job. Double whammy. The same can happen if you lease / rent a car and suddenly have no income to pay for it. You'll be left without transport at the time you need it the most.
-
I find it very amusing that you’re all sitting here, discussing something that isn’t gonna happen
-
Meanwhile, in the US, the market share of EVs is slowly increasing.
https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/u-s-electric-vehicle-market-106396 (https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/u-s-electric-vehicle-market-106396)
Do you think that will stop happening anytime soon?
-
What about leasing a vehicle? You are the Registered Owner but not the Legal Owner. If the lender happens to be a subsidiary of the manufacturer (GM and GM Financial) then it looks a lot like shared ownership to me.
I guess with shared ownership model you could pay-per-use, whereas with a lease it is monthly regular payments, no matter if you used the vehicle or not. However, i am not a fan of shared ownership because noone will care for the vehicle. I do not want to get into a car where the previous rider ate a McDonalds burger, smoked a pot or left any other sort of garbage in it.
-
Or the car was used for drug-running and there is some residue. You can complain that it wasn't you all you want - from inside a jail cell.
I think I'll just stay with traditional lease/purchase agreements.
-
What about leasing a vehicle? You are the Registered Owner but not the Legal Owner. If the lender happens to be a subsidiary of the manufacturer (GM and GM Financial) then it looks a lot like shared ownership to me.
Actually, purchasing a vehicle looks much the same if you finance it through the manufacturer.
No, legally it is much more clear cut. If you lease without a buyout option, you don't own it, period. But you are liable for it and are not free to do whatever you like with it! If you have a lease with a buyout option or you finance it, then you effectively have the option of owning it once you make the payments. So your maximum liability is making the required payments and you are, in fact, free to do whatever you wish with it. Any contractual obligations, such as limitations of mileage, location or commercial use, can be obviated by simply paying off the contract.
-
The current evidence where I live te BEV sales growth suggests that recharging time is not a major decision factor.
Oh very well done Einstein ! :clap:
If it was they wouldn't be buying them whereas for many busy people it would be.
Until battery and charging technology improves EV's will always be an unsatisfactory transport option for many.
-
The current evidence where I live te BEV sales growth suggests that recharging time is not a major decision factor. In practice people have relatively modest daily range requirements often well under 100 km per day. Hehce the requirement for lengthy charge times simply isn’t a factor for many car users.
:-DD
Yet another example of the "mad scientist" making elementary errors.
This time the egregious error has a simple name: selection bias. https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/selection-bias/ (https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/selection-bias/)
Hint: those people for whom a lengthy charging time would be a problem simply won't buy a BEV.
That's another example of zealots ignoring the phenomena of "picking the low hanging fruit". Fanboys really should be aware of the phenomenon neatly articulated by Roy Amara
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00018679?rskey=5hnHVw&result=81 (https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00018679?rskey=5hnHVw&result=81)
-
Hint: those people for whom a lengthy charging time would be a problem simply won't buy a BEV.
Wouldn't plug in hybrids be the perfect solution to that? Most of the benefits of an EV with few disadvantages. Or a trailer to effectively convert an EV to plug in hybrid only when needed.
-
The current evidence where I live te BEV sales growth suggests that recharging time is not a major decision factor. In practice people have relatively modest daily range requirements often well under 100 km per day. Hehce the requirement for lengthy charge times simply isn’t a factor for many car users.
:-DD
Yet another example of the "mad scientist" making elementary errors.
This time the egregious error has a simple name: selection bias. https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/selection-bias/ (https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/selection-bias/)
Hint: those people for whom a lengthy charging time would be a problem simply won't buy a BEV.
That's another example of zealots ignoring the phenomena of "picking the low hanging fruit". Fanboys really should be aware of the phenomenon neatly articulated by Roy Amara
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00018679?rskey=5hnHVw&result=81 (https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00018679?rskey=5hnHVw&result=81)
My point referred to Bev purchases. It’s clear that many in that sector is not concerned about lengthy recharge times cause they buy the Bev anyway.
I don’t care about those that preclude owning a Bev. They are not part of the solution they are part of the problem.
-
Hint: those people for whom a lengthy charging time would be a problem simply won't buy a BEV.
Wouldn't plug in hybrids be the perfect solution to that? Most of the benefits of an EV with few disadvantages. Or a trailer to effectively convert an EV to plug in hybrid only when needed.
.
Or just keep a horse as a backup it’s more practical than a trailer with a batttery !!!
Phevs are transistion solutions , expensive , largely carrying the worst of both technologies and a transistion tech.
-
The current evidence where I live te BEV sales growth suggests that recharging time is not a major decision factor.
Oh very well done Einstein ! :clap:
If it was they wouldn't be buying them whereas for many busy people it would be.
Until battery and charging technology improves EV's will always be an unsatisfactory transport option for many.
Cars are not a good solution for increasing number of people in urban settings, as many have changed to public transport for their daily commute.
It’s not that relevant what’s increasing relevant is modern BEV solutions meet more and more people’s requirements for private transport.
-
There was a guy in SF I think who was famous for his modified Leaf with a trailer - he towed a 30kW turbine engine behind it to extend the range.
It's an interesting concept but I'm not sure people just want to keep a spare turbine engine in their garage (if they even have one) for longer trips, that's why EVs need to offer enough range and fast enough charging to accommodate long distance travel. They are getting closer every day to the convenience of a petrol car.
-
I find it very amusing that you’re all sitting here, discussing something that isn’t gonna happen
Agreed there’s no ice revival coming. It’s Bev all the way
-
The current evidence where I live te BEV sales growth suggests that recharging time is not a major decision factor. In practice people have relatively modest daily range requirements often well under 100 km per day. Hehce the requirement for lengthy charge times simply isn’t a factor for many car users.
:-DD
Yet another example of the "mad scientist" making elementary errors.
This time the egregious error has a simple name: selection bias. https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/selection-bias/ (https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/selection-bias/)
Hint: those people for whom a lengthy charging time would be a problem simply won't buy a BEV.
That's another example of zealots ignoring the phenomena of "picking the low hanging fruit". Fanboys really should be aware of the phenomenon neatly articulated by Roy Amara
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00018679?rskey=5hnHVw&result=81 (https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00018679?rskey=5hnHVw&result=81)
My point referred to Bev purchases. It’s clear that many in that sector is not concerned about lengthy recharge times cause they buy the Bev anyway.
That isn't what you wrote, it is a different statement.
It is also a tautology.
I don’t care about those that preclude owning a Bev. They are not part of the solution they are part of the problem.
Ah. The "there isn't a valid point because I don't care about the point" tactic. It is unimpressive, not unexpected, and only a short step away from being victim blaming.
-
The point is it’s like climate deniers and before them proponents of smoking didn’t cause cancer etc
These are people unwilling to change nor see the issue with the status quote. To this end they “ invent “ reasons why the status quo is sufficient and the emerging solutions will never succeed. History never looks kindly on these people.
Decarbonisation of private transport is a worthwhile goal and it’s public policy in many developed nations. To that end that means disincentivising ICE and encouraging users to change modes of transport. To that end the auto industry has largely settled on BEV as the solution. Bev technology over the next decade will meet the vast majority of current users requirements while aiding such decarbonisation.
It’s one thing having an informed and reasonable debate on BEV tech, and its implementation. It’s another to just listen to rabid anti Bev nonsense from people that have never driven a modern battery vehicle.
-
The point is it’s like climate deniers and before them proponents of smoking didn’t cause cancer etc
These are people unwilling to change nor see the issue with the status quote. To this end they “ invent “ reasons why the status quo is sufficient and the emerging solutions will never succeed. History never looks kindly on these people.
Exactly the same is true for people that ignore problems with solutions they are advocating.
It’s one thing having an informed and reasonable debate on BEV tech, and its implementation. It’s another to just listen to rabid anti Bev nonsense from people that have never driven a modern battery vehicle.
Exactly the same is true for pro BEV nonsense.
Having driven a BEV doesn't make the problems disappear - except in the mind of a suggestible zealot.
-
That's another example of zealots ignoring the phenomena of "picking the low hanging fruit". Fanboys really should be aware of the phenomenon neatly articulated by Roy Amara
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00018679?rskey=5hnHVw&result=81 (https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00018679?rskey=5hnHVw&result=81)
Another saying that I'll attribute to Arno Penzias (because I heard him say it...) is that we simultaneously underestimate how much a technology itself will change and overestimate how much it will change society. So if you were to go back two decades to just after all the EV1s were crushed and talk about EVs with 500 mile ranges that could charge in under an hour, the reaction would be "that's impossible, but if it was everyone would have one for sure and gasoline would be obsolete".
-
Bev technology over the next decade will meet the vast majority of current users requirements while aiding such decarbonisation.
It’s one thing having an informed and reasonable debate...another to just listen to rabid anti Bev nonsense from people that have never driven a modern battery vehicle.
So is this not a informed and reasonable debate? Is listing specific reasons why BEVs don't work in someone's particular case "rabid anti-BEV nonsense...."? If I've been driving an EV for a decade but disagree with your first statement, what happens? Does your head explode?
-
This thread is going around in circles. I think we all understand each other's viewpoints and things are unlikely to continue with endless debate.
That said, a friendly "bet": by 2030 I believe BEV will be the dominant technology for new vehicle sales and hydrogen will be still in the few percent range. There will be no cheap hydrogen cars, but a good range of cheap BEVs, though prices of BEVs will remain above those of the cheapest ICE for some time to come. ICE will remain for some time but as the phase out becomes obvious people will be less willing to buy new ICE and manufacturers will discontinue investment in these vehicles, except in niche fields.
-
This thread is going around in circles. I think we all understand each other's viewpoints and things are unlikely to continue with endless debate.
That said, a friendly "bet": by 2030 I believe BEV will be the dominant technology for new vehicle sales and hydrogen will be still in the few percent range. There will be no cheap hydrogen cars, but a good range of cheap BEVs, though prices of BEVs will remain above those of the cheapest ICE for some time to come. ICE will remain for some time but as the phase out becomes obvious people will be less willing to buy new ICE and manufacturers will discontinue investment in these vehicles, except in niche fields.
2030 is too soon. It is less than 7 years from now. And you have to define in which market BEV will be dominant. Even for Europe getting to >50% of all new cars sold being a BEV will be a very long stretch by 2030 (at this moment 10% of all cars sold in EU are BEV). It is far more interesting to see what the car landscape will look like in 2040. At that point we'll probably be able to see what the 'dominant' technology is going to be.
-
Phevs are transistion solutions , expensive , largely carrying the worst of both technologies and a transistion tech.
I see them as the most practical for those who usually drive short distances but sometimes have to drive long distances.
There was a guy in SF I think who was famous for his modified Leaf with a trailer - he towed a 30kW turbine engine behind it to extend the range.
It's an interesting concept but I'm not sure people just want to keep a spare turbine engine in their garage (if they even have one) for longer trips
If the trailer is only rarely used, renting it might make more sense. It also provides an upgrade path to a trailer based on fuel cells if they become affordable.
-
That said, a friendly "bet": by 2030 I believe BEV will be the dominant technology for new vehicle sales and hydrogen will be still in the few percent range.
Doesn't really matter, car manufacturers are going to recoup maximum investments from manufacturing lines. If everyone believes the EU isn't going to blink, the manufacturers will get the production lines on line when they need it ... but there is no real reason to do it gradually so the situation 5 years before the ban isn't too meaningful.
The magic date is the EU ban date. That's the only bet worth making, are they going to blink or not.
-
Or a trailer to effectively convert an EV to plug in hybrid only when needed
No trailer needed
-
The point is it’s like climate deniers and before them proponents of smoking didn’t cause cancer etc
These are people unwilling to change nor see the issue with the status quote. To this end they “ invent “ reasons why the status quo is sufficient and the emerging solutions will never succeed. History never looks kindly on these people.
Exactly the same is true for people that ignore problems with solutions they are advocating.
It’s one thing having an informed and reasonable debate on BEV tech, and its implementation. It’s another to just listen to rabid anti Bev nonsense from people that have never driven a modern battery vehicle.
Exactly the same is true for pro BEV nonsense.
Having driven a BEV doesn't make the problems disappear - except in the mind of a suggestible zealot.
But the point is BEVs are practical for many users at this point of their technical development. That’s clear from the rise in sales of BEVs. Around me it entirely common to see them.
Sure issues remain , nothing is perfect , but again it’s a compromise solution nothings perfect but in the march towards decarbonisation it’s a start , a good start. Low noise , low pollution at the point of use , cost effective etc.
As an owner of both diesel and a Bev I can compare avd contrast and the Bev comes out well , certainly a lot cheaper to run and tax /insure than the diesel.
Anyone within Bev experience accepts the current models have drawbacks it’s not yet a universal replacement but it has come on in leaps and bounds and the latest are very capable vehicles
Hence given the stated public policy goal to decarbonise road transport BEVs represent a good start and look like aiding that public policy
-
That said, a friendly "bet": by 2030 I believe BEV will be the dominant technology for new vehicle sales and hydrogen will be still in the few percent range.
Doesn't really matter, car manufacturers are going to recoup maximum investments from manufacturing lines. If everyone believes the EU isn't going to blink, the manufacturers will get the production lines on line when they need it ... but there is no real reason to do it gradually so the situation 5 years before the ban isn't too meaningful.
The magic date is the EU ban date. That's the only bet worth making, are they going to blink or not.
There is no EU ban. The ban must be translated in individual country bans a d once can expect the usual “ EU” fudge as different countries will be at different stages of readiness. Hence it going to very inconsistent across the EU.
Hence there is no “ EU blink “ but you can be sure the laws will be inconsistent across the EU.
-
The point is it’s like climate deniers and before them proponents of smoking didn’t cause cancer etc
These are people unwilling to change nor see the issue with the status quote. To this end they “ invent “ reasons why the status quo is sufficient and the emerging solutions will never succeed. History never looks kindly on these people.
Exactly the same is true for people that ignore problems with solutions they are advocating.
It’s one thing having an informed and reasonable debate on BEV tech, and its implementation. It’s another to just listen to rabid anti Bev nonsense from people that have never driven a modern battery vehicle.
Exactly the same is true for pro BEV nonsense.
Having driven a BEV doesn't make the problems disappear - except in the mind of a suggestible zealot.
But the point is BEVs are practical for many users at this point of their technical development. That’s clear from the rise in sales of BEVs. Around me it entirely common to see them.
Sure issues remain , nothing is perfect , but again it’s a compromise solution nothings perfect but in the march towards decarbonisation it’s a start , a good start. Low noise , low pollution at the point of use , cost effective etc.
As an owner of both diesel and a Bev I can compare avd contrast and the Bev comes out well , certainly a lot cheaper to run and tax /insure than the diesel.
Anyone within Bev experience accepts the current models have drawbacks it’s not yet a universal replacement but it has come on in leaps and bounds and the latest are very capable vehicles
Hence given the stated public policy goal to decarbonise road transport BEVs represent a good start and look like aiding that public policy
You continue to mutate and moderate the statements you make, every time someone points out the gross flaws in them.
In one sense that is good, but it is bloody tedious - and could and should be avoided.
Zealots and fanboys need to be called out.
-
Dave must love his forum being bloated with pompous know-it-alls. He lets these brain-ache threads go on FAR too long.
-
The point is it’s like climate deniers and before them proponents of smoking didn’t cause cancer etc
These are people unwilling to change nor see the issue with the status quote. To this end they “ invent “ reasons why the status quo is sufficient and the emerging solutions will never succeed. History never looks kindly on these people.
Exactly the same is true for people that ignore problems with solutions they are advocating.
It’s one thing having an informed and reasonable debate on BEV tech, and its implementation. It’s another to just listen to rabid anti Bev nonsense from people that have never driven a modern battery vehicle.
Exactly the same is true for pro BEV nonsense.
Having driven a BEV doesn't make the problems disappear - except in the mind of a suggestible zealot.
But the point is BEVs are practical for many users at this point of their technical development. That’s clear from the rise in sales of BEVs. Around me it entirely common to see them.
Sure issues remain , nothing is perfect , but again it’s a compromise solution nothings perfect but in the march towards decarbonisation it’s a start , a good start. Low noise , low pollution at the point of use , cost effective etc.
As an owner of both diesel and a Bev I can compare avd contrast and the Bev comes out well , certainly a lot cheaper to run and tax /insure than the diesel.
Anyone within Bev experience accepts the current models have drawbacks it’s not yet a universal replacement but it has come on in leaps and bounds and the latest are very capable vehicles
Hence given the stated public policy goal to decarbonise road transport BEVs represent a good start and look like aiding that public policy
You continue to mutate and moderate the statements you make, every time someone points out the gross flaws in them.
In one sense that is good, but it is bloody tedious - and could and should be avoided.
Zealots and fanboys need to be called out.
I’m merely debating the topic I see drawbacks in BEVs I know this well I own one.
The point is BEVs may have flaws but both over time and with increasingly better batteries thisecflaws will fade to in significance. That’s my point. The future tech has largely been decided by manufacturers and that’s overwhelmingly BEV.
I’ve said before that I see several shades of issues I’ve never suggested BEVs are not without flaws. What I have contended is despite those flaws they ( BEVs) are likely to be the successor to private ICE transport over the next years. It’s no ICE and it’s not hybrids or hydrogen.
-
The point is it’s like climate deniers and before them proponents of smoking didn’t cause cancer etc
These are people unwilling to change nor see the issue with the status quote. To this end they “ invent “ reasons why the status quo is sufficient and the emerging solutions will never succeed. History never looks kindly on these people.
Exactly the same is true for people that ignore problems with solutions they are advocating.
It’s one thing having an informed and reasonable debate on BEV tech, and its implementation. It’s another to just listen to rabid anti Bev nonsense from people that have never driven a modern battery vehicle.
Exactly the same is true for pro BEV nonsense.
Having driven a BEV doesn't make the problems disappear - except in the mind of a suggestible zealot.
But the point is BEVs are practical for many users at this point of their technical development. That’s clear from the rise in sales of BEVs. Around me it entirely common to see them.
Sure issues remain , nothing is perfect , but again it’s a compromise solution nothings perfect but in the march towards decarbonisation it’s a start , a good start. Low noise , low pollution at the point of use , cost effective etc.
As an owner of both diesel and a Bev I can compare avd contrast and the Bev comes out well , certainly a lot cheaper to run and tax /insure than the diesel.
Anyone within Bev experience accepts the current models have drawbacks it’s not yet a universal replacement but it has come on in leaps and bounds and the latest are very capable vehicles
Hence given the stated public policy goal to decarbonise road transport BEVs represent a good start and look like aiding that public policy
You continue to mutate and moderate the statements you make, every time someone points out the gross flaws in them.
In one sense that is good, but it is bloody tedious - and could and should be avoided.
Zealots and fanboys need to be called out.
I’m merely debating the topic I see drawbacks in BEVs I know this well I own one.
The point is BEVs may have flaws but both over time and with increasingly better batteries thisecflaws will fade to in significance. That’s my point. The future tech has largely been decided by manufacturers and that’s overwhelmingly BEV.
I’ve said before that I see several shades of issues I’ve never suggested BEVs are not without flaws. What I have contended is despite those flaws they ( BEVs) are likely to be the successor to private ICE transport over the next years. It’s no ICE and it’s not hybrids or hydrogen.
You continue to mutate and moderate the statements you make, every time someone points out the gross flaws in them.
In one sense that is good, but it is bloody tedious - and could and should be avoided.
Zealots and fanboys need to be called out.
-
There is no EU ban.
There is a law which compels EU nations to implement the ban.
The ban must be translated in individual country bans a d once can expect the usual “ EU” fudge as different countries will be at different stages of readiness. Hence it going to very inconsistent across the EU.
Hence there is no “ EU blink “ but you can be sure the laws will be inconsistent across the EU.
They implement it, or they don't. Fine then, will the EU blink and not impose Article 260 lawsuits against nations which don't implement the ban is the question.
-
Okay all.
Now read this - some uncommon sense: https://thefreepressonline.co.uk/news/1/2927.htm (https://thefreepressonline.co.uk/news/1/2927.htm)
In case it goes offline, here's the copy:
Here’s Why Electric Cars Are Useless -by Revd Philip Foster MA
Here’s Why Electric Cars Are Useless:TESLA -range, on the flat, just over 200 miles
in summer. In winter lucky to get 100 miles.
To suggest, as some ignorant people have, that electric cars ‘emit no CO2’ is
absurd because the power stations that charge them do. To charge an electric
vehicle (such as a Tesla), just once, requires the burning of 40 kilograms of coal.
A petrol car will require about 20 kilograms of petrol for the same distance. It follows that the electric car is emitting about double the CO2 of a petrol car.
Here are the sums:Drax [ower station uses about 0.31 kilograms of coal per KWh generated.1
A Tesla battery is rated at 70 KWh and fast charging is only 60% efficient.It will need 125 KWh of electricity for a single charge; this works out asabout 40 kilogram (0.31×125) of coal for a full charge [87kg on Greenpeace data].
The cost of electricity for the range available in a Tesla—200 miles in summer; 100 miles in winter—works out at ~ £19. The petrol for 200 miles costsmore but most of that cost is tax (currently about 60%)—about £28. In winter,
for 100 miles, the petrol costs just £15.
During trials, between 1927-30, of British steamlocomotives a typical result was that, for a 500 ton express train, coal was consumed at the rateof 20 kg per mile.2 Over 200 miles therefore 4000 kg was consumed.Scaling down to a twoton car: 4000÷250=16 kg coal. Even allowingfor economiesof scale, compare this to the 40kg required by a Tesla.
Further issues and hazards:
• In the battery manufacture for a Tesla model S, around 17.5 ton of CO2 has
been released. That would take a petrol/diesel car some eight years to produce!3
• Battery cycling—the deterioration of the capacity of a lithium battery with
charging—must be allowed for, costing about £3 per cycle.4
•Fire: even small lithium batteries are liable to catch fire or even explode,releasing deadly toxins such as COS, HF, CO.5 The huge dangers for occupants In tthe event of an accident are obvious. Firehoses would only exacerbate theproblem, causing electrocution of victims.6 [The Emergency Services can’t touch acrashed EV without calling for specialist equipment - recently a Tesla was ashes in 90 seconds!]
1. www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/f/fuelcomparison.htm (http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/f/fuelcomparison.htm). Figures from Greenpeace are higher: 0.7
kg/KWh (www.energydesk.greenpeace.org/2013/02/14/much-coal-burning-will-keep-burning/ (http://www.energydesk.greenpeace.org/2013/02/14/much-coal-burning-will-keep-burning/)). Not all
electricity is produced from coal of course, but it makes a simple comparator. Wind turbines take around five
years to pay off their CO2 ‘debt’ (concrete, metal mining, refining etc). They seldom last more than ten years.
Their main bearings last less than two years.
2. The British Steam Locomotive 1925-1965 by O.S.Nock, Ian Allan 1966. p67 Dynamometer Car Tests 1927 on
LMSR Engine Royal Scot No. 6100.
3. According to IVL, the Swedish Environment Institute.
4. Battery ‘swopping’ is unviable. An average garage refuels 1000 cars a day; how are they going to recharge
1000 batteries every day @ 5-12 hours each? Also who is going to carry them @>half a ton each?
5. Carbonyl sulphide (similar in action to cyanide gas), hydrogen fluroride, carbon monoxide.
6. This happens: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44511200 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44511200) ‘Tesla spontaneously bursts into flames’
LMSR Royal Scot 6100 in 1927
• The Tesla battery alone weighs 800kg—that’s nearly a ton—equivalent to ten
passengers (an average petrol engine + fuel weighs about 140kg).7
• Every servicing garage will be compelled to buy a completely new suite of
tools, lifts, ramps etc. under electrical safety regulations for EVs.
•
Death from exposure. In winter, travelling, say, over the Yorkshire moors in a blizzard at night, you are likely to die. The car ‘dies’, as battery power drops due to the cold. There is now no heating. You freeze inside, you freeze outsidetrying to find help.
Petrol and diesel cars do not have this problem.8
• As most of the numpties, who think electric cars are viable, live in towns the
above point doubtless passes them by, but the huge potential for traffic
clogging due to ‘dead’ electric vehicles has not been considered9, nor has the
issue of time to recharge.
Currently an average petrol car takes about five minutes to fill up with petrol, pay and depart. If an electric car takes a minimum of 75 minutes to recharge (five hours is more likely), either the queues are going to be astronomical10 and the time wasted ditto (see also note4.) or there will need to be nearly five million charge points installed at an estimated roll out cost of £20 billion.
The BBC took an electric car from London to Edinburgh. It took threedays, slower than a stagecoach. People sometimes need to get to places quickly!
7. Roadside tyre change is impossible without a hydraulic lift for the whole vehicle.
8. Further, any ‘off-road’ EV would fry its battery and motors (or blow a fuse) if stuck in difficult terrain.
9. One type of electric car is called a Leaf. This will give a wholly new meaning to ‘leaves on the road/line’!
10. as happened in California in 2019: a two mile queue for 40 super chargers.
Mass per unit energy for batteries v. fossil fuels:Summer 40:1Winter 80:1
In case anyone thinks that there is a miracle battery just over the horizon.....I can absolutely assure him or her that there is no battery technology that is mature11,To quote Mr David Hume, “Miracles do not happen.” (at least in technology).
No law was ever required to ban horses and replace them with cars; so why do we have to ban petrol vehicles if EVs are really so wonderfu? Oh, don’t forget that you’ll need to pay to have it taken away when you buy a new one.
Just where is all this power to come from anyway? The Climate Change Act now requires that by 2030 all gas heating be replacedby electric heating and all new cars be electric. Besides the stupidity of turning
huge amounts of electricity back into heat, clearly no one in government has done the maths. The results are horrendous!
Drax power station in Yorkshire 4 gigaWatt = 4,000,000 kiloWatt22 million gas using households (to replace gas boiler)12 @ 30kW 660,000,000kW
31 million standard13 chargers for electric cars @ 8kW 248,000,000kW
908,000,000kW All needed at peak from 5pm when people come home, plug in the car, turn on heating,
turn on the oven and take a shower.This will require: 908,000,000kW ÷ 4,000,000 (1 Drax) ® 227 extra ‘Drax’ power stations.
Were these to be run on biomass (wood chips)—as 50% of Drax already is—this would
consume, annually, the entire timber harvest of the USA!Plus—we will need to dig up every street to lay much bigger cables.Estimated cost: between £200 billion and £1 trillion.
11. There is even now a global shortage of Lithium and Cobalt; also of Neodymium for the motor magnets.
12. Heat pumps would be totally impractical for most of the UK’s housing stock . But if used - they rate @
10kW and cost £15,000 - would reduce the number of new ‘Drax’ sized power stations required to 117.
13. The 75 minute Tesla super charger requires industrial 400v 3-phase supply (unavailable to domestic homes).
31 million such super chargers would require an additional 770 Drax power stations.
Electric HGVs anyone?Battery alone would weigh 30 tons for just 200 miles
I am grateful to Chris Skerry (a Tesla owner) for some of the data for the Tesla.
Compiled by Philip Foster MA (Nat. Sci.) 1 Barnfield, Hemingford Abbots, Huntingdon PE28 9AX
philip.foster17@ntlworld.com
He is the author of While the Earth Endures: Creation, Cosmology and Climate Change
Available on Amazon UK or order direct; contact details above.
-
Okay all.
Now read this - some uncommon sense: <snipped out bollocks>
Coal currently accounting for less than 2% of our generation, but hey, why bring inconvenient facts into things?
Actually, at the moment I'm typing this, we've got more wind power being consumed than coal generation capacity. More nuclear, too.
As with most such, uh, reliable sources of information, it's free alright - free of actual thought, facts, sound math, reasoning..
-
Okay all.
Now read this - some uncommon sense: <snipped out bollocks>
Coal currently accounting for less than 2% of our generation, but hey, why bring inconvenient facts into things?
Actually, at the moment I'm typing this, we've got more wind power being consumed than coal generation capacity. More nuclear, too.
"<snipped out bollocks>"
That's an extremely arrogant tone. You've just snipped out and stamped all over any respect I may have had for you. Ciao!
-
Okay all.
Now read this - some uncommon sense: <snipped out bollocks>
Coal currently accounting for less than 2% of our generation, but hey, why bring inconvenient facts into things?
Actually, at the moment I'm typing this, we've got more wind power being consumed than coal generation capacity. More nuclear, too.
"<snipped out bollocks>"
That's an extremely arrogant tone. You've just snipped out and stamped all over any respect I may have had for you. Ciao!
Couldn't care less if you respect me, because you don't respect anything else.
Come back with arguments, not nonsense articles from the uneducated.
-
Okay all.
Now read this - some uncommon sense: <snipped out bollocks>
Coal currently accounting for less than 2% of our generation, but hey, why bring inconvenient facts into things?
Actually, at the moment I'm typing this, we've got more wind power being consumed than coal generation capacity. More nuclear, too.
"<snipped out bollocks>"
That's an extremely arrogant tone. You've just snipped out and stamped all over any respect I may have had for you. Ciao!
Couldn't care less if you respect me, because you don't respect anything else.
Come back with arguments, not nonsense articles from the uneducated.
Allow me to parse your rationale:
You: "Because I don't agree with what is said, I'll make clumsy, churlish ad-hominem references to the person that was the source of what was said, with which I do not agree, whilst showing an unwilling to respectfully, maturely and politely explain why I disagree..."
I'll wait for your intelligent, rational responses... <tumbleweed> - and in case it escapes you, try sticking to THE SUBJECT MATTER, not being distracted by someone who is a complete stranger to you, and you feel it your "right" to attack, conveniently distracting yourself FROM ACTUALLY SHOWING YOUR REASONING.
-
Okay all.
Now read this - some uncommon sense: <snipped out bollocks>
Coal currently accounting for less than 2% of our generation, but hey, why bring inconvenient facts into things?
Actually, at the moment I'm typing this, we've got more wind power being consumed than coal generation capacity. More nuclear, too.
"<snipped out bollocks>"
That's an extremely arrogant tone. You've just snipped out and stamped all over any respect I may have had for you. Ciao!
Couldn't care less if you respect me, because you don't respect anything else.
Come back with arguments, not nonsense articles from the uneducated.
Allow me to parse your rationale:
You: "Because I don't agree with what is said, I'll make clumsy, churlish ad-hominem references to the person that was the source of what was said, with which I do not agree, whilst showing an unwilling to respectfully, maturely and politely explain why I disagree..."
I'll wait for your intelligent, rational responses... <tumbleweed> - and in case it escapes you, try sticking to THE SUBJECT MATTER, not being distracted by someone who is a complete stranger to you, and you feel it your "right" to attack, conveniently distracting yourself FROM ACTUALLY SHOWING YOUR REASONING.
Why should I make the effort to present detailed arguments to you when you have expressly refused to do so with anyone else, preferring to mock others instead? Because you feel everyone should treat you better than you treat them?
I disregard his article based upon his obvious ignorance of the subject matter. Drax does not burn coal, and coal burning is not a relevant form of power generation in the country. This makes it an entirely useless comparator chosen solely for dramatic effect.
Other points are fairly equally nonsensical. Can't change the tyre on an EV without a hydraulic lift? .. I have one which can pick a Tesla up. I can pick it up with one hand. Not that it's any use, being that they, like the majority of cars today, don't come with spare wheels.
I frankly decline to further pick apart the inaccuracies of that 'article', as it's not worth the time. Those with relevant knowledge and experience don't require the explanation, and the only one here pushing said article isn't going to listen.
-
Drax does not burn coal,
whilst i agree the "article" is 2 (4/3 π r³) drax does occasionally burn coal and had its licence to do so extended to the end of next month
-
Drax does not burn coal,
whilst i agree the "article" is 2 (4/3 π r³) drax does occasionally burn coal and had its licence to do so extended to the end of next month
Admittedly true, the coal plant remains available for emergency operation. I don't think they've actually burnt any for generation purposes over this extension, though.
-
1. Tesla's have a real world range of 200-350 miles (model dependent, driving pattern dependent) in varying terrain.
2. In winter this drops by around 10-20% depending on the conditions, not 50%. The only way you get 100 miles in a Tesla in winter is driving at 140+ mph. Which, in the majority of countries, is illegal. For the few Autobahn fans, keeping the 3 series for now is probably best.
3. Heatpumps are viable for the UK if homes are well insulated (this is really the biggest problem, not the power consumption). Due to low flow temperatures, a heatpump needs to 'slowly' warm up a home. This only works if the home is well insulated. The cost of retrofitting insulation to UK homes is not trivial.
4. Electric cars don't burn coal, because the vast majority of the UK's electricity supply does not require coal, and no one but your crazy idiot "Nat Sci" correspondent is suggesting that we build vast quantities of new coal power plants.
5. The Tesla truck goes over 500 miles on a charge and the battery weighs less than 9 tonnes. The 'cab and battery' of a Tesla truck only weighs a few tonnes more than a traditional diesel truck in the USA (this has been confirmed by a shot of the truck's data plate, that Tesla did not want leaking out because it's not quite as good as they said, but still reasonable.)
6. "A Tesla battery is rated at 70 KWh and fast charging is only 60% efficient." Not even slightly true. First, Tesla offers way more than 70kWh packs but let's assume the author is giving an example. DCFC is less efficient than slow AC charging, but the Tesla cooling system simply cannot reject 100kW (at 250kW charging input), it is too small for that. And besides, owner measurements of kWh billed on non-Tesla stations show about a 5% penalty for DCFC. AC charging is typically 99% at the battery, and ~95% at the charger, leading to around 94% total efficiency. So DCFC would be around 90% efficient... possibly more from the grid if the high power AC chargers are more efficient (stands to be true, as that's electricity you can't bill people for, but data is scarce).
7. I still pay <10p/kWh for my AC charging at home, so the Tesla cost is wrong. Anyone who uses an EV even a modest amount will benefit from a time of use plan which gives you cheap electricity at night.
Here's a good one: Read "Without Hot Air" (https://www.withouthotair.com/) by the late MacKay if you want an actual scientific treatise on the UK's power and renewable situation. In particular, I find interesting that MacKay reckoned we could not move to 100% wind until we were putting turbines in >= 100m deep water (offshore). Several new wind farms have been commissioned that do this now. So it is a little out of date, but good in one sense, because you need a pessimistic basis for these things.
However, eti, I am not sure why I bother responding to you. I think an EV must have hurt you or run over your dog... You have a bizarre vendetta against anything 'new'. Perhaps you should look at the computer you are using - that was once 'new' and 'scary'.
-
Here's a good one: Read "Without Hot Air" (https://www.withouthotair.com/) by the late MacKay if you want an actual scientific treatise on the UK's power and renewable situation. In particular, I find interesting that MacKay reckoned we could not move to 100% wind until we were putting turbines in >= 100m deep water (offshore). Several new wind farms have been commissioned that do this now. So it is a little out of date, but good in one sense, because you need a pessimistic basis for these things.
MacKay is excellent. Notable points:
- the basic physics, chemistry, and geography have not change and will not change
- he presents several alternative ways forward, depending on what society determines is most appropriate
- he doesn't (or rather didn't :( ) care what the answer is; he has no axes to grind
- he does care that the answers add up numerically
Memorable tagline: "numbers not adjectives" - which should be adopted by more commentators.
-
Jeez this is even more bollocks than the usual anti-EV nonsense
Here’s Why Electric Cars Are Useless -by Revd Philip Foster MA
• Battery cycling—the deterioration of the capacity of a lithium battery with
charging—must be allowed for, costing about £3 per cycle.4
I have no idea how true this is, but even if it is - let's say the EV has a 300 mile range and lasts 150K miles. That's 500 charge cycles, so £1500, or a penny a mile. Just the oil chnages on an ICE would be more than that.
•Fire: ... Firehoses would only exacerbate theproblem, causing electrocution of victims.
:palm: :palm: :palm:
4. Battery ‘swopping’ is unviable. An average garage refuels 1000 cars a day; how are they going to recharge
1000 batteries every day @ 5-12 hours each? Also who is going to carry them @>half a ton each?
I'd agree that battery-swap isn't going to be viable outside a few niches, but comparing with a gas station ignores that the vast majority of EVs will charge at home or use local on-street chargers
• Every servicing garage will be compelled to buy a completely new suite of
tools, lifts, ramps etc. under electrical safety regulations for EVs.
What regulations exactly?
A few new tools but nothing major.
Death from exposure. In winter, travelling, say, over the Yorkshire moors in a blizzard at night, you are likely to die. The car ‘dies’, as battery power drops due to the cold. There is now no heating. You freeze inside, you freeze outsidetrying to find help.
Petrol and diesel cars do not have this problem.8
:palm: hate to mention this but running out of fuel is a thing.. When a petrol car dies, that's it. Game Over. When an EV can no longer power the motor, there is still plenty of energy left for heating, as it's a tiny proportion of the total power.
of course there;s no accounting for stupid users.
• As most of the numpties, who think electric cars are viable, live in towns the
above point doubtless passes them by, but the huge potential for traffic
clogging due to ‘dead’ electric vehicles has not been considered9, nor has the
issue of time to recharge.
:palm: :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm:
Currently an average petrol car takes about five minutes to fill up with petrol, pay and depart. If an electric car takes a minimum of 75 minutes to recharge (five hours is more likely), either the queues are going to be astronomical10 and the time wasted ditto (see also note4.) or there will need to be nearly five million charge points installed at an estimated roll out cost of £20 billion.
Again, petrol-station mantality. The time my EV takes to charge is the 10 seconds to plug it in & then go do something else.
75 mins would be a maximum, for an older car or slower charger, not a minimum, unless some numptie plugs into an AC charger by mistake
The BBC took an electric car from London to Edinburgh. It took threedays, slower than a stagecoach. People sometimes need to get to places quickly!
Ignorant/agenda'd journalist comes up with negative story, what a surprise.
7. Roadside tyre change is impossible without a hydraulic lift for the whole vehicle.
Now they're really clutching at straws. Don't recall I've ever seen a heavy lorry or van being put on a lift at the roadside..
8. Further, any ‘off-road’ EV would fry its battery and motors (or blow a fuse) if stuck in difficult terrain.
*Cough* Rivian
9. One type of electric car is called a Leaf. This will give a wholly new meaning to ‘leaves on the road/line’!
..and MR2 sounds like "shit" in French - what's your point?
He is the author of While the Earth Endures: Creation, Cosmology and Climate Change
Available on Amazon UK or order direct; contact details above.[/size]
..and there it is.. buy my book.
Pathetic. Just pathetic.
-
Here's a good one: Read "Without Hot Air" (https://www.withouthotair.com/) by the late MacKay if you want an actual scientific treatise on the UK's power and renewable situation. In particular, I find interesting that MacKay reckoned we could not move to 100% wind until we were putting turbines in >= 100m deep water (offshore). Several new wind farms have been commissioned that do this now. So it is a little out of date, but good in one sense, because you need a pessimistic basis for these things.
MacKay is excellent. Notable points:
- the basic physics, chemistry, and geography have not change and will not change
- he presents several alternative ways forward, depending on what society determines is most appropriate
- he doesn't (or rather didn't :( ) care what the answer is; he has no axes to grind
- he does care that the answers add up numerically
Memorable tagline: "numbers not adjectives" - which should be adopted by more commentators.
Its quite amusing to read the clueless comments under his videos on YouTube, calling him an idiot for incorrect reasons.
-
Here's a good one: Read "Without Hot Air" (https://www.withouthotair.com/) by the late MacKay if you want an actual scientific treatise on the UK's power and renewable situation. In particular, I find interesting that MacKay reckoned we could not move to 100% wind until we were putting turbines in >= 100m deep water (offshore). Several new wind farms have been commissioned that do this now. So it is a little out of date, but good in one sense, because you need a pessimistic basis for these things.
MacKay is excellent. Notable points:
- the basic physics, chemistry, and geography have not change and will not change
- he presents several alternative ways forward, depending on what society determines is most appropriate
- he doesn't (or rather didn't :( ) care what the answer is; he has no axes to grind
- he does care that the answers add up numerically
Memorable tagline: "numbers not adjectives" - which should be adopted by more commentators.
Its quite amusing to read the clueless comments under his videos on YouTube, calling him an idiot for incorrect reasons.
Didn't know there were any there - but then I generally ignore videos since mostly they are poorly edited talking heads emitting ums and ahs, and what little information is in them could be easily communicated by words and pictures.
There are a few which benefit from moving images, but they are rare.
-
The Chevy Bolt comes with neither a jack nor a spare tire. Road side assistance will be required. A flat bed tow truck is best.
In the last 5 years with the Chevy Bolt, we have made, perhaps, a dozen round trips of 100 miles or so. The vast majority of our trips are 10 miles or less and most are just Taco Bell runs of less than 5 miles. Range anxiety isn't a thing...
The included 1200 watt charger has been entirely adequate. Sure, it takes multiple days to recharge after a 200 mile trip (which we never take) but it's not like we're in a hurry. Figure 3-5 miles per hour of charge time. That Taco Bell run takes about an hour to recharge. Who cares?
I've been doing this EV thing for 8 years. I think I have it under control. For my use case, EV works well. For others? Only they know their real use case but in this thread many of the opinions seem to be at the edge.
I guess that's the point! People need to re-evaluate their use case and make a new plan. Maybe that 1000 mile trip would be better done on a train or airplane. Maybe those theoretical long range trips just don't actually happen. The only way to get people to re-evaluate their usage is to force the issue.
The automakers are certainly spending money on new facilities like they really believe something is going to happen.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-automakers-double-spending-evs-batteries-12-trillion-by-2030-2022-10-21 (https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-automakers-double-spending-evs-batteries-12-trillion-by-2030-2022-10-21)
-
I suspect the warning about towing EVs comes because an EV motor can act like a generator. If the drive unit is operating correctly, then the back-emf of the motor can be controlled so that it has net zero torque. (This is how EVs implement "neutral" - they do not have a clutch.) However, if the inverter has turned off because of e.g. a dead HV battery, or some other fault, the motor could well rectify through the diodes in the IGBTs/MOSFETs which could cause damage to the power electronics, motor, etc. maybe even worst case start a fire.
You can definitely use regen braking to charge EVs while towing, people have done it for a science with Tesla's for instance (https://youtu.be/RaGVoB4Zn-Y), and it probably won't break anything because the EV controller can stop regen at any time if the battery reaches 100% for example or a temperature limit is hit. It's only warned against in the manual because users are idiots and will probably try towing their EV in reverse at 65 mph with the drive unit switched off if you don't explicitly outline all the ways you can't do it.
-
In winter, travelling, say, over the Yorkshire moors in a blizzard at night, you are likely to die. The car ‘dies’, as battery power drops due to the cold. There is now no heating. You freeze inside, you freeze outsidetrying to find help.
Petrol and diesel cars do not have this problem
Well certainly diesel wont,as anyone with an old diesel tranny knows,the bugger wot start ,let alone get you to the middle of the moors if its a bit chilly out
towing EVs
According to many you cant tow an automatic either
-
Most, not all however, gas powered vehicles cannot be towed. The tranny heats up and damage results.
There are some that can be towed, again not many.
-
The included 1200 watt charger has been entirely adequate. Sure, it takes multiple days to recharge after a 200 mile trip (which we never take) but it's not like we're in a hurry. Figure 3-5 miles per hour of charge time. That Taco Bell run takes about an hour to recharge. Who cares?
The people in cities over here would care.
They don't have a driveway or garage. They don't even have any allocated parking, and have difficulty finding a parking space anywhere on their road!
The concept that sufficient roadside charging points will erupt from the ground is farcical: no space on the pavement, and who would stump up the capital cost (and maintain them)?
-
Could have had them now if someone had stopped to think a bit before the fiber roll outs.
-
The people in cities over here would care.
They don't have a driveway or garage. They don't even have any allocated parking, and have difficulty finding a parking space anywhere on their road!
The concept that sufficient roadside charging points will erupt from the ground is farcical: no space on the pavement, and who would stump up the capital cost (and maintain them)?
EV charging is self funding once you have a sufficient number of EV's on the road, but this is a chicken and egg problem as is all too common with infrastructure. You'd sound no different to someone speaking about how petrol cars are infeasible in the 1920's because where would we get all that petrol -- well now we have oil wells, refineries, petrol stations etc. all funded off the demand for this fuel and its byproducts. We might need gov't to give a nudge to private industry but it definitely can happen, there's money to be made.
I did the maths a while ago, I'm not going to repeat it again, but at a 5-10p/kWh margin, these chargers easily pay for their install cost with normal daily usage (8hrs/day) over a few years of usage.
If you do want to see how this will end up going you can see companies like Ubitricity who are investing in networks like this in bigger cities. As for pavement space there are EV chargers that can fit into the space that a kerbstone uses and tuck away when not in use. For those able to park outside their home, channels have been installed to allow ordinary EV charging cables to be put below pavement level without it impeding buggies, wheelchairs etc.
-
The people in cities over here would care.
They don't have a driveway or garage. They don't even have any allocated parking, and have difficulty finding a parking space anywhere on their road!
The concept that sufficient roadside charging points will erupt from the ground is farcical: no space on the pavement, and who would stump up the capital cost (and maintain them)?
EV charging is self funding once you have a sufficient number of EV's on the road, but this is a chicken and egg problem as is all too common with infrastructure. You'd sound no different to someone speaking about how petrol cars are infeasible in the 1920's because where would we get all that petrol -- well now we have oil wells, refineries, petrol stations etc. all funded off the demand for this fuel and its byproducts. We might need gov't to give a nudge to private industry but it definitely can happen, there's money to be made.
I did the maths a while ago, I'm not going to repeat it again, but at a 5-10p/kWh margin, these chargers easily pay for their install cost with normal daily usage (8hrs/day) over a few years of usage.
What you fail to see is that the UK's night rates are a fluke. Such low rates don't exist in the rest of the civilised world. On top of that, you will never ever get such low rates at public charging points, let alone fast chargers which cost around 10 times your nightly rate per kWh. And just like what happened in the 1920's is that electric cars are limited to local use only. What is going to kill the BEV in the next 20 years is the charging costs. Public charging costs for a BEV will never be able to compete with a hybrid running on fuel or hydrogen. Mark my words...
-
Meanwhile, in the market place, an article in today's New York Times business section (may be paywalled) predicts that EV purchase prices in the US could match ICE prices by the end of 2023.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/10/business/electric-vehicles-price-cost.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/10/business/electric-vehicles-price-cost.html)
Quoting from the article:
"More quickly than seemed possible a few months ago, sticker prices for electric vehicles are falling closer to the point where they could soon be on a par with gasoline cars.
Increased competition, government incentives and falling prices for lithium and other battery materials are making electric vehicles noticeably more affordable.
The tipping point when electric vehicles become as cheap as or cheaper than cars with internal combustion engines could arrive this year for some mass market models and is already the case for some luxury vehicles.
Prices are likely to continue trending lower as Tesla, General Motors, Ford Motor and their battery suppliers ramp up new factories, reaping the cost savings that come from mass production.
New electric vehicles from companies like Volkswagen, Nissan and Hyundai will add to competitive pressure."
-
The people in cities over here would care.
They don't have a driveway or garage. They don't even have any allocated parking, and have difficulty finding a parking space anywhere on their road!
The concept that sufficient roadside charging points will erupt from the ground is farcical: no space on the pavement, and who would stump up the capital cost (and maintain them)?
EV charging is self funding once you have a sufficient number of EV's on the road, but this is a chicken and egg problem as is all too common with infrastructure.
It has to be dealt with or it is impossible. Saying "if you want to go there, I wouldn't start from here" is a poor joke.
You'd sound no different to someone speaking about how petrol cars are infeasible in the 1920's because where would we get all that petrol -- well now we have oil wells, refineries, petrol stations etc. all funded off the demand for this fuel and its byproducts. We might need gov't to give a nudge to private industry but it definitely can happen, there's money to be made.
There is a big difference between having one petrol station every 10 miles, and one every 10 feet. And one working charger every car's length is required in many cities. (N.B. distance between lampposts >> 1car length!)
What "nudge" do you suggest the government might give? Where's the capital coming from?
Your answer must address that the far right libertarians which are dominating the current government state that they want small government and that "market forces" are sufficient to solve everything.
Your answer must address the disappearance of inward investment due to Brexit and the "moron tax". Sad, but true.
I did the maths a while ago, I'm not going to repeat it again, but at a 5-10p/kWh margin, these chargers easily pay for their install cost with normal daily usage (8hrs/day) over a few years of usage.
If you do want to see how this will end up going you can see companies like Ubitricity who are investing in networks like this in bigger cities. As for pavement space there are EV chargers that can fit into the space that a kerbstone uses and tuck away when not in use. For those able to park outside their home, channels have been installed to allow ordinary EV charging cables to be put below pavement level without it impeding buggies, wheelchairs etc.
Around here many streets are so narrow cars are parked (illegally) on the pavement. There is no space for cars plus chargers.
Where exactly are the chargers going to be located. Don't say "in lampposts", because the lampposts are too far apart (looking out the window, about 8 cars apart)
Overall, please remove your rose-tinted specs when looking for solutions.
-
It has to be dealt with or it is impossible. Saying "if you want to go there, I wouldn't start from here" is a poor joke.
Not a joke. A few salient facts:
) EV's are not going to represent a majority of new cars until well into the 2030's, because cars don't just expire after a few years any more. As the last ICE vehicles roll off the line in 2030 or so, there will be plenty of them still on the road. So your edge cases will just drive ICE cars until their edge cases get economical enough to solve, or as I said we get gov't to give them a nudge, just like rural broadband requires public funding, or like pretty much all roads.
) You can charge EVs anywhere, not just at home. About 50% of road users already have frequent access to a driveway, so these guys should have no problem being the earlier adopters, and that will implicitly increase the demand for street charging. And then you have people who could charge at work, or while they shop, or even a really odd company now that will drive a battery to you and charge your car (not really sure how viable this is, but it's an interesting concept).
) Rapid charging will also be an option for anyone who can't use a slow home charger, and EV charging rates are improving every year. When the Leaf launched in 2010 or so, it could charge at about 33kW. Now, for less money (even in real terms) the e-208 can do 100kW for more of its charge cycle. And at the higher end of EVs, we have cars that can charge at 300kW, replenshing 10% to 80% in 18 minutes. It's not yet petrol car speed, but it's rapidly closing in, and even if it doesn't quite reach the 3-4 minutes a petrol car does, it's still not that far off for the odd edge case. I imagine you'd have people just fill that time with something else, like shopping or going to the movies, you do after all tend to use a car to travel places, and it tends to sit parked in a multistorey or something for some time... so why not charge, too?
You'd sound no different to someone speaking about how petrol cars are infeasible in the 1920's because where would we get all that petrol -- well now we have oil wells, refineries, petrol stations etc. all funded off the demand for this fuel and its byproducts. We might need gov't to give a nudge to private industry but it definitely can happen, there's money to be made.
There is a big difference between having one petrol station every 10 miles, and one every 10 feet. And one working charger every car's length is required in many cities. (N.B. distance between lampposts >> 1car length!)
What "nudge" do you suggest the government might give? Where's the capital coming from?
The nudge could come in a few forms.
) Easing planning regs to allow chargers to be put in with minimal red tape. For instance, an EV charging station on the M62 was delayed for 3 years because the owner of a golf club refused to grant permission for a cable to be installed under his green. We need to make the process for getting power to chargers, and the necessary network upgrades, a lot easier. Large charging sites like MSAs may need subsidies to make installing the necessary upgrades (20+ MW capacity connections) financially viable especially if they need to go under motorways or the like.
) Providing initial capital at low interest rates, e.g. an EV 'bond'. Already used in the past for wind turbine installs to great success. One of the issues with expecting corporations to build out EV chargers is investors like a quick turn around, quarterly figures are the rage. Corporate finance is also quite expensive, commercial lending rates around 8-10% now.
) Outright investing in new EV infrastructure and letting local authorities run it. In the longer term, that infrastructure could be sold out or maintenance of it could be continued by the LA. (I'd like to see less essential infrastructure privatised, but that's more politics than anything.)
There are already more EV charging points than petrol stations (https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/uk-has-more-ev-charging-stations-petrol-stations (https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/uk-has-more-ev-charging-stations-petrol-stations)) and the rate of growth is strong. Over 500,000 EV chargers were installed in 2021.
Around here many streets are so narrow cars are parked (illegally) on the pavement. There is no space for cars plus chargers.
Where exactly are the chargers going to be located. Don't say "in lampposts", because the lampposts are too far apart (looking out the window, about 8 cars apart)
Overall, please remove your rose-tinted specs when looking for solutions.
Nope. You don't need 1 charger per car. I've done the maths before, I'm not doing it again, go and read it please. The actual number is around one charger per 7 cars (remarkably close to your lamppost spacing, hmm), but that would be assuming all vehicles on a street are street parked. If it's a typical mixed use street with cars on drives and on the road, I think you could get far fewer because everyone with a drive would use home charging.
As for charger size: There are Ubitricity posts (they are not exclusively built into lampposts) that are about the same diameter as a typical lamppost, so around 3-4" diameter. If the street parked car plus the charger can't fit there, I doubt the car was ever viable for that street. But by that point you'd probably just mount the charging facility on the wall and give up on pretending there's a pavement at all.
You have the opposite of rose-tinted glasses; maybe more manure-tinted? You fail to see that EVs can work in a great majority of applications, instead choosing the few applications you think will be a pain to use an EV. Yes, they exist currently -- I've said repeatedly that EVs aren't yet for everyone; if you don't have home charging yet, unless you live in a city with good street charging infrastructure (London, Manchester, or god help you, Milton Keynes), don't buy an EV yet. However, if you are one of the roughly 50% of people who do have regular access to a facility to charge at home, then there should be very little stopping you considering an EV as your next vehicle, especially so as the prices begin to reach parity with ICE.
-
Early-onset deep delusion syndrome has set in hard. 😄
-
It has to be dealt with or it is impossible. Saying "if you want to go there, I wouldn't start from here" is a poor joke.
Not a joke. A few salient facts:
) EV's are not going to represent a majority of new cars until well into the 2030's, because cars don't just expire after a few years any more. As the last ICE vehicles roll off the line in 2030 or so, there will be plenty of them still on the road. So your edge cases will just drive ICE cars until their edge cases get economical enough to solve, or as I said we get gov't to give them a nudge, just like rural broadband requires public funding, or like pretty much all roads.
None of that is applicable to the problems of physical space, housing stock (e.g. flats), and access rights.
) You can charge EVs anywhere, not just at home. About 50% of road users already have frequent access to a driveway, so these guys should have no problem being the earlier adopters, and that will implicitly increase the demand for street charging. And then you have people who could charge at work, or while they shop, or even a really odd company now that will drive a battery to you and charge your car (not really sure how viable this is, but it's an interesting concept).
There are two charging times that are tolerable, and one that is really annoying. Rapid charging (of a few minutes) is OK because you can just wait. Overnight or half-day charging is OK because you do something else within walking distance. Times over, say, 10 minutes are a painful dead time: too short to do something else.
) Rapid charging will also be an option for anyone who can't use a slow home charger, and EV charging rates are improving every year.
You are going to have to justify rapid charging being an option for people that can't access home chargers. See the time/location points I noted above.
When the Leaf launched in 2010 or so, it could charge at about 33kW. Now, for less money (even in real terms) the e-208 can do 100kW for more of its charge cycle. And at the higher end of EVs, we have cars that can charge at 300kW, replenshing 10% to 80% in 18 minutes.
That's a really painful time, as noted above.
It's not yet petrol car speed, but it's rapidly closing in, and even if it doesn't quite reach the 3-4 minutes a petrol car does, it's still not that far off for the odd edge case. I imagine you'd have people just fill that time with something else, like shopping or going to the movies, you do after all tend to use a car to travel places, and it tends to sit parked in a multistorey or something for some time... so why not charge, too?
Is it rapidly closing in? I doubt it, without significant changes to battery chemistry.
You'd sound no different to someone speaking about how petrol cars are infeasible in the 1920's because where would we get all that petrol -- well now we have oil wells, refineries, petrol stations etc. all funded off the demand for this fuel and its byproducts. We might need gov't to give a nudge to private industry but it definitely can happen, there's money to be made.
There is a big difference between having one petrol station every 10 miles, and one every 10 feet. And one working charger every car's length is required in many cities. (N.B. distance between lampposts >> 1car length!)
What "nudge" do you suggest the government might give? Where's the capital coming from?
The nudge could come in a few forms.
) Easing planning regs to allow chargers to be put in with minimal red tape. For instance, an EV charging station on the M62 was delayed for 3 years because the owner of a golf club refused to grant permission for a cable to be installed under his green. We need to make the process for getting power to chargers, and the necessary network upgrades, a lot easier. Large charging sites like MSAs may need subsidies to make installing the necessary upgrades (20+ MW capacity connections) financially viable especially if they need to go under motorways or the like.
How would that help in West London, where the (lack of) electricity supply is already preventing housing developments?!
) Providing initial capital at low interest rates, e.g. an EV 'bond'. Already used in the past for wind turbine installs to great success. One of the issues with expecting corporations to build out EV chargers is investors like a quick turn around, quarterly figures are the rage. Corporate finance is also quite expensive, commercial lending rates around 8-10% now.
The government has maxxed out the borrowing limits, exacerbated by last year's "moron tax".
The expense and short-termism of businesses are part my question of "where's the capital coming from".
) Outright investing in new EV infrastructure and letting local authorities run it. In the longer term, that infrastructure could be sold out or maintenance of it could be continued by the LA. (I'd like to see less essential infrastructure privatised, but that's more politics than anything.)
If you think local authorities are capable of that, you are living in cloud cuckoo land. Local authorities cannot (and will not for the foreseeable future) have any resources to be able to devote to that.
There are already more EV charging points than petrol stations (https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/uk-has-more-ev-charging-stations-petrol-stations (https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/uk-has-more-ev-charging-stations-petrol-stations)) and the rate of growth is strong. Over 500,000 EV chargers were installed in 2021.
Oh, please!! Are you really using that numerology as an argument?!
Around here many streets are so narrow cars are parked (illegally) on the pavement. There is no space for cars plus chargers.
Where exactly are the chargers going to be located. Don't say "in lampposts", because the lampposts are too far apart (looking out the window, about 8 cars apart)
Overall, please remove your rose-tinted specs when looking for solutions.
Nope. You don't need 1 charger per car. I've done the maths before, I'm not doing it again, go and read it please. The actual number is around one charger per 7 cars (remarkably close to your lamppost spacing, hmm), but that would be assuming all vehicles on a street are street parked. If it's a typical mixed use street with cars on drives and on the road, I think you could get far fewer because everyone with a drive would use home charging.
Prerequisite: predictable access to a charger.
If charging is as fast a filling a petrol tank, then that can be guaranteed at the equivalent of a petrol station.
If not, then you need guaranteed car parking by a charging point.
If you don't have that then you have to be able to determine when someone else has moved their car from that particular spot up the road, and then move your car into the space before someone else does. Completely impractical, as a moments thought will reveal.
As for charger size: There are Ubitricity posts (they are not exclusively built into lampposts) that are about the same diameter as a typical lamppost, so around 3-4" diameter. If the street parked car plus the charger can't fit there, I doubt the car was ever viable for that street. But by that point you'd probably just mount the charging facility on the wall and give up on pretending there's a pavement at all.
Well, that's just turning a Nelsonian eye, and/or dismissing people as "unimportant fringe laggards". There are large parts of cities near me like this, some affluent, some less so, some houses, some flats, some conservation areas, some not...
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/ev-based-road-transportation-is-not-viable/?action=dlattach;attach=1716461)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/ev-based-road-transportation-is-not-viable/?action=dlattach;attach=1716467)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/ev-based-road-transportation-is-not-viable/?action=dlattach;attach=1716473)
You have the opposite of rose-tinted glasses; maybe more manure-tinted? You fail to see that EVs can work in a great majority of applications, instead choosing the few applications you think will be a pain to use an EV. Yes, they exist currently -- I've said repeatedly that EVs aren't yet for everyone; if you don't have home charging yet, unless you live in a city with good street charging infrastructure (London, Manchester, or god help you, Milton Keynes), don't buy an EV yet. However, if you are one of the roughly 50% of people who do have regular access to a facility to charge at home, then there should be very little stopping you considering an EV as your next vehicle, especially so as the prices begin to reach parity with ICE.
You don't actually know what I think about the practicality of EVs - you make incorrect guesses that suit your purposes.
You concentrate on the low-hanging fruit, and ignore/dismiss what doesn't suit your fancies. I think "devil can take the hindmost" attitudes are immoral, and not part of a society that I would want to live in.
-
In winter, travelling, say, over the Yorkshire moors in a blizzard at night, you are likely to die. The car ‘dies’, as battery power drops due to the cold. There is now no heating. You freeze inside, you freeze outsidetrying to find help.
Petrol and diesel cars do not have this problem
Well certainly diesel wont,as anyone with an old diesel tranny knows,the bugger wot start ,let alone get you to the middle of the moors if its a bit chilly out
towing EVs
According to many you cant tow an automatic either
UK recovery trucks are starting to carry gadgets that attach to the wheel, with their own wheels, to allow EV towing without the wheels turning.
-
Want free parking and cheap charging? no, you'll have to pay for one of those (or possibly both). Does the government install and operate petrol stations for your convenience? No, they are sprinkled around as a commercial venture just as charing infrastructure will be.
Trying to take the best elements of both technologies and ask for them simultaneously is a straw man.
If you do not like the limitations of on street parking then you are completely free to organise a parking location you own/rent and control/pick. That is a tradeoff you can decide on for yourself and not some insurmountable problem that makes electric vehicles non-viable.
These damn newfangled automobiles do not fit in the stable, they'll never catch on! and even if I do fit it in the stable they cant run on the free grass I have. Paying someone to mow the grass that was trimmed by the horses is yet another new expense, never going to happen.....
-
I wonder if capacitive power coupling would make sense for curb side charging. The need to have the charging connector high up to avoid water is mostly avoided without an ohmic connection. Capacitive coupling doesn't require a ton of copper either, so relatively cheap compared to inductive.
If every couple of curb stones could be a connector you don't take up curb space and even densely parked cars on the curb are not a problem.
-
Makes more sense to embed wireless charging into roads say at traffic lights. Industry is easily getting 10kW transfer rates over 200mm already. A bit of SW and a Powerco A/c and this can happen automatically anytime you're stationary over one.
But no, lets instead roll out the HW and look for solutions later. ::)
-
Makes more sense to embed wireless charging into roads say at traffic lights. Industry is easily getting 10kW transfer rates over 200mm already. A bit of SW and a Powerco A/c and this can happen automatically anytime you're stationary over one.
But no, lets instead roll out the HW and look for solutions later. ::)
Yes, let's rely on bad road design to provide an opportunity to trickle charge EVs..
-
I wonder if capacitive power coupling would make sense for curb side charging. The need to have the charging connector high up to avoid water is mostly avoided without an ohmic connection. Capacitive coupling doesn't require a ton of copper either, so relatively cheap compared to inductive.
If every couple of curb stones could be a connector you don't take up curb space and even densely parked cars on the curb are not a problem.
Industry is putting solar cells in road surfaces, so that's the "wiring problem" solved. Isn't it?
-
I wonder if capacitive power coupling would make sense for curb side charging. The need to have the charging connector high up to avoid water is mostly avoided without an ohmic connection. Capacitive coupling doesn't require a ton of copper either, so relatively cheap compared to inductive.
I doubt it. The required electric fields (and voltages) would be huge causing other problems that need expensive solutions.
-
Inductive charging is a thing but the losses so far (and the cost of doing it) seem to limit it to prototypes and demonstrations. I could see it being useful for e.g. electric taxis at an airport, allowing for a 'cab rank' system where vehicles move forwards for every customer. But then you could also make that work with regular charging cables by just designing the system a little differently.
Interestingly enough the first EV charging connectors were based on inductive coupling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magne_Charge), a bit like a toothbrush on steroids. This was ostensibly for safety; both electrically, and it precluded any need to lock the connector in so driving off with it plugged in was not a disaster. Type2 connectors lock to the car and cars interlock the park pawl when charging.
As for the size of chargers on a narrow street, I doubt this is a major issue. Chargers can be mounted on properties with owners permission (no different to road signs being mounted on them, or even traffic lights, which I've seen in one town.) They can be rather small units, a maximum of a few inches deep if needed. Or you can have a solution like Oxford (https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/case-study/oxgul-e/) for people who do regularly get to park outside of their home but can't safely get the charging cable across the pavement.
We may need to eventually start allocating parking on these streets rather than the free-for-all it is. It may have worked okay when 1 in 10 people had a car and that car was an Austin Mini but I can't think how a big bin lorry gets up there for instance, that's gotta be tight. Also doesn't seem fun to open your front door into the running exhaust of a car.
-
I doubt it. The required electric fields (and voltages) would be huge causing other problems that need expensive solutions.
How structurally strong can high permittivity ceramics be made? If you touched the ceramic with a slightly compliant electrode for negligible airgap, you could make a relatively low impedance connection in a small area.
-
As for the size of chargers on a narrow street, I doubt this is a major issue. Chargers can be mounted on properties with owners permission (no different to road signs being mounted on them, or even traffic lights, which I've seen in one town.) They can be rather small units, a maximum of a few inches deep if needed. Or you can have a solution like Oxford (https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/case-study/oxgul-e/) for people who do regularly get to park outside of their home but can't safely get the charging cable across the pavement.
That tiny (sample size: 5!) Oxford trial is an interesting concept, but your statement is notably more optimistic than the reference itself!
The reference gives examples where it will be problematic. Unsurprisingly some problems are the same as I have mentioned previously, but the report mentions more problems I hadn't thought of. Key phrase from the last paragraph "...the approach can work for some residents".
We may need to eventually start allocating parking on these streets rather than the free-for-all it is. It may have worked okay when 1 in 10 people had a car and that car was an Austin Mini but I can't think how a big bin lorry gets up there for instance, that's gotta be tight. Also doesn't seem fun to open your front door into the running exhaust of a car.
That isn't going to work for many reasons - some legal, some practical, some because of human behaviour.
Clearly you have zero experience of living in an area where you think that might be applicable.
-
Chargers can be mounted on properties with owners permission
People are lazy and forgetful, relying on people to put cable protectors across the cable after plugging in is a lost cause. The moment there's a 100 cables running across the sidewalk in a street, a fair few of them will be tripping hazards. Dose makes the poison.
-
The moment there's a 100 cables running across the sidewalk in a street, a fair few of them will be tripping hazards
why should that bother the arrogant arsehole drivers who think the pavement is there personnel parking spot,sod the disabled and sod those with prams or buggys
-
As range increases and usage patterns more to suit BEVs you’ll find little on street “ slow charging “ I have friends within 2nd gen BEVs , that do almost all charging at home or in fast dedicated charge points. The future is not wast arrays of scattered low power charge points , it’s dedicated road accessed “ filing “ stations for BEVs
-
The moment there's a 100 cables running across the sidewalk in a street, a fair few of them will be tripping hazards
why should that bother the arrogant arsehole drivers who think the pavement is there personnel parking spot,sod the disabled and sod those with prams or buggys
Indeed, and people already leave their bins out. For the narrow street in Bristol(?) that tggzzz noted, it's not as if the left hand pavement is really all that useful anyway, so cables crossing that path aren't a disaster.
-
Chargers can be mounted on properties with owners permission
People are lazy and forgetful, relying on people to put cable protectors across the cable after plugging in is a lost cause. The moment there's a 100 cables running across the sidewalk in a street, a fair few of them will be tripping hazards. Dose makes the poison.
And screw people in wheelchairs, on buggies, or even crutches.
Yes, that has happened to my mother, and she had to turn round and get someone else to help her drive her buggy 100m along the road between parked cars and moving traffic.
Dangerous, bloody dangerous.
-
As range increases and usage patterns more to suit BEVs you’ll find little on street “ slow charging “ I have friends within 2nd gen BEVs , that do almost all charging at home or in fast dedicated charge points. The future is not wast arrays of scattered low power charge points , it’s dedicated road accessed “ filing “ stations for BEVs
False.
A rose tinted view of an ideal future.
Even if it was valid, proponents can't simply ignore the problems of how to get there from here.
-
The moment there's a 100 cables running across the sidewalk in a street, a fair few of them will be tripping hazards
why should that bother the arrogant arsehole drivers who think the pavement is there personnel parking spot,sod the disabled and sod those with prams or buggys
Indeed, and people already leave their bins out. For the narrow street in Bristol(?) that tggzzz noted, it's not as if the left hand pavement is really all that useful anyway, so cables crossing that path aren't a disaster.
Oh, that's all right then. NOT.
My mother met a cable on the pavement inside one of the rubber protection strips: her buggy grounded.
She had to wait until someone came along to help her, then they pushed the buggy in the wrong place and almost broke her back. Then she had to turn round and get someone else to help her drive her buggy 100m along the road between parked cars and moving traffic.
She was traumatised to the extent that she stopped leaving her house to go to the shops unless someone was with her. She was made to feel an invalid person (cf an invalid person). In most buildings and establishments that would be grounds for a lawsuit.
But she, and the many others like her, don't count. Do they?
-
... For the narrow street in Bristol(?)...
Bristol. Or Cardiff. Or Bath. Or Lyme Regis. Or Frome. Or Cheltenham. Or Stroud. Or Nailsworth. Or Tewkesbury. Or Stamford. Or Lacock. ...........
I can easily find similar streets and parking in any village/town/city centre that was built before the car became dominant. That's 99% of them.
Not Milton Keynes, though. But who wants to live there!
-
... For the narrow street in Bristol(?)...
Bristol. Or Cardiff. Or Bath. Or Lyme Regis. Or Frome. Or Cheltenham. Or Stroud. Or Nailsworth. Or Tewkesbury. Or Stamford. Or Lacock. ...........
I can easily find similar streets and parking in any village/town/city centre that was built before the car became dominant. That's 99% of them.
Not Milton Keynes, though. But who wants to live there!
Try the North of England. In many towns the majority of the streets are like that, even in the affluent parts of town.
-
Thankfully a lot of towns started with gullys along the road here, left some space. Any way, that's why I'm suggesting having a low cost charging connector at ground level. So you can just put them in high density at the curb.
Pop up connectors are going to be ridiculously expensive and fragile. A reliable and user friendly galvanic connection at ground level seems hard to engineer, though maybe not impossible. Maybe a very chunky connector with a drain pipe beneath the contacts, so you can just pressure wash it occasionally?
-
... For the narrow street in Bristol(?)...
Bristol. Or Cardiff. Or Bath. Or Lyme Regis. Or Frome. Or Cheltenham. Or Stroud. Or Nailsworth. Or Tewkesbury. Or Stamford. Or Lacock. ...........
I can easily find similar streets and parking in any village/town/city centre that was built before the car became dominant. That's 99% of them.
Not Milton Keynes, though. But who wants to live there!
Try the North of England. In many towns the majority of the streets are like that, even in the affluent parts of town.
Zero surprise here! I only mentioned a (very) few places I could think of that I had been to :)
tom66 lists his location as "Cambridgeshire". Having lived there I would characterise it as
- a few small old bits
- lots of new bits
- lots of space, even in the old bits
- bloody boring, except for Ely and Cambridge centres
In other words it does not represent typical UK townscapes.
Given that, it isn't surprising if tom66 (and some people from the US on other fora) don't understand the impracticalities of their vision in "other places". Dismissing other people's completely valid experiences of "other places" does not reflect well on them or their position.
-
Meanwhile, over here, a newspaper article today reported that the US government had reached an agreement with Tesla to allow non-Tesla vehicles to use the Tesla charging network in the next couple of years.
-
Thankfully a lot of towns started with gullys along the road here, left some space. Any way, that's why I'm suggesting having a low cost charging connector at ground level. So you can just put them in high density at the curb.
Water/urine/etc ingress and dirt ingress into the connectors and charging controller electronics?
Comms to payment mechanisms?
Not insurmountable, but definitely non-trivial, especially when repairs over the decades occur.
Pop up connectors are going to be ridiculously expensive and fragile. A reliable and user friendly galvanic connection at ground level seems hard to engineer, though maybe not impossible. Maybe a very chunky connector with a drain pipe beneath the contacts, so you can just pressure wash it occasionally?
Quite :)
Have a chat to the people with experience of telecom footway boxes. They have plenty of experiences of low energy infrastructure. Charging infrastructure can never be low energy :)
-
There will be a solution to each and every problem - one way or another. Can't lay cables on the ground, build overhead stanchions from building wall to edge of curb and then drop the power. We used stanchions a lot in the aircraft business. Or, dig a ditch across the sidewalk. Or hydrobore under the sidewalk if it is a landmark.
Every single one of these problems has a solution.
On July 20, 1969, the US put a man on the Moon and I quit using the word "can't".
We decided to do it and then we went and did it! Pretty simple concept: Decide to do something, apply the resources and get it done.
Gasoline stations will become a dying industry and some enterprising group will convert them to charging stations. Not every car will be totally exhausted any more than we let the gas gauge get down to a smidge higher than 'E'. I like to keep my tank at least 1/2 full - when I had a gas tank. Since I'm retired, I keep the battery totally charged. I've got nothing but time.
All these supposed 'show stopper' problems will look like pebbles before a steam roller when .gov puts up tax incentives, investment credits and other devices to facilitate the construction of charging points. Low interest rates will also help and, yes, .gov needs to bulldoze stumbling blocks. Clear the blocks and turn private industry loose. Make it happen!
It's going to happen in spite of the naysayers. Just remember 1969 and toss "can't" from your vocabulary. I don't want to hear problems, I want to hear solutions.
-
Converting what we used to call "service stations" to include electric charging hardware on the same premises as gasoline pumps should be straightforward, with due regard to safety.
Markets change: as I remember history, when petroleum started to dominate the market for fuel (ca. 1850), kerosene was the most popular refinery product (for lamps, etc.), and the more volatile gasoline was a less-profitable byproduct.
With ICE vehicles becoming popular, that shifted.
Much later, kerosene became the fuel of choice for jet aircraft.
-
It's going to happen in spite of the naysayers. Just remember 1969 and toss "can't" from your vocabulary. I don't want to hear problems, I want to hear solutions.
Hydrogen... The New Oil
And it is not about technical problems, but about cost. It has been over 50 years since 1969 and space tourism still isn't a thing the average person can afford. Going into space isn't a technical problem, it is a financial one. Actually, most technical problems go away by throwing enough money at it. But somebody has to pay the bill.
-
Of course somebody has to pay the bills and it will ultimately be the vehicle owner. They will pay in higher electric costs (may also affect non-vehicle owners if new power plants are required), road taxes, vehicle price, perhaps a tax per mile and any of a number of other revenue raising schemes.
The taxpayers will always be the payers. That's the way the system works. Businesses do not pay taxes, they just slide the tax off to the customer. When you are at the bottom of the pyramid, you pay real taxes.
Like musical chairs, when the music stops, somebody won't be able to afford their car. That's another solution to traffic jams so don't expect any government bailouts at the bottom of the pyramid.
-
Water/urine/etc ingress and dirt ingress into the connectors and charging controller electronics?
That's why I said capacitive at first, you just need to roughly mate two surfaces. A little bit of dust and even water is not a problem, brush away the worst of it, use say a magnetic clamp to attach your cable. Magsafe for cars.
Have a chat to the people with experience of telecom footway boxes. They have plenty of experiences of low energy infrastructure. Charging infrastructure can never be low energy :)
But then what use is their experience?
For higher voltages you could try to have the plug suck vacuum to get a good seal, remaining water inside the socket can be flashed off. You can use a detector electrode just outside the seal as a fail safe so people walking bear foot past a slightly leaky plug don't get tingling feet.
-
Like musical chairs, when the music stops, somebody won't be able to afford their car. That's another solution to traffic jams so don't expect any government bailouts at the bottom of the pyramid.
Do you watch the news? Did you see people storming the capitol building in the US? Did you see the violent riots in France that went on for weeks? Life isn't a game. Life is for real and heads will roll if the public becomes disgruntled. The French did that for real BTW a couple of hundred years ago. In the real world, the bottom of the pyramid is the group of people that need to stay satisfied up to a certain level to prevent chaos and anarchy.
-
Water/urine/etc ingress and dirt ingress into the connectors and charging controller electronics?
That's why I said capacitive at first, you just need to roughly mate two surfaces. A little bit of dust and even water is not a problem, brush away the worst of it, use say a magnetic clamp to attach your cable. Magsafe for cars.
So your solution is to wipe a capacitor clean every evening (even in rain / snow) to charge your car for the next day after a days of hard work and wanting to have dinner? When I get home, I'm done with the car. Many times I don't even lock the car. I just want to go inside, have dinner and enjoy my evening.
But put some numbers to your capacitive charging idea and you'll see that it ends up needing extremely high voltages (likely in the hundreds of kV) to transfer a decent amount of power over a distance (say like 20cm).
-
There will be a solution to each and every problem - one way or another. Can't lay cables on the ground, build overhead stanchions from building wall to edge of curb and then drop the power. We used stanchions a lot in the aircraft business. Or, dig a ditch across the sidewalk. Or hydrobore under the sidewalk if it is a landmark.
The problem isn't getting a cable to the curb, the problem is where to put the originating socket.
Charging poles near the curb takes curb space. High up near the buildings/front gardens, relies on people to be well behaved. Pop up charging poles are expensive and fragile. Not using an originating socket at all, but using a retractable cable from sidewalk level, which plugs directly into the car, is also expensive and fragile.
So your solution is to wipe a capacitor clean every evening (even in rain / snow) to charge your car for the next day after a days of hard work and wanting to have dinner? When I get home, I'm done with the car. Many times I don't even lock the car. I just want to go inside, have dinner and enjoy my evening.
All curb side charging solutions are shit in one way or another, just thinking about what would be the least shitty.
Maybe charging plates in the road surface, with a mechanism under the car to make contact with it? Again capacitive to save on the massive metal costs for inductive solutions, the mechanism under the car would still add cost, but the road level infrastructure can be relatively cheap.
-
Water/urine/etc ingress and dirt ingress into the connectors and charging controller electronics?
That's why I said capacitive at first, you just need to roughly mate two surfaces. A little bit of dust and even water is not a problem, brush away the worst of it, use say a magnetic clamp to attach your cable. Magsafe for cars.
I missed that, and while I have heard of transformer coupling, I have never heard of capacitive coupling in the context of power transfer.
What capacity capacitor do you calculate would be necessary.
Have a chat to the people with experience of telecom footway boxes. They have plenty of experiences of low energy infrastructure. Charging infrastructure can never be low energy :)
But then what use is their experience?
They know what conditions are likely to exist. Their solutions will be for energy constrained systems (e.g. 48V current limited so as not to cause electric shock), but different solutions would be required for chargers.
For higher voltages you could try to have the plug suck vacuum to get a good seal, remaining water inside the socket can be flashed off. You can use a detector electrode just outside the seal as a fail safe so people walking bear foot past a slightly leaky plug don't get tingling feet.
Too many dangerous failure modes, in both everyday weather and extreme weather.
Besides, it isn't just the plug/socket, it is everything else in a charger.
-
It's easy to calculate the capacitance of a proposed fixture, given the actual dimensions including plate area, material thickness, air gap, and dielectric properties of the material.
Note that the capacitance is inversely proportional to the spacing.
After that calculation, one can calculate the actual AC voltage required to drive this capacitor at a practical frequency (probably higher than 50/60 Hz) and obtain useful power levels at the vehicle load.
This is an engineering forum: to advocate this method, one should include some quantitative estimates.
-
Water/urine/etc ingress and dirt ingress into the connectors and charging controller electronics?
That's why I said capacitive at first, you just need to roughly mate two surfaces. A little bit of dust and even water is not a problem, brush away the worst of it, use say a magnetic clamp to attach your cable. Magsafe for cars.
So your solution is to wipe a capacitor clean every evening (even in rain / snow) to charge your car for the next day after a days of hard work and wanting to have dinner? When I get home, I'm done with the car. Many times I don't even lock the car. I just want to go inside, have dinner and enjoy my evening.
But put some numbers to your capacitive charging idea and you'll see that it ends up needing extremely high voltages (likely in the hundreds of kV) to transfer a decent amount of power over a distance (say like 20cm).
Oh, it is worse than that :(
Get back, park, unravel the cable, find the charger doesn't work (physically broken, sensor failure, can't communicate the cost to your bank etc[1]).
Unplug, rewind cable, can't find any space in the road since everybody else returned earlier.
Drive around, finally spot a space, only to discover the space is empty because that charger is broken too.
Rinse and repeat...
Consider a much simpler problem: a machine to dispense car parking tickets for parking spaces on the road. Characteristics: above ground, one every 100m or so, low power. Given the proportion of those simple machines that are out of order when you try to buy a ticket, the reliability of roadside chargers is likely to be, um, less than acceptable.
[1] immediately after finishing this post, I blundered acr oss https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/energy-supplier-not-getting-readings-from-your-smart-meter-youre-not-alone-aVihU5a6LLKI (https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/energy-supplier-not-getting-readings-from-your-smart-meter-youre-not-alone-aVihU5a6LLKI)
Those are in a comparitively benign indoor environment.
-
Besides, it isn't just the plug/socket, it is everything else in a charger.
Glue it to the heatsink and pot it. Except for the mains to electronics connection, but no doubt there are good standards and solutions for under ground mains connections already.
A ticket dispenser has UI and mechanical components. A minimal charger will just have a status LED and the connector exposed to humans (far more destructive than water).
This is an engineering forum: to advocate this method, one should include some quantitative estimates.
Capacitive charging at KW level has been done, but with large plates. If you can get away with a small mating surfaces depends on the structural properties of high permittivity ceramics.
-
Consider a much simpler problem: a machine to dispense car parking tickets for parking spaces on the road. Characteristics: above ground, one every 100m or so, low power. Given the proportion of those simple machines that are out of order when you try to buy a ticket, the reliability of roadside chargers is likely to be, um, less than acceptable.
Follow the money! In the case of the ticket dispenser, the money goes to the City and repair is controlled by City employees. They clearly don't give a damn at any level.
Hopefully, charging points will be owned by private enterprise and they have a profit motive for keeping them ALL working. After all, there is no return on their capital investment if they can't sell kWh.
The .gov should clear the roadblocks but the work/return should all be private enterprise.
We'll get into the discussion of 'red-lining' (crossing out entire neighborhoods) later but that's one of those incentive deals where .gov can actually make a contribution to grease the skids.
In a lot of ways, charging points could be a public utility. I wouldn't want to see it go that way because .gov has too much control over operations. Keeping the service private is probably the best way to go. We have all seen what happens with public utilities.
If there is money to be made, private industry will find it! Kind of like residential solar.
-
Besides, it isn't just the plug/socket, it is everything else in a charger.
Glue it to the heatsink and pot it. Except for the mains to electronics connection, but no doubt there are good standards and solutions for under ground mains connections already.
A ticket dispenser has UI and mechanical components. A minimal charger will just have a status LED and the connector exposed to humans (far more destructive than water).
A charger must have the ability to read a payment device, authenticate credit availibility, debit someone's account, and communicate that to the user.
I would prefer to listen to the experience of someone used to working in/under roads than someone presuming it is easy. The last time I had that pleasure was, gulp, 42 years ago at BT Research Labs. Eye opening.
This is an engineering forum: to advocate this method, one should include some quantitative estimates.
Capacitive charging at KW level has been done, but with large plates. If you can get away with a small mating surfaces depends on the structural properties of high permittivity ceramics.
Numbers please, e.g. voltages, currents, components, x/y/z dimensions.
-
Then we had Rural Electification starting in 1935. The money came from .gov but the end result was private.
https://livingnewdeal.org/glossary/rural-electrification-administration-rea-1935
How could anybody afford a 10 mile overhead circuit just to light a lightbulb? They still had ice men bringing ice on a cart pulled by horses, what did they know about the Internet?
Side issue, I don't remember which relative but I do remember the ice man and the ice box in the kitchen.
Along came telephones. How could we ever afford to wire the country? We did it anyway...
Gas heating (and, earlier, gas lighting) with millions of miles of underground piping. How could we ever afford something like that? We did it anyway...
Eisenhower's interstate freeway system. How could we ever afford freeways across the country? We did it anyway. National security provided some of the incentive. And is wasn't terribly expensive at $114 billion ($558 billion today).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
Sure, these were large projects but they got done.
-
Zero surprise here! I only mentioned a (very) few places I could think of that I had been to :)
tom66 lists his location as "Cambridgeshire". Having lived there I would characterise it as
- a few small old bits
- lots of new bits
- lots of space, even in the old bits
- bloody boring, except for Ely and Cambridge centres
In other words it does not represent typical UK townscapes.
Given that, it isn't surprising if tom66 (and some people from the US on other fora) don't understand the impracticalities of their vision in "other places". Dismissing other people's completely valid experiences of "other places" does not reflect well on them or their position.
tom66 spent most of his student life in Leeds and used to park on a terraced street near Headingley Stadium with a small car. (Match days were not fun - do not move your car, you will not be able to park again.) tom66 also grew up in Hampshire in a small village with mostly street parking. Currently I do have a driveway (it was a non-negotiable requirement when buying the house) but probably not enough space for a second car without remodelling the drive somewhat so when we do have two electric cars we will just alternate charging requirements between these cars. The street I currently live on is alike many in semi-urban England - a mix of street parking and driveways, representative of the "25% of people*" not having access to off street parking. I look at my street as being pretty representative of most, a mix of detached, semi-detached, terraced and bungalows, mostly built before the 1950's before cars were very popular, but actually not that difficult to serve for charging requirements.
I do not currently live in Cambridgeshire, I moved to Northamptonshire six months ago. I would describe Northamptonshire as one of the most 'normal' counties I have lived in. It very much just looks like England.
I do not see street charging for EVs as unsolvable but like many problems it will need solutions appropriate to the area. Pavement gulleys (and sure, let's fine people who leave their cables out, I'm absolutely okay with that, but let's also fine people who park unnecessarily on the footway, too), pop up chargers, small posts, lamppost charging. and for those who have it, charging at home. Nothing about this is impractical, especially given there's at least 10-15 years before EVs become even a significant proportion of total vehicles on the road, and if you look at bigger cities the solutions are already appearing.
I'm also not sure exactly what your proposed alternative *is*, if your assumption is EVs cannot work for the vast majority due to charging headaches. We cannot continue to burn petrol, because climate change is a thing, most people do depend on their car so public transport alone won't pick up the slack, so we do have to figure this out. So, what, do you want to see hydrogen cars instead, because those have worse infrastructure requirements, and don't give 50-75% of people the ability to 'refuel' at home. There are so many more things about hydrogen which are more difficult than getting 2kW to a car to charge overnight, and let's not forget the poor efficiency of these vehicles making any "grid load" far worse for hydrogen if renewable energy would be used. It might be a solution for some applications, but for cars, it is not. Hybrid vehicles might make some sense in the short term if battery constraints existed, but so far those aren't rearing their ugly head, batteries have only fallen in cost every year since the Leaf. Note that Toyota's position of hybrids and hydrogen is in part due to their poor Li-Ion battery production capacity; something Tesla, the Germans, and the rest of the American auto industry all have a reasonable head start on, and a market China really stands to compete in, too.
*25% is better than the earlier 50% figure I'd quoted from the AA, but they were probably not including anything but driveways in their estimation. Driveways are the easiest problem to solve for EV charging, but off-road parking in a shared lot is probably the second easiest, though requires more negotiation between parties (LA, landlord/land owner/etc.)
-
Consider a much simpler problem: a machine to dispense car parking tickets for parking spaces on the road. Characteristics: above ground, one every 100m or so, low power. Given the proportion of those simple machines that are out of order when you try to buy a ticket, the reliability of roadside chargers is likely to be, um, less than acceptable.
Follow the money! In the case of the ticket dispenser, the money goes to the City and repair is controlled by City employees. They clearly don't give a damn at any level.
Hopefully, charging points will be owned by private enterprise and they have a profit motive for keeping them ALL working. After all, there is no return on their capital investment if they can't sell kWh.
The .gov should clear the roadblocks but the work/return should all be private enterprise.
We'll get into the discussion of 'red-lining' (crossing out entire neighborhoods) later but that's one of those incentive deals where .gov can actually make a contribution to grease the skids.
In a lot of ways, charging points could be a public utility. I wouldn't want to see it go that way because .gov has too much control over operations. Keeping the service private is probably the best way to go. We have all seen what happens with public utilities.
If there is money to be made, private industry will find it! Kind of like residential solar.
And there we have the core political philosophy. Government is inefficient and industry isn't.
While that may be true in the US, over here people are people whether they are employed by the government or autocrats. The main difference here is that the people can get rid of politicians but they can't get rid of autocrats. I believe Comcast is a poster child for that, but I'm sure there are others like patent troll companies and those that jack up the cost of old drugs by 10000% just because they can.
Over here we have been privatising public utilities since the 80s. Most of the results have been dismal, partly because the same people are doing the same job, partly because the autocrats siphon off money into their own pockets, and partly because that is what all private monopolies do.
-
A charger must have the ability to read a payment device, authenticate credit availibility, debit someone's account, and communicate that to the user.
Gas pumps already do this and have for a long time.
I would prefer to listen to the experience of someone used to working in/under roads than someone presuming it is easy. The last time I had that pleasure was, gulp, 42 years ago at BT Research Labs. Eye opening.
But it is already known how to do this. I don't know how but there are thousands of people who do. This is just a tiny detail. BTW, we did that at a company I worked for when we wanted to run an 8" chilled water line among 3 buildings without tearing up the lawn and buried utilities. Worked well!
-
A charger must have the ability to read a payment device, authenticate credit availibility, debit someone's account, and communicate that to the user.
Not necessarily with Plug and Charge (https://www.virta.global/blog/iso15118-plug-and-charge) which is something newer EVs should support. (It should have been there from day-zero, but there are alternatives like an in-cable smart meter (https://www.pveurope.eu/e-mobility/intelligent-charging-cable-mobile-electricity-metre), as used by Ubitricity, that make the charging port very simple indeed.)
-
A charger must have the ability to read a payment device, authenticate credit availibility, debit someone's account, and communicate that to the user.
Gas pumps already do this and have for a long time.
Yes and no. EV charging stations typically don't accept debit or credit cards. OTOH every manned / unmanned gas pump does. For some reason companies that run EV chargers deemed it necessary to invent their own cards which are not interchangeable.
-
Yes and no. EV charging stations typically don't accept debit or credit cards. OTOH every manned / unmanned gas pump does. For some reason companies that run EV chargers deemed it necessary to invent their own cards which are not interchangeable.
Err... how many have you used? Every new DC charger in the UK has to accept contactless payment (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/all-new-rapid-chargepoints-should-offer-card-payment-by-2020), and a good majority of older ones do already. (They don't require PINs so no keypad is needed, just a contactless reader.) This also appears to the way the EU is going (https://www.ctek.com/uk/news/ev-charging-and-e-roaming-in-europe). The vast majority don't bother with RFID cards any more because yeah, it is a hassle, they just work with mobile apps. These apps vary from "dreadful" (BP Pulse, really, just best avoided) to "really good" (PodPoint). Perhaps expecting an oil company to make good EV charging infrastructure is foolish.
The ideal outcome I would see for EV charging is it being an extension of your home electricity bill. The electrons are all the same after all. Just pay the service fee for the charger (per kWh or maybe, for DC charging, a fixed fee) and you get whatever rate your supplier negotiated for your usage. And the service fees should be fixed to some reasonable rate covering normal wear and tear of the charging equipment.
-
A charger must have the ability to read a payment device
At the point you're filling the entire country with chargers, it's far cheaper to just give people without a mobile phone one with a free sim, which can only be used to access a payment portal. App can have a bluetooth mode with an in-app reserve for when mobile data is down.
Regardless of any other aspect of the design, it will massively simplify the charger.
Numbers please, e.g. voltages, currents, components, x/y/z dimensions.
Papers for existing prototype systems you can look up yourself.
Lets say a 4 plate system with plates 10x10cm. Then with 2 mm of 100x relative permittivity insulator the series capacitance would be around 2 nF. At 100 kHz that's an impedance of 5k. Lets assume simple impedance matched resistive load to get some ballpark figure, 1800V RMS required for 3 kW. Ballpark doable with a high permittivity insulator, without it not so much.
-
A charger must have the ability to read a payment device, authenticate credit availibility, debit someone's account, and communicate that to the user.
Gas pumps already do this and have for a long time.
Yes and no. EV charging stations typically don't accept debit or credit cards. OTOH every manned / unmanned gas pump does. For some reason companies that run EV chargers deemed it necessary to invent their own cards which are not interchangeable.
Rapid chargers mostly do these days. AC chargers not usually, as the cost is disproportionate.
-
Again in the US, the Federal Government as part of its infrastructure program will require rationalization of payments at charging stations, specifically to accept normal credit/debit cards and not require a mobile-phone app.
(From same newspaper article about negotiations with Tesla about opening their charging stations to other makes of EV.)
-
European market is big enough not to have to worry about that.
-
A charger must have the ability to read a payment device
At the point you're filling the entire country with chargers, it's far cheaper to just give people without a mobile phone one with a free sim, which can only be used to access a payment portal.
Regardless of any other aspect of the design, it will massively simplify the charger.
Numbers please, e.g. voltages, currents, components, x/y/z dimensions.
Papers for existing prototype systems you can look up yourself.
Lets say a 4 plate system with plates 10x10cm. Then with 2 mm of 100x relative permittivity insulator the series capacitance would be around 2 nF. At 100 kHz that's an impedance of 5k. Lets assume simple impedance matched resistive load to get some ballpark figure, 1800V RMS required for 3 kW. Ballpark doable with a high permittivity insulator, without it not so much.
1800 V rms across 2 mm of air is about (1250 V peak)/mm, which is OK for dry air (3 kV/mm).
However, if you have 2 mm of high-k ceramic and a thin air gap, the E field in the air gap is multiplied by the dielectric constant of the ceramic (maybe 10?).
This a usual problem in high-voltage engineering--avoiding air gaps and bubbles with dielectric insulators.
-
Problem is converting AC electricity to 100kHz then transmitting it across a gap then rectifying it back into DC to charge the battery will add losses. Presumably you could modulate the generating side to track the battery voltage, but if not, include a DC-DC converter in that with further losses. Also you will need bidirectional comms.
So the convenience your solution offers needs to be >> than a simple type2 cable, for which the connector and cable hardware costs under 100 euros in bulk.
-
It's not for convenience, it's to be able to put the charging connector on the curb and take up no room.
I'm not saying it's _the_ solution, I'm just saying in high density older European towns every solution to curb side charging has a ton of problems. The simple solution of just putting a charging pole every 6 meters will not work, not because of material cost but simply because it will make the street completely unusable. Every not simple solution is pretty far out there.
PS. all the pop up charger test runs don't seem to have UI either, so presumably all app based. But even popup chargers will take up a ton of extra space on the curb, unless there's so many of them they can pop up in between cars.
-
A charger must have the ability to read a payment device, authenticate credit availibility, debit someone's account, and communicate that to the user.
Gas pumps already do this and have for a long time.
There are indeed tens of thousands in nice roomy dry above ground cabinets.
That's very different to tens of millions buried below ground in cramped and wet holes.
I would prefer to listen to the experience of someone used to working in/under roads than someone presuming it is easy. The last time I had that pleasure was, gulp, 42 years ago at BT Research Labs. Eye opening.
But it is already known how to do this. I don't know how but there are thousands of people who do. This is just a tiny detail. BTW, we did that at a company I worked for when we wanted to run an 8" chilled water line among 3 buildings without tearing up the lawn and buried utilities. Worked well!
My point remains.
-
Yes and no. EV charging stations typically don't accept debit or credit cards. OTOH every manned / unmanned gas pump does. For some reason companies that run EV chargers deemed it necessary to invent their own cards which are not interchangeable.
Err... how many have you used? Every new DC charger in the UK has to accept contactless payment (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/all-new-rapid-chargepoints-should-offer-card-payment-by-2020), and a good majority of older ones do already. (They don't require PINs so no keypad is needed, just a contactless reader.) This also appears to the way the EU is going (https://www.ctek.com/uk/news/ev-charging-and-e-roaming-in-europe). The vast majority don't bother with RFID cards any more because yeah, it is a hassle, they just work with mobile apps. These apps vary from "dreadful" (BP Pulse, really, just best avoided) to "really good" (PodPoint). Perhaps expecting an oil company to make good EV charging infrastructure is foolish.
The ideal outcome I would see for EV charging is it being an extension of your home electricity bill. The electrons are all the same after all. Just pay the service fee for the charger (per kWh or maybe, for DC charging, a fixed fee) and you get whatever rate your supplier negotiated for your usage. And the service fees should be fixed to some reasonable rate covering normal wear and tear of the charging equipment.
Excellent. I'll charge my car from my neighbour's charging point.
-
A charger must have the ability to read a payment device
At the point you're filling the entire country with chargers, it's far cheaper to just give people without a mobile phone one with a free sim, which can only be used to access a payment portal. App can have a bluetooth mode with an in-app reserve for when mobile data is down.
Regardless of any other aspect of the design, it will massively simplify the charger.
Numbers please, e.g. voltages, currents, components, x/y/z dimensions.
Papers for existing prototype systems you can look up yourself.
It is your assertion, so presumably you have knowledge of the existing literature and products. Demonstrate that knowledge.
Lets say a 4 plate system with plates 10x10cm. Then with 2 mm of 100x relative permittivity insulator the series capacitance would be around 2 nF. At 100 kHz that's an impedance of 5k. Lets assume simple impedance matched resistive load to get some ballpark figure, 1800V RMS required for 3 kW. Ballpark doable with a high permittivity insulator, without it not so much.
1.8kV near water (and in water when something fractures) is not something to leave lying in pavements. Especially if there is only a thin shatterable ceramic between people and the electrode.
At 100kHz/3kW there will be significant conversion inefficiencies from 50Hz (or DC). Just when you need water to cool such a converter, there will be a drought.
The difference between theory and practice is that in theory there is no difference, whereas in practice there is.
So, let's see the specs of the prototypes, and how well they performed outside the lab.
-
It's not for convenience, it's to be able to put the charging connector on the curb and take up no room.
I'm not saying it's _the_ solution, I'm just saying in high density older European towns every solution to curb side charging has a ton of problems. The simple solution of just putting a charging pole every 6 meters will not work, not because of material cost but simply because it will make the street completely unusable. Every not simple solution is pretty far out there.
PS. all the pop up charger test runs don't seem to have UI either, so presumably all app based. But even popup chargers will take up a ton of extra space on the curb, unless there's so many of them they can pop up in between cars.
I'm glad someone acknowledges the physical impracticality of solutions dreamed up by others :)
If something pops up between cars, then sooner rather than later it either won't pop up or will pop up under cars!
-
Zero surprise here! I only mentioned a (very) few places I could think of that I had been to :)
tom66 lists his location as "Cambridgeshire". Having lived there I would characterise it as
- a few small old bits
- lots of new bits
- lots of space, even in the old bits
- bloody boring, except for Ely and Cambridge centres
In other words it does not represent typical UK townscapes.
Given that, it isn't surprising if tom66 (and some people from the US on other fora) don't understand the impracticalities of their vision in "other places". Dismissing other people's completely valid experiences of "other places" does not reflect well on them or their position.
tom66 spent most of his student life in Leeds and used to park on a terraced street near Headingley Stadium with a small car. (Match days were not fun - do not move your car, you will not be able to park again.) tom66 also grew up in Hampshire in a small village with mostly street parking. Currently I do have a driveway (it was a non-negotiable requirement when buying the house) but probably not enough space for a second car without remodelling the drive somewhat so when we do have two electric cars we will just alternate charging requirements between these cars. The street I currently live on is alike many in semi-urban England - a mix of street parking and driveways, representative of the "25% of people*" not having access to off street parking. I look at my street as being pretty representative of most, a mix of detached, semi-detached, terraced and bungalows, mostly built before the 1950's before cars were very popular, but actually not that difficult to serve for charging requirements.
I do not currently live in Cambridgeshire, I moved to Northamptonshire six months ago. I would describe Northamptonshire as one of the most 'normal' counties I have lived in. It very much just looks like England.
In that case I find it remarkable (but not surprising) that you propose schemes that aren't practical in places that are familiar to you.
I do not see street charging for EVs as unsolvable but like many problems it will need solutions appropriate to the area. Pavement gulleys (and sure, let's fine people who leave their cables out, I'm absolutely okay with that, but let's also fine people who park unnecessarily on the footway, too),
That's a fail right there. If the police and courts don't have the time to fine people that obstruct pavements, then why do think they will have time to fine people that leave trip/grounding hazards across pavements?!
Wake up and smell the coffee!
pop up chargers, small posts, lamppost charging. and for those who have it, charging at home. Nothing about this is impractical, especially given there's at least 10-15 years before EVs become even a significant proportion of total vehicles on the road, and if you look at bigger cities the solutions are already appearing.
The impracticalities have been stated, and some others on this forum recognise them. Horses, water, drink.
I'm also not sure exactly what your proposed alternative *is*, if your assumption is EVs cannot work for the vast majority due to charging headaches. We cannot continue to burn petrol, because climate change is a thing, ...
And there's the failure of your critical thinking analysis.
You incorrectly presume I don't support EVs.
You incorrectly presume I have a solution to intractable problems.
And you want me to respond to strawman arguments. Not going to happen.
most people do depend on their car so public transport alone won't pick up the slack, so we do have to figure this out. So, what, do you want to see ...
What do I want to see?...
Like MacKay, I don't care which solutions are adopted, provided they add up and work in practice.
I get sick and tired of people thinking (I use that term loosely) that because the easy 10% can be cherry-picked, then that means the remaining 90% is solvable.
I also get sick and tired of people finding it acceptable to leave 10% (?25%?, whatever) of people severely disadvantaged. I know "I'm all right Jack" libertarianism is fashionable, but I find it loathesome.
*25% is better than the earlier 50% figure I'd quoted from the AA, but they were probably not including anything but driveways in their estimation. Driveways are the easiest problem to solve for EV charging, but off-road parking in a shared lot is probably the second easiest, though requires more negotiation between parties (LA, landlord/land owner/etc.)
Off-road parking is not a problem w.r.t. installing chargers - it is low-hanging fruit that will be cherry-picked.
Powering it is less easy, e.g. in West London where the grid infrastructure is already insufficient for building new housing developments. Upgrading that distributed grid infrastructure is a major challenge, very expensive and very disruptive.
-
I'm glad someone acknowledges the physical impracticality of solutions dreamed up by others :)
I would go further than impractical, I'd say the simple solutions are politically impossible on a lot of streets. Which for discussion is interesting since to paraphrase Arthur Conan Doyle, when the simple is impossible ... you are left with solutions which are merely improbable.
Within the realm of improbable a lot is still possible, you could have charging cables on a guide cable between lamp post (more likely acceptable than attaching to buildings). You could have inductive/capacitive charging below the cars. You could have highly robust connectors at ground level near the curb at high enough density you can usually find one between cars.
-
It's not for convenience, it's to be able to put the charging connector on the curb and take up no room.
I'm not saying it's _the_ solution, I'm just saying in high density older European towns every solution to curb side charging has a ton of problems. The simple solution of just putting a charging pole every 6 meters will not work, not because of material cost but simply because it will make the street completely unusable. Every not simple solution is pretty far out there.
The problem is even simpler than that: in some cities planning committees won't allow to put that many charging poles in a street anyway.
-
The problem is even simpler than that: in some cities planning committees won't allow to put that many charging poles in a street anyway.
Hardly surprising, few have any idea what they are doing let alone anything to do with EV technology let alone it might be just a short-lived fad.
-
In that case I find it remarkable (but not surprising) that you propose schemes that aren't practical in places that are familiar to you.
Nope. I don't find it remarkable at all, because unlike you, I don't think the present day situation will stand still. 5-6 years ago the street I frequently visited in south London had no EV charging infrastructure. (Just an ordinary suburban street in S. Norwood.) Now it has 8 lamppost chargers, two 'normal' 7kW charging units (2 ports each), and there's a 100kW DC charger in the centre of the town.
That's a fail right there. If the police and courts don't have the time to fine people that obstruct pavements, then why do think they will have time to fine people that leave trip/grounding hazards across pavements?!
They don't fine people that park on the pavement (outside of London) because it is not usually illegal to park on the pavement. It is one of those weird laws where it's illegal to drive on the pavement (except to access a property via a drive or similar), but not illegal to park on a pavement.
Try doing that in London though, I dare you. In some areas, you have "no verge parking" signs, e.g. around parts of Bedford near me, and I have seen one or two people issued tickets.
You incorrectly presume I don't support EVs.
You're right, I did incorrectly presume that, because you don't bloody well make your opinion on the matter clear. I'm happy that you've seen that we will need to electrify transport.
I also get sick and tired of people finding it acceptable to leave 10% (?25%?, whatever) of people severely disadvantaged. I know "I'm all right Jack" libertarianism is fashionable, but I find it loathesome.
When have I said it's okay to leave X% of people behind? I said, let's solve the easy problems first, the people with driveways and off-road parking. Almost everyone with a driveway could be driving an EV by next year if they wanted to, if the economics were there. Then as these users drive the demand for street charging, because, they will want to use it now and then, that will follow pretty quickly and the economic case makes a lot more sense for private companies to install it. Council budgets are too strapped dealing with social care in this country to be rolling out huge infrastructure projects, at least for the time being, so it will probably have to be private in some sense. Most of London's street charging infrastructure is private.
Powering it is less easy, e.g. in West London where the grid infrastructure is already insufficient for building new housing developments. Upgrading that distributed grid infrastructure is a major challenge, very expensive and very disruptive.
We may need to upgrade the local grid in some areas, but you keep pointing to the West London example as if it represents a problem that exists everywhere. And upgrading a local grid isn't anything more than roadworks to change cables, and replacing transformers. It's work, sure, and power might need to be out for a few hours here and there, but it's not an unworkable disaster like you claim. The biggest issue is that the work that is needed could take longer than necessary because the current planning schemes create problems for companies installing new lines. In MacKay's book there's a quote about someone living near where the power to the London Array windfarm came in, complaining about the sight of the cables. This kind of NIMBYism besets all infrastructure, and it's pervasive in this country. And, National Grid want a new 400kV line from north to south, but they're going to put it in the ocean because then the NIMBYs can't object. Sigh.
The local DNO around here has been approving EV charging points with at most a week's delay, and a couple of people even have two charging points and solar on their home. So there's clearly not an imminent capacity crunch. And on the face of it, that's actually reasonably obvious. If you take that 1-in-7 charging figure I mentioned, you can assume each EV charges an average load of 1kW a night. Do you think that the local grid can cope with 1kW per home? Cooking alone in an electric oven is that much... or an electric shower in the morning. (DNO's hate electric showers, by the way.)
Whatever the matter you think there is with the local grid is, I don't see that being what holds EV's back. It's definitely the charging infrastructure, the posts and charging units themselves, rather than the power distribution, and yes, it is difficult.
-
I'm glad someone acknowledges the physical impracticality of solutions dreamed up by others :)
I would go further than impractical, I'd say the simple solutions are politically impossible on a lot of streets. Which for discussion is interesting since to paraphrase Arthur Conan Doyle, when the simple is impossible ... you are left with solutions which are merely improbable.
I loathe that Sherlock saying. Too often it is used along these lines: it isn't a bird, it isn't a plane, it isn't a meteor, (I can't think of anything else), therefore it must be an extraterrestrial spacecraft.
Within the realm of improbable a lot is still possible, you could have charging cables on a guide cable between lamp post (more likely acceptable than attaching to buildings). You could have inductive/capacitive charging below the cars. You could have highly robust connectors at ground level near the curb at high enough density you can usually find one between cars.
I refer you to my previous indication of the serious real life problems I have personally had to deal with regarding trailing cables.
I'm still waiting for you to outline a practical capacitative charger, or give a pointer to a suitable "highly robust connector". As most people here know, when a piece of electronic equipment stops working you, the first two things you check are whether the power is on and correct, and whether the connectors are working.
-
The Type2 connector, as used for virtually every EV today, is robust. You can run over it with a car and it will still work. The connectors have weatherproof covers which keep water and most detritus out of them. I've been using my home EV charger for almost 5 years now and there's no issue with the connectors on either end, and that gets cycled daily.
-
In that case I find it remarkable (but not surprising) that you propose schemes that aren't practical in places that are familiar to you.
Nope. I don't find it remarkable at all, because unlike you, I don't think the present day situation will stand still. 5-6 years ago the street I frequently visited in south London had no EV charging infrastructure. (Just an ordinary suburban street in S. Norwood.) Now it has 8 lamppost chargers, two 'normal' 7kW charging units (2 ports each), and there's a 100kW DC charger in the centre of the town.
Ordinary suburban streets are ones that can be cherrypicked. That's insufficient for the many very difficult cases that I have outlined.
It is easy to helicopter in some prototype infrastructure. What matters is whether the infrastructure works and continues to work.
At the risk of introducing an analogy that will generate more heat than light... If you are going to go hiking and know you have to cross a river in a remote location, there's no point in claiming the hike will be possible because it is easy to walk until you get to the river. You have to be able to say how you will cross the river.
You incorrectly presume I don't support EVs.
You're right, I did incorrectly presume that, because you don't bloody well make your opinion on the matter clear. I'm happy that you've seen that we will need to electrify transport.
That opinion was irrelevant to the difficult points I raise. Analogy: if I ask how you are going to cross that river, the ability to walk to the river is irrelevant.
I also get sick and tired of people finding it acceptable to leave 10% (?25%?, whatever) of people severely disadvantaged. I know "I'm all right Jack" libertarianism is fashionable, but I find it loathesome.
When have I said it's okay to leave X% of people behind?
It is the consequence of your statements and those of politicians issuing blanket bans on ICEs. Claiming otherwise doesn't change the consequences.
I said, let's solve the easy problems first, the people with driveways and off-road parking. Almost everyone with a driveway could be driving an EV by next year if they wanted to, if the economics were there. Then as these users drive the demand for street charging, because, they will want to use it now and then, that will follow pretty quickly and the economic case makes a lot more sense for private companies to install it. Council budgets are too strapped dealing with social care in this country to be rolling out huge infrastructure projects, at least for the time being, so it will probably have to be private in some sense. Most of London's street charging infrastructure is private.
Powering it is less easy, e.g. in West London where the grid infrastructure is already insufficient for building new housing developments. Upgrading that distributed grid infrastructure is a major challenge, very expensive and very disruptive.
We may need to upgrade the local grid in some areas, but you keep pointing to the West London example as if it represents a problem that exists everywhere.
West London is the existing and highly visible example that has been "solved" by political fiat and denial.
There will be many more all over th country.
And upgrading a local grid isn't anything more than roadworks to change cables, and replacing transformers. It's work, sure, and power might need to be out for a few hours here and there, but it's not an unworkable disaster like you claim.
They are doing something similar on an A road in a suburb near me. It is causing major disruption and will last 2 years. Many complaints from all quarters, to no avail.
Your presumptions are grossly unrealistic.
Whatever the matter you think there is with the local grid is, I don't see that being what holds EV's back. It's definitely the charging infrastructure, the posts and charging units themselves, rather than the power distribution, and yes, it is difficult.
I look at what is currently happening, not what I might think ought to be the case.
Both issues have to be addressed and solved.
-
The Type2 connector, as used for virtually every EV today, is robust. You can run over it with a car and it will still work. The connectors have weatherproof covers which keep water and most detritus out of them. I've been using my home EV charger for almost 5 years now and there's no issue with the connectors on either end, and that gets cycled daily.
I have no reason to doubt that experience, and have never questioned it.
But it is in a very different location with very different constraints and requirements.
The other locations are far more challenging and will require very different solutions, just as internal 13A sockets are very different to those mounted outside.
-
The Type2 connector, as used for virtually every EV today, is robust. You can run over it with a car and it will still work. The connectors have weatherproof covers which keep water and most detritus out of them. I've been using my home EV charger for almost 5 years now and there's no issue with the connectors on either end, and that gets cycled daily.
I've seen it blow up a Tesla's internal charger 2x (tesla didn't fix it with warranty, owners fault of course), tripping an entire office's circuit breaker. Probably contact resistance went up.
I know this is anecdotal.
-
Being able to charge at home is not a pass/fail for EV transportation. If you can charge at home, the viability of EV becomes a no-brainer. If you can't, most of the time there is an equally suitable solution available (or available in the nearby future). If you go to the office every day, those office will have charging points. I would assume you go to the supermarket from time to time. Perfect place for chargers. In the time it takes you to pick up some groceries, you can add 100km or so to the tank. Etc etc.
-
The Type2 connector, as used for virtually every EV today, is robust. You can run over it with a car and it will still work. The connectors have weatherproof covers which keep water and most detritus out of them. I've been using my home EV charger for almost 5 years now and there's no issue with the connectors on either end, and that gets cycled daily.
I've seen it blow up a Tesla's internal charger 2x (tesla didn't fix it with warranty, owners fault of course), tripping an entire office's circuit breaker. Probably contact resistance went up.
I know this is anecdotal.
Ouch!
Old engineering maxim directly relevant to this topic: "it is impossible to make something foolproof because fools are so damn ingenious".
Then malice has to be added to the equation. Then other "suboptimum" human behaviours found in the wild.
Tesla/Musk has a habit of denying there is any problem with their product. Today's example: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60230072 (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60230072) . Unfortunately there are too many others.
Fortunately there are more responsible manufacturers, e.g. VW which is apparently tipped to become a major supplier of BEVs. Let's hope they've learned lessons from "dieselgate", as Ford did from Pinto.
-
I've seen it blow up a Tesla's internal charger 2x (tesla didn't fix it with warranty, owners fault of course), tripping an entire office's circuit breaker. Probably contact resistance went up.
I know this is anecdotal.
Eh? How would increased contact resistance 'blow up' the onboard charger? From the charger's perspective, all it sees is a lower supply voltage, and it acts as a constant current sink... so it's hard to see how that could really damage anything. Eventually it might trip the AFCI algorithm if the voltage at the charger input varies too much, but that should only suspend that charging session.
I suppose in the worst case if the socket temperature sensor failed *and* you had high resistance contacts you could melt the socket, requiring replacement of both socket and cable. However, I know at least on my car "socket temperature sensor implausible" is a fault code, which when set limits charging current to the minimum if it is active (a pain, but at least you can charge in an emergency, if not a bit slowly). I would be quite surprised if this is not common on all EVs. Tesla has done a lot to improve safety of charging, including the AFCI algorithm which was added as a safety feature after some people reported poor sockets arcing and burning contacts. The microcontroller in the charger observes the AC line voltage and backs the current off if it detects possible arcing.
-
I would assume you go to the supermarket from time to time. Perfect place for chargers. In the time it takes you to pick up some groceries, you can add 100km or so to the tank. Etc etc.
Our local large supermarket has four spaces with chargers. So let's assume they are quick on their feet and take only 15 mins to shop. That's 16 cars per hour or 284/day (but actually less, because some will turn up, not find a slot and go home without charging). I think there needs to be HUGE rollout at every supermarket for this to make a dent. Eventually that might happen, but if you're a current early adopter it's a future potential, not something to rely on this year or next.
If you go to the office every day, those office will have charging points.
What, for every employee that has a car? Have you seen the size of some office car parks? It works now but the charging stations need to be at least level, if not a step ahead, of EV ownership.
Of course, not every EV will need to be charged at the office or shops since many can do it at home, but the massive lack of charge points I see doesn't encourage me to rely on away-from-home charging.
-
I would assume you go to the supermarket from time to time. Perfect place for chargers. In the time it takes you to pick up some groceries, you can add 100km or so to the tank. Etc etc.
Our local large supermarket has four spaces with chargers.
Thats not the point. The question is: how many parking spaces are there over there. That's your potential capacity.
If you go to the office every day, those office will have charging points.
What, for every employee that has a car?
[/quote]
Not at all. Some will charge at home or elsewhere. But even then, let's assume they all have to charge at the office. With a range of 400km and most people driving less (or much less) than 100km a day, you would need 1/4 or less of your spaces electrified.
Is that a lot of work? Cost? Obviously. But I dont see why that would be insurmountable.
-
Thats not the point. The question is: how many parking spaces are there over there. That's your potential capacity.
Exactly. Large scale charging infrastructure is already a thing. See this airport for instance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvTxH72e7nM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvTxH72e7nM)
If every charger at 7kW is operating simultaneously, it pulls 5MW from the grid. I presume there's some kind of load balancing to keep the grid connection from being really silly, although it's not impossible the car park does have a 5MW supply.
EVs already support dynamic load adaptation: if the PWM carrier changes during charging, the car must reduce its charge current within 10 seconds (in practice it's instantaneous, because it's a computer-controlled SMPS.)
BTW: Average car parking space costs about £15,000 to construct on a surface-level car park. A multistorey is about £50,000. So a £500 EV charger is peanuts in comparison.
-
The problem is even simpler than that: in some cities planning committees won't allow to put that many charging poles in a street anyway.
If they are forced to by central government there will be little for it.
I guess free standing swing arms like Chargearm (https://chargearm.com/en/) are the road of least resistance. Chargebridge (https://www.nodum.co.uk/) is cute in that the horizontal part can retract into the vertical, but a bit over-engineered. Does it really matter that it's less obtrusive when a quarter of the cars on the street are connected at any one time any way? I do like the side-emitting fiber along the cable though.
Put the poles right up at the edge of the sidewalk so private property is less of a concern, won't stop people from suing but less likely they'll win. Charger electronics either below the pavement or at the top of the pole so it doesn't take up extra space. Use right angle connectors so the cable can go straight up from the side of the car. Will probably need a retractable cable with all the mechanical failure it can cause, I don't really see a way to avoid it, it needs to be taut so it's not in the way of pedestrians.
-
poles with cables hanging from them lining the streets,how long before the
drunks kids start attempting tarzan impressions ?
-
poles with cables hanging from them lining the streets,how long before the drunks kids start attempting tarzan impressions ?
Design the horizontal arm to break way in an easily repaired/reset way? Also do a camera flash when it happens.
-
I guess free standing swing arms like Chargearm are the road of least resistance. Chargebridge is cute in that the horizontal part can retract into the vertical, but a bit over-engineered.
I was thinking something along those lines (but not as neat) earlier when perusing the narrow pavement threadlet. Certainly better than trailing cables over the sidewalk, and cheaper than under. Easier to upgrade as technology moves on, too.
-
poles with cables hanging from them lining the streets,how long before the drunks kids start attempting tarzan impressions ?
At least that sounds playful. A much bigger issue is pure vandalism.
-
poles with cables hanging from them lining the streets,how long before the drunks kids start attempting tarzan impressions ?
Design the horizontal arm to break way in an easily repaired/reset way? Also do a camera flash when it happens.
It ain't gonna work that way. Nearby they built a new bridge over a wide piece of water. It has signs saying not to dive from the bridge but guess what happens when the weather is nice...
The whole problem with curb side charging is that A) it is expensive to install and maintain and B) it will be obsolete within 10 to 20 years either due to batteries getting better and/or hydrogen taking over. It is an utter waste of money either way. And think about introduction of new plugs. Chademo is being phased out rapidly (leaving people with a 'Chademo' BEV with a car that can only be used locally). At home charging is just a crutch to bridge the shortcomings of the current crop of BEVs. It will go away.
-
Even if you could build 5-10 MW chargers to get electricity into car batteries nearly as fast as petrol into a tank, those are going to require batteries all of their own just to handle the huge surge power. Every former petrol station would have to become a grid storage site, just to offset some of the cost.
The charging plugs will probably need a water connection too.
-
The problem is even simpler than that: in some cities planning committees won't allow to put that many charging poles in a street anyway.
The people of a town usually elect that local government, so if charging becomes an issue, they will change their opinion pretty quickly.
The bigger barriers are going to be heritage areas where the solutions will need to blend in as well as possible (but then cars don't exactly blend in with a 19th century village and that doesn't seem to be a big problem, so who knows.)
-
poles with cables hanging from them lining the streets,how long before the drunks kids start attempting tarzan impressions ?
Design the horizontal arm to break way in an easily repaired/reset way? Also do a camera flash when it happens.
Benefactors in balaclavas will steal the copper from the cables.
-
The problem is even simpler than that: in some cities planning committees won't allow to put that many charging poles in a street anyway.
The people of a town usually elect that local government, so if charging becomes an issue, they will change their opinion pretty quickly.
Elections are rarely single-issue local events.
Most people vote tribally based on whether they like the government do jour.
That could be avoided if referendums are commonplace, but the chances of that happening here are zero after the Brexit fiasco.
The bigger barriers are going to be heritage areas where the solutions will need to blend in as well as possible (but then cars don't exactly blend in with a 19th century village and that doesn't seem to be a big problem, so who knows.)
As someone who has had to deal with a grade II listed house in a conservation area, that is indeed a major impediment.
Provided you can observe from a distance, it is always entertaining when one branch of the government mandates X and another mandates not-X. Typically each case is adjudicated by the courts - eventually.
-
Elections are rarely single-issue local events.
Most people vote tribally based on whether they like the government do jour.
That could be avoided if referendums are commonplace, but the chances of that happening here are zero after the Brexit fiasco.
We must have different perspectives. Local elections are very much the opposite of governmental elections. Councillors are not elected so often on their party rosette but what they promise to their constituents and if it's a small area, how favourable they are there. That's why you always have to tread carefully trying to read general election sentiment on the odd council by-election.
Local government by-n-large is a shitshow in this country but that's more because they have too much authority over the things they shouldn't have anything to do with and the people involved often seem to be bloody awful (see, "Handforth"). So, whether the council will be able to change policy is more debatable, but at least they shouldn't be able to step in the way of government doing something about charging infrastructure, should a national policy be announced. (Though I hope to god it's nothing like those awful "GB Design" charging points they announced last year. Euck.)
-
Elections are rarely single-issue local events.
Most people vote tribally based on whether they like the government do jour.
That could be avoided if referendums are commonplace, but the chances of that happening here are zero after the Brexit fiasco.
We must have different perspectives. Local elections are very much the opposite of governmental elections. Councillors are not elected so often on their party rosette but what they promise to their constituents and if it's a small area, how favourable they are there. That's why you always have to tread carefully trying to read general election sentiment on the odd council by-election.
Local government by-n-large is a shitshow in this country but that's more because they have too much authority over the things they shouldn't have anything to do with and the people involved often seem to be bloody awful (see, "Handforth"). So, whether the council will be able to change policy is more debatable, but at least they shouldn't be able to step in the way of government doing something about charging infrastructure, should a national policy be announced. (Though I hope to god it's nothing like those awful "GB Design" charging points they announced last year. Euck.)
Most voters don't read, and do vote based on the rosette. Frequently, as with Brexit, there is a significant degree of voting against whichever set of rosettes is in Westminster.
Designs, in whatever sphere, often end up not as the best but as what no participant deems unacceptable. So expect more suboptimal designs and very expensive of the not-so-smart smart electricity meter fiasco.
Amateurs, dreamers, and prosyletisers think about how things work. Engineers and professionals that have to get and keep things working think about how things fail.
Good intentions and wishful thinking are insufficient.
-
Now they go VROOOOOOM!!!!!
https://www.foxnews.com/auto/hear-electric-dodge-charger-daytonas-exhaust-muscular-sound (https://www.foxnews.com/auto/hear-electric-dodge-charger-daytonas-exhaust-muscular-sound)
-
Even if you could build 5-10 MW chargers to get electricity into car batteries nearly as fast as petrol into a tank, those are going to require batteries all of their own just to handle the huge surge power. Every former petrol station would have to become a grid storage site, just to offset some of the cost.
The charging plugs will probably need a water connection too.
High power DC chargers already have liquid cooling of the cable and plug
-
Even if you could build 5-10 MW chargers to get electricity into car batteries nearly as fast as petrol into a tank, those are going to require batteries all of their own just to handle the huge surge power. Every former petrol station would have to become a grid storage site, just to offset some of the cost.
Which is where hydrogen comes in... It doesn't have all these problems. Large scale or small scale charging, in the end the energy needs to be stored in bulk somewhere.
The charging plugs will probably need a water connection too.
That exists already.
-
Now they go VROOOOOOM!!!!!
https://www.foxnews.com/auto/hear-electric-dodge-charger-daytonas-exhaust-muscular-sound (https://www.foxnews.com/auto/hear-electric-dodge-charger-daytonas-exhaust-muscular-sound)
When I first got my hybrid, I had read it has a "soundaktor" function when in the sport mode, which adds internal cabin noise to make the engine sound beefier than the tiny 1.4L it really is.
I thought I'd hate it and disconnect the wiring harness by the next day, but I actually quite like it.
It's weird. Psychologically we expect noise from a vehicle travelling fast. I do like the silent acceleration in electric mode, but I also don't hate the noise inside the cabin, under slightly sporty driving conditions.
Maybe it'll get boring eventually. My next car will almost certainly not have it as a function.
-
Why would you like to have extra noise in the cabin? To me the idea is insane. Sound doesn't make a car go faster. My previous car had a rather loud diesel engine. I installed over 25 sqm of thick, sound proofing rubber mats in it to lower the noise a bit. I took the entire interior + lining out and put the rubber mats underneath.
-
In the past there were complaints of steam vehicles being too quiet and then in the 60's the Chrysler turbine sounded like a "Vacuum Cleaner"
When we were developing electric vehicles at GM in the 1980's the safety concern of a quiet vehicle was also addressed as a problem.
-
Why would you like to have extra noise in the cabin? To me the idea is insane. Sound doesn't make a car go faster. My previous car had a rather loud diesel engine. I installed over 25 sqm of thick, sound proofing rubber mats in it to lower the noise a bit. I took the entire interior + lining out and put the rubber mats underneath.
Why do motorcyclists insist on loud noise from their machines? It's a matter of taste.
However, there are regulations requiring audible sounds outside the vehicle to warn pedestrians of its approach.
US regulation for hybrid and electric vehicles (2022):
"To protect pedestrians and other road users, FMVSS No. 141 requires HEVs to emit a pedestrian alert sound while operating in certain conditions.
The alert sound on a given vehicle is allowed to change with vehicle operating speed or direction—the standard defines five different operating conditions: stationary in neutral or forward gear and with constant forward speed less than 10 km/h; reverse; and moving at constant forward speed from 10 km/h up to but not including 20 km/h, from 20 km/h up to 30 km/h, and at or just above 30 km/h. Beyond that speed, alert sounds are no longer required by FMVSS No. 141 as other sounds such as tires and airflow produce enough sound to make the vehicle detectable."
-
Why would you like to have extra noise in the cabin? To me the idea is insane. Sound doesn't make a car go faster. My previous car had a rather loud diesel engine. I installed over 25 sqm of thick, sound proofing rubber mats in it to lower the noise a bit. I took the entire interior + lining out and put the rubber mats underneath.
I (used to) use engine noise subliminally as a speedometer, particularly to detect small changes in speed.
In another vehicle I've used, the air noise was the equivalent of the constant beeps from radiation monitors in Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant. If either disappear, you rapidly become very alert and find out why :)
-
Why would you like to have extra noise in the cabin? To me the idea is insane. Sound doesn't make a car go faster. My previous car had a rather loud diesel engine. I installed over 25 sqm of thick, sound proofing rubber mats in it to lower the noise a bit. I took the entire interior + lining out and put the rubber mats underneath.
Why do motorcyclists insist on loud noise from their machines? It's a matter of taste.
However, there are regulations requiring audible sounds outside the vehicle to warn pedestrians of its approach.
US regulation for hybrid and electric vehicles (2022):
But those relate to outside sounds. I don't want to have sounds inside the car except for the radio or having a conversation with a passenger. Sure I had a rattle on the wheels of my bike when I was 8 years old but I have outgrown that quickly.
-
Why would you like to have extra noise in the cabin? To me the idea is insane. Sound doesn't make a car go faster. My previous car had a rather loud diesel engine. I installed over 25 sqm of thick, sound proofing rubber mats in it to lower the noise a bit. I took the entire interior + lining out and put the rubber mats underneath.
Why do motorcyclists insist on loud noise from their machines? It's a matter of taste.
However, there are regulations requiring audible sounds outside the vehicle to warn pedestrians of its approach.
US regulation for hybrid and electric vehicles (2022):
But those relate to outside sounds. I don't want to have sounds inside the car except for the radio or having a conversation with a passenger. Sure I had a rattle on the wheels of my bike when I was 8 years old but I have outgrown that quickly.
Outside sounds are a matter of regulation.
Inside sounds are a matter of taste.
Have you watched a child play with a toy car? They always make car noises while pushing it along the floor.
Motorcycles are both inside and outside.
Personally, I prefer quiet, with minimal noise from my car, passing motorcycles, and subwoofers from the pickup truck next to me at the traffic light.
Since my modestly-priced car has non-minimal cabin noise, I did not buy an expensive audio system to listen to classical music.
-
High power DC chargers already have liquid cooling of the cable and plug
That leaves the battery pack.
The standard cooling system isn't going to accomplish much against 100+ kW of heating. It's pretty much all going to go into the battery pack.
-
What would even be the point of charging a 60 kWh battery in 35 seconds rather than 10 minutes?
Charging like that would be like refilling an ICE engine's tank.
Major benefit: the existing petrol stations could be repurposed
Major benefit: no need for very expensive new distributed fragile infrastructure everywhere cars are parked.
-
Imagine putting massive carbon-carbon brakes on a stock Prius or bicycle rim brakes on an F1 car. It makes no sense. If your car has a battery that can dissipate XXX kilowatts of heat when charging, and the plumbing + thermal capacity to handle that, the car's going to be marketed as capable of that heat dissipation capability while driving (discharging) too. It's going to have a cooler good for XXX kilowatts already. And, this might be surprising, but usually batteries can discharge faster than they can charge, while the resistance is the same -- so you're always going to have more heat rejection capacity than you need for charging anyway.
Yeah I heard this idea before that we'll have 2-3MW+ charging and I don't buy it. You don't reasonably need more than 250kW discharge, so if you had that much charge current, your battery, all of its current collectors, busbars, main wiring, contactors etc. would have to be oversized for that charging current. Lots of weight and cost for that. More likely the people who don't like stopping so often will get a 100-120kWh battery car instead of a 60kWh battery car. 120kWh at 3.5mi/kWh gets you 420 miles (nice) so if it could do say 650-700 miles with one 10 minute stop then it's pretty close to as convenient as an ICE.
-
could do say 650-700 miles with one 10 minute stop
I wish I could manage that!
-
Why would you like to have extra noise in the cabin? To me the idea is insane. Sound doesn't make a car go faster. My previous car had a rather loud diesel engine. I installed over 25 sqm of thick, sound proofing rubber mats in it to lower the noise a bit. I took the entire interior + lining out and put the rubber mats underneath.
It's nice to have it sometimes. Driving through a nice road with lots of twists and turns keeping up with the flow can be quite fun - but then again I enjoy that type of driving and the auditory feedback is part of that. It's also nice that it makes the noise inside the cabin but outside sounds just like a regular car, so there's no antisocial factor to it like cars with loud exhausts which I can't stand.
But you can turn it off easily. It's an electric motor in a vibrating resonant chamber, in the electric and "normal" modes it makes no sound.
-
You've made up a straw man, sadly.
We're just having a flowing discussion, someone brought up even faster than current fast charging could change the situation and I posit that might run into thermal limits as well as requiring the charging stations to charge from batteries.
EVs today don't need 10 MW of charging power and 100 kW of cooling. What would even be the point of charging a 60 kWh battery in 35 seconds rather than 10 minutes?
EV owners self select, once people are pushed into EVs they will become ornery when it ill suits their living arrangement ... don't want too many ornery people.
Changing out fluids in car battery cooling systems is hard enough as is
You wouldn't pump fluid through the car cooling/heating system, the system would have a heat exchanger to the loop from the charging station.
Then again, maybe I'm misjudging how much temperature the new battery chemistries can stand. Propylene glycol has a high boiling point, so there is plenty of room to push heat into them from that respect.
-
Yeah I heard this idea before that we'll have 2-3MW+ charging and I don't buy it. You don't reasonably need more than 250kW discharge, so if you had that much charge current, your battery, all of its current collectors, busbars, main wiring, contactors etc. would have to be oversized for that charging current.
You can do the same thing as Tesla is planning to do in the charging cable/connector to keep it lithe, immerse most of it in flowing coolant.
-
My basic question about "viability":
The market for EVs continues to grow steadily, due to regular market forces and government subsidies.
What will stop it, if it be unviable?
-
My basic question about "viability":
The market for EVs continues to grow steadily, due to regular market forces and government subsidies.
What will stop it, if it be unviable?
I think it is viable. But viability and commercial success aren't the same thing. Look at local and long distance public transportation. Clearly viable, and demonstrated in many parts of the world. But it has filled a very small role here in the US for a variety of social and economic reasons.
The future is always tough to predict. The EV market seemed viable back at the start of the twentieth century. As far as I can tell two related things killed it. First was that gasoline was better able to compete with the then very undeveloped electrical network. So there was a larger market opportunity and the associated benefits of scaling. Second, as the electrical grid expanded it was AC, and technology to convert this to the DC needed for car charging was bulky and unreliable (if you look for where the EV vehicle penetration was greatest back then it was where DC power distribution was still available, or in some cases the only choice).
While it seems unlikely at the moment it is possible that hydrogen could do the same thing. Or something else unforeseen. Reality has a way of trumping everyone's dreams - especially the fanboys on both sides of the EV/ICE debate who wildly magnify the benefits of their favorite while magnifying the faults of the competitor.
-
Indeed. One of the technologies that can not be ruled out at this moment are bio-fuels made from residual waste from growing food. At the moment things are awfully quiet where it comes to expansion but there are several companies that are doing this on an industrial scale. The only problem is that at soon as you say 'bio fuel' somebody utterly uninformed about the latest state chimes in and goes around saying 'bio-fuels make people go hungry' while the opposite is actually true. If we use more from edible plants, it will be cheaper to grow food. Let's face it: from many plants we only eat the seeds / fruits while leaving quite a large amount of plant material that goes unused. Using bio-fuels would also mean the ICE is here to stay. And to those worried about pollution: running an ICE on methanol produces much less pollution compared to gasoline.
-
The oldies are the goodies.
I remember, in the 70s, seeing an equivalent article about nuclear vs coal generated electricity.
https://geoff.greer.fm/2023/02/08/gasoline-car-review/
-
I don't own an EV, and quite frankly, the cost of ownership in this country is far too high for what you get. It is not very viable here.
Premier Daniel Andrews of the Victorian state government introduced a per kilometre tax on anyone driving EV's. We are the only jurisdiction in the world to have such a tax. It is 3 cents per km now, but I read it could rise significantly if and when EV's become popular. Bozo's rationale is that the EV drivers are dodging the fuel excise (tax) and it is unfair. You don't pay the tax, your EV is unregistered and if you then drive it you will cop a very hefty fine.
The state govt is being now taken to the High Court over this tax arguably being unconstitutional and illegal...
https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/blockbuster-high-court-case-tests-validity-of-electric-vehicle-tax-20230214-p5ckce (https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/blockbuster-high-court-case-tests-validity-of-electric-vehicle-tax-20230214-p5ckce)
If Dan's government wins, the other states may well follow this grab for cash. If they lose, a lot of money may need to be refunded based on an illegal tax (plus interest). Not the first time governments in Australia have been dodgy (ie: Robodebt - which had catastrophic consequences).
-
It's a typical anti-EV policy by a government that's opposed to them for various reasons. From a quick Google it appears that Victoria state has huge oil and gas refining and resource, so you can imagine the lobbyists have a lot of influence.
-
Unfortunately I think it's inevitable that we see a km tax everywhere once EVs go mainstream. Governments are going to lose a big source of revenue and they're not going to be happy about that. Not only the regular sales tax on fuel, but the regular gas tax and the carbon tax. Almost half of the cost of gas is taxes. I can see them eventually do the same with solar. When you're not paying for hydro, the government is losing out in sales tax as well as income tax from the income the hydro company is losing out on. In PEI they already do charge tax on solar. Not too sure how it works but I do recall an article about an off grid couple that got nailed with that.
-
Repeating something doesn't make it come to pass, no matter how much one wants it to. Fait accompli, it ain't, dear friends.
EV is a disastrous fumbling eco greenwash blunder bullshit brainwash.
-
It's a typical anti-EV policy by a government that's opposed to them for various reasons. From a quick Google it appears that Victoria state has huge oil and gas refining and resource, so you can imagine the lobbyists have a lot of influence.
It is not anti-EV policy. The reality is that traditionally a lot of taxes are collected through the sales of fuel in order to have people who travel a lot, pay more to maintain the roads. There is nothing wrong with that and BEV owners will have to pay their share of the costs for keeping the roads in good order. BEV taxes are inevitable; the lack thereoff is simply a form of subsidy which will have to end at some point. In the Netherlands BEV owners will start paying road taxes after next year for example and likely there will be a tax per km as well coming soon.
-
It's a typical anti-EV policy by a government that's opposed to them for various reasons.
Nonsense. The current lack of taxes on EVs is a subsidy benefiting EVs.
Some people seem to see every phenomenon through the blinkers of their prejudices. For some those prejudices are religious ("it's a miracle!"). For others it is political ("remoaners", "capitalist pigs"). For others it is gender and/or sex. You are the same, although your prejudice is different.
Someone has to pay for the roads. Currently in the UK the payment is indirect through taxes on ICE fuel. That works: easy to collect and proportional to usage. That isn't a bad starting point for the future. I believe removing the subsidy on BEVs will have to happen, and it won't be unpopular.
-
It's a typical anti-EV policy by a government that's opposed to them for various reasons. From a quick Google it appears that Victoria state has huge oil and gas refining and resource, so you can imagine the lobbyists have a lot of influence.
It is not anti-EV policy. The reality is that traditionally a lot of taxes are collected through the sales of fuel in order to have people who travel a lot, pay more to maintain the roads. There is nothing wrong with that and BEV owners will have to pay their share of the costs for keeping the roads in good order. BEV taxes are inevitable; the lack thereoff is simply a form of subsidy which will have to end at some point. In the Netherlands BEV owners will start paying road taxes after next year for example and likely there will be a tax per km as well coming soon.
It's an anti-EV policy when they exist in such low numbers; it's deliberately designed to reduce their adoption by a state with vested interests in oil continuing to be used for transport. I don't have a problem with EV's being taxed when they're a significant proportion of the vehicle market.
-
Someone has to pay for the roads. Currently in the UK the payment is indirect through taxes on ICE fuel. That works: easy to collect and proportional to usage. That isn't a bad starting point for the future. I believe removing the subsidy on BEVs will have to happen, and it won't be unpopular.
In the UK, taxes are not hypothecated. Roads are mostly paid for by council tax at the local level, and by central government funding which comes from everything. Trunk routes are paid through and maintained by central government except where adopted by the local authority. (It's complicated to say the least.) Needless to say, fuel taxes plus vehicle excise duty, take in around twice as much as is used to maintain their usage if you want to assign the taxes to a particular cause. The majority of the roads you drive on (your local area) are probably funded by your council tax, and not the petrol you buy. Sounds fair, right?
I agree someone needs to pay for the roads, though there's clearly not an imminent shortfall in terms of the money the government is actually spending (doubtless given the condition of many, more needs to be spent.) In the long term, some form of electric vehicle taxation will be needed, though it does present challenges when they can be filled up from virtually any electrical source.
-
It's a typical anti-EV policy by a government that's opposed to them for various reasons. From a quick Google it appears that Victoria state has huge oil and gas refining and resource, so you can imagine the lobbyists have a lot of influence.
It is not anti-EV policy. The reality is that traditionally a lot of taxes are collected through the sales of fuel in order to have people who travel a lot, pay more to maintain the roads. There is nothing wrong with that and BEV owners will have to pay their share of the costs for keeping the roads in good order. BEV taxes are inevitable; the lack thereoff is simply a form of subsidy which will have to end at some point. In the Netherlands BEV owners will start paying road taxes after next year for example and likely there will be a tax per km as well coming soon.
It's an anti-EV policy when they exist in such low numbers; it's deliberately designed to reduce their adoption by a state with vested interests in oil continuing to be used for transport. I don't have a problem with EV's being taxed when they're a significant proportion of the vehicle market.
No. It is better to tax from the beginning so people won't complain about being hit wit a tax 'all of the sudden'. Or people claiming it is an anti-EV tax... In reality, the costs of BEVs have dropped quite significantly so subsidies in the form of tax cuts are no longer necessary.
-
Someone has to pay for the roads. Currently in the UK the payment is indirect through taxes on ICE fuel. That works: easy to collect and proportional to usage. That isn't a bad starting point for the future. I believe removing the subsidy on BEVs will have to happen, and it won't be unpopular.
In the UK, taxes are not hypothecated. Roads are mostly paid for by council tax at the local level, and by central government funding which comes from everything. Trunk routes are paid through and maintained by central government except where adopted by the local authority. (It's complicated to say the least.) Needless to say, fuel taxes plus vehicle excise duty, take in around twice as much as is used to maintain their usage if you want to assign the taxes to a particular cause. The majority of the roads you drive on (your local area) are probably funded by your council tax, and not the petrol you buy. Sounds fair, right?
I agree someone needs to pay for the roads, though there's clearly not an imminent shortfall in terms of the money the government is actually spending (doubtless given the condition of many, more needs to be spent.) In the long term, some form of electric vehicle taxation will be needed, though it does present challenges when they can be filled up from virtually any electrical source.
I'm glad you agree (by omission) that EVs not paying tax is a subsidy that needs to be removed.
The exact mechanisms, however convoluted, by which the cost of infrastructure is collected is far less important than:
- collecting the cost, somehow
- being fair in that more usage leads to more cost
-
3c per km is unreasonably high imo. What are fuel taxes, $1.50 a liter?
Your (absent) maths is crap, at $1.50 per litre (pure tax) and 7l/100km would be 10.5c/km.... what production car runs along at 2l/100km????
This would almost certainly contravene GDPR, and won't happen. The simplest way is to tax electricity at the point of use, and to charge more, the more is used, rather than discounting it for heavier users.
And solar users pay no tax? No, road charging is the only way to make it fair, on the basis of replacing fuel tax.
Yep. In the NL there are also plans to tax per distance travelled. But the problem is that the NL is a small country and there is a significant number of people that drive significant distances outside the country.
:-DD and that is somehow completely different from people buying fuel (with its high taxes to offset the externalities such as road costs its use creates) in one jurisdiction but driving in another?
Per km road use fees already exist to solve this funding "problem" for EVs:
https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/registration/registration-fees/zlev-road-user-charge (https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/registration/registration-fees/zlev-road-user-charge)
the 2.6c/km rate puts EVs at equivalent taxation to a fossil burner with 5.9l/100km fuel consumption (perhaps a little higher than the current EU new car average)
-
I'm glad you agree (by omission) that EVs not paying tax is a subsidy that needs to be removed.
No. I've never disagreed that EVs may eventually need to be taxed, if you go back 20 or so pages (man this discussion has gone on too long.) It's not an easy problem to solve though - probably requires road charging to be fair because there will be some who can charge on home electricity or from solar and pay much less tax than e.g. a levy on public charging. Road charging is very expensive to do, requiring either tamperproof metering on each car (you can't use MOT mileage because private mileage, other drivers, out of the country, etc. plus odometer tampering is trivial) or some kind of ANPR system (which inevitably would only capture some types of user, and is really expensive to do for e.g. rural countryside, so you have the side effect of people avoiding express routes to avoid tax; see also M6 Toll.) That's why I think it might not even happen and instead the taxation just comes from somewhere else, like income tax or a higher VAT chargeable on new cars, but predicting the future on tax is even more nebulous than for the future of transport.
It's worth noting EV users do already pay some tax - 20% VAT is applied on public charging and 5% VAT on home electricity. This is of course less than fuel duty.
The problem is on one hand, you argue EV's are too expensive and inconvenient for the general consumer and now you want to apply taxation to their usage to counter some of their benefits in terms of low cost of operation. The end goal is to electrify transport, to allow zero emissions driving. I'd be also opposed to a tax on hydrogen cars (even if I don't think they're feasible.) We should be promoting ZEV usage in the time when people are taking a risk on a newer technology, not discouraging their take up.
-
Just received a notification by "Deutsche Bahn" (german railroad quasi-monopol company).
They are notifying me of some maintenance going to happen soon (there is a single track about 100m away) - they are actually installing charge infrastructure for electric trains.
The idea is to have battery powered trains, using quick charge on a couple of track segments (like 5km length each) and in stations.
On battery, these trains will go up to 140km/h and have a range of 150km max. (probably not both features at the same time).
-
3c per km is unreasonably high imo. What are fuel taxes, $1.50 a liter?
Your (absent) maths is crap, at $1.50 per litre (pure tax) and 7l/100km would be 10.5c/km.... what production car runs along at 2l/100km????
https://taxfoundation.org/gas-taxes-in-europe/ (https://taxfoundation.org/gas-taxes-in-europe/)
Here is a map with taxes. Average seems to be 0.5-0.6 EUR/l plus VAT which is on top of this and double taxed, but whatever. That would place it around 3.5 cent/km range for petrol with 7l/100km consumption. The 3c/km for electric cars is quite reasonable IMHO. That would be around 20c/KWh.
No. It is better to tax from the beginning so people won't complain about being hit wit a tax 'all of the sudden'. Or people claiming it is an anti-EV tax... In reality, the costs of BEVs have dropped quite significantly so subsidies in the form of tax cuts are no longer necessary.
I never seen things happen here all of the sudden, there are always intermediate periods. Compare this to living in an autocratic hellhole, and suddenly realize it's very nice here.
-
Just received a notification by "Deutsche Bahn" (german railroad quasi-monopol company).
They are notifying me of some maintenance going to happen soon (there is a single track about 100m away) - they are actually installing charge infrastructure for electric trains.
The idea is to have battery powered trains, using quick charge on a couple of track segments (like 5km length each) and in stations.
On battery, these trains will go up to 140km/h and have a range of 150km max. (probably not both features at the same time).
Battery-electric trains surprise me. I know that they're being trialled at the UK at some point for rural rail electrification, but I would have thought that the cost of the infrastructure for such trains, whilst of course not trivial, would be quickly paid off compared to using reasonably large battery packs on the train (wear and tear, extra mass, purchase cost etc.) A bit "penny wise pound foolish". That said one of the biggest issues with rail electrification is that you need to close sections of line for days or weeks at a time to do the work and unlike the road network, the rail network in this country has very little redundancy, so it might be the case that it's just so much more expensive to do the upgrades that batteries make sense, at least in the medium term.
Also I would have thought if hydrogen did have an application then train power would be a pretty good one - size of batteries vs a large hydrogen tank in place of diesel engine - but tank then needs to be sufficient to run for at least a significant part of the journey if the assumption is refilling hydrogen at a train station is not safe enough or too inconvenient. (Diesel trains aren't refuelled at stations, either.)
-
Also I would have thought if hydrogen did have an application then train power would be a pretty good one - size of batteries vs a large hydrogen tank in place of diesel engine - but tank then needs to be sufficient to run for at least a significant part of the journey if the assumption is refilling hydrogen at a train station is not safe enough or too inconvenient. (Diesel trains aren't refuelled at stations, either.)
Liquid hydrogen being transported on trains through towns? Of course that's nothing like vinyl chloride and phosgene in Ohio or (more photogenically) the Hindenberg, is it?
https://cen.acs.org/safety/Safety-questions-remain-Ohio-train/101/i6?PageSpeed=noscript
The optics matter.
-
Diesel burns too, I doubt people would care that much. They're used to it.
Now Ammonia, those accidents are something special.
-
Have you checked how easy it is to get hydrogen going vs diesel?
Not even remotely comparable.
-
Diesel burns too, I doubt people would care that much. They're used to it.
Now Ammonia, those accidents are something special.
Phosgene from vinyl chloride has been used as a weapon. Diesel combustion products, not so much.
-
Vinyl chloride is not very toxic, but it is a known carcinogen (even outside of California).
-
Phosgene
Inactivates pretty fast though.
My point was that I doubt a train full of hydrogen would remind people of the Ohio media frenzy. Hindenberg isn't huge in public consciousness, yes people will know it's flammable ... so is petrol and diesel.
-
Diesel burns too, I doubt people would care that much. They're used to it.
Gasoline does burn pretty easily, but diesel fuel is actually very hard to set on fire at least in normal conditions.
-
Gasoline does burn pretty easily, but diesel fuel is actually very hard to set on fire at least in normal conditions.
Train crashes are pretty violent.
As long as it just burns and doesn't explode, a hydrogen fire might be preferable to a diesel spill too.
-
Also I would have thought if hydrogen did have an application then train power would be a pretty good one - size of batteries vs a large hydrogen tank in place of diesel engine - but tank then needs to be sufficient to run for at least a significant part of the journey if the assumption is refilling hydrogen at a train station is not safe enough or too inconvenient. (Diesel trains aren't refuelled at stations, either.)
Liquid hydrogen being transported on trains through towns?
Again: hydrogen isn't transported in liquid form. Only in gas form under high pressure. But it is not unsafer compared to any other fuel as it will also require oxygen to burn.
I see people mentioning the Hindenburg: if you read a bit more about that accident you'll learn that the outer hull was made from extremely flammable material. Like a piece of cloth drenched in gasoline. It is not the hydrogen that caught fire, but the outer hull.
There is so much nitwitting going around. Last week I watched a documentary about Chernobyl. One of the interesting conclusions was that the huge increase of life threatening cancers (as predicted by Greenpeace et al) didn't happen.
-
One theory about the Hindenburg's construction is that the outer coating was actually thermite--incredibly flammable.
-
Diesel burns too, I doubt people would care that much. They're used to it.
Gasoline does burn pretty easily, but diesel fuel is actually very hard to set on fire at least in normal conditions.
You certainly don't want to mix it with some fertilizers ! :scared:
-
Nitromethane ("nitro" fuel at drag races) and ammonium nitrate fertilizer is used commercially as a high explosive, and was the explosive used in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
Fuel oil is often used for legitimate high-explosive mixtures.
-
Yes, I agree with nctnico. Modern high pressure hydrogen systems are pretty safe. The Mirai has a hydrogen leak detector and the most typical failure of a hydrogen tank would be a pinhole leak or a leaking valve, which would be readily detected by the sensor and alert occupants. The bigger risks are filling stations which have to store hydrogen on site in compressed form, because it isn't usually produced on demand. But even those are probably little more risk than propane tanks which are commonplace and the hazards are well understood - just position them well away from anything that could easily hit them and open sources of ignition.
For a train, the biggest risk is a derailment. You could probably reduce the risk of a hazardous hydrogen leak by placing the tank towards the rear of the vehicle.
-
Also I would have thought if hydrogen did have an application then train power would be a pretty good one - size of batteries vs a large hydrogen tank in place of diesel engine - but tank then needs to be sufficient to run for at least a significant part of the journey if the assumption is refilling hydrogen at a train station is not safe enough or too inconvenient. (Diesel trains aren't refuelled at stations, either.)
Liquid hydrogen being transported on trains through towns?
Again: hydrogen isn't transported in liquid form. Only in gas form under high pressure. But it is not unsafer compared to any other fuel as it will also require oxygen to burn.
In terms of burning, yes. But there is also substantial energy stored when it is compressed, and if the container is punctured or a pipe severed, the pressure will make the gas escape in a jet. That might have different consequences to a puddle of diesel.
If you have solid references to what happens, I'm interested.
I see people mentioning the Hindenburg: if you read a bit more about that accident you'll learn that the outer hull was made from extremely flammable material. Like a piece of cloth drenched in gasoline. It is not the hydrogen that caught fire, but the outer hull.
Indeed, but in such cases the perception of danger is important. Greenpeace knows that all too well :(
Recently conspiracy theorists and propagandists have learned how to use social media to spread their messages, often attached to "don't trust the experts, they are lying to you" statements. That complicates discussions, as evidenced by recent events in the UK and US.
There is so much nitwitting going around. Last week I watched a documentary about Chernobyl. One of the interesting conclusions was that the huge increase of life threatening cancers (as predicted by Greenpeace et al) didn't happen.
Greenpeace has always been a bunch of twits that are prepared to use disreputable "explanations" and means to further their goals. Others are more reputable.
As to the number of cancers, I wouldn't trust any official figures from Russia or Belarus.
Covid has vividly shown how difficult it is to give accurate statistics for cause of death; the only statistic that is reliable is "excess mortality". Given that outside Belarus/Russia the radiation was much lower, it is to be expected that deaths "due to Chernobyl" can't be distinguished from other deaths. Hells teeth, there are some houses in towns near me where the radon causes as many lung cancers as smoking 20 fags/day! And then there's all the radiation emitted by coal burning power stations!
Certainly Chernobyl did cause noticable increases in radiation. It was only in the past few years that sheep in North Wales have been allowed back into the food chain. The radiation in Lapland was also of concern; I don't know what precautions were taken w.r.t. reindeer. In the aftermath of Chernobyl I remember once seeing a TV programme that showed a map of the radiation levels in the UK, and noting how the fallout from Chernobyl had made a beeline to Sellafield!
-
Yes, I agree with nctnico. Modern high pressure hydrogen systems are pretty safe. The Mirai has a hydrogen leak detector and the most typical failure of a hydrogen tank would be a pinhole leak or a leaking valve, which would be readily detected by the sensor and alert occupants. The bigger risks are filling stations which have to store hydrogen on site in compressed form, because it isn't usually produced on demand. But even those are probably little more risk than propane tanks which are commonplace and the hazards are well understood - just position them well away from anything that could easily hit them and open sources of ignition.
Er, no. Let's avoid using adjectives and look at the numbers...
Hydrogen is stored at 700bar/70MPa https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-in-vehicular-transport/ (https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-in-vehicular-transport/)
LPG release valves are at 25bar https://www.elgas.com.au/blog/1969-how-much-pressure-is-in-lpg-propane-cylinders-in-what-state/ (https://www.elgas.com.au/blog/1969-how-much-pressure-is-in-lpg-propane-cylinders-in-what-state/)
700:25 is a good example of why "numbers not adjectives" is a good motto.
For a train, the biggest risk is a derailment. You could probably reduce the risk of a hazardous hydrogen leak by placing the tank towards the rear of the vehicle.
Or being rear-ended, or rear-ending.
-
For a train, the biggest risk is a derailment. You could probably reduce the risk of a hazardous hydrogen leak by placing the tank towards the rear of the vehicle.
Or being rear-ended, or rear-ending.
The same concerns have been aired for decades about CNG powered vehicles.
History has shown us it's no more unsafe than liquid fueled vehicles.
-
One of the interesting conclusions was that the huge increase of life threatening cancers (as predicted by Greenpeace et al) didn't happen.
Perhaps because everyone got evacuated?
I recall a documentary some time ago that postulated that some level of radiation was better than no, or low, level since it triggers the body's repair mechanism.
-
Again: hydrogen isn't transported in liquid form.
Dunno about trains, but a simple google search shows companies making truck trailers ... someone must be buying them.
https://www.chartindustries.com/Products/Cryogenic-Transport-Trailers (https://www.chartindustries.com/Products/Cryogenic-Transport-Trailers)
-
For a train, the biggest risk is a derailment. You could probably reduce the risk of a hazardous hydrogen leak by placing the tank towards the rear of the vehicle.
Or being rear-ended, or rear-ending.
The same concerns have been aired for decades about CNG powered vehicles.
History has shown us it's no more unsafe than liquid fueled vehicles.
Hydrogen 700 bar. LPG 25 bar. That's a significant difference.
See earlier post for refs.
-
For a train, the biggest risk is a derailment. You could probably reduce the risk of a hazardous hydrogen leak by placing the tank towards the rear of the vehicle.
Or being rear-ended, or rear-ending.
The same concerns have been aired for decades about CNG powered vehicles.
History has shown us it's no more unsafe than liquid fueled vehicles.
Hydrogen 700 bar. LPG 25 bar. That's a significant difference.
CNG is NOT LPG !
https://www.diffen.com/difference/CNG_vs_LPG (https://www.diffen.com/difference/CNG_vs_LPG)
~200 bar (~3000 PSI) is CNG tank pressure for automotive use.
It's primary disadvantage was low BTU in an ICE which translates to limited range.
LPG is better in many respects in an ICE.
Still, we had CNG and LPG powered cars in NZ for decades after the 70's oil shock.
-
Flamability range:
(https://h2tools.org/sites/default/files/bp-images/flammability_range.jpg)
Activation energy:
(https://h2tools.org/sites/default/files/bp-images/minimum_ignition_energy.jpg)
-
For a train, the biggest risk is a derailment. You could probably reduce the risk of a hazardous hydrogen leak by placing the tank towards the rear of the vehicle.
Or being rear-ended, or rear-ending.
The same concerns have been aired for decades about CNG powered vehicles.
History has shown us it's no more unsafe than liquid fueled vehicles.
Hydrogen 700 bar. LPG 25 bar. That's a significant difference.
CNG is NOT LPG !
https://www.diffen.com/difference/CNG_vs_LPG (https://www.diffen.com/difference/CNG_vs_LPG)
~200 bar (~3000 PSI) is CNG tank pressure for automotive use.
It's primary disadvantage was low BTU in an ICE which translates to limited range.
LPG is better in many respects in an ICE.
Still, we had CNG and LPG powered cars in NZ for decades after the 70's oil shock.
And modern CNG systems going to rise that pressure even further, with new vessels rated up to 450 bar
-
For a train, the biggest risk is a derailment. You could probably reduce the risk of a hazardous hydrogen leak by placing the tank towards the rear of the vehicle.
Or being rear-ended, or rear-ending.
The same concerns have been aired for decades about CNG powered vehicles.
History has shown us it's no more unsafe than liquid fueled vehicles.
Hydrogen 700 bar. LPG 25 bar. That's a significant difference.
CNG is NOT LPG !
https://www.diffen.com/difference/CNG_vs_LPG (https://www.diffen.com/difference/CNG_vs_LPG)
~200 bar (~3000 PSI) is CNG tank pressure for automotive use.
It's primary disadvantage was low BTU in an ICE which translates to limited range.
LPG is better in many respects in an ICE.
Still, we had CNG and LPG powered cars in NZ for decades after the 70's oil shock.
And modern CNG systems going to rise that pressure even further, with new vessels rated up to 450 bar
Thanks, that's interesting as it will rekindle CNG in ICE in some parts where they have plenty of it.
-
For a train, the biggest risk is a derailment. You could probably reduce the risk of a hazardous hydrogen leak by placing the tank towards the rear of the vehicle.
Or being rear-ended, or rear-ending.
The same concerns have been aired for decades about CNG powered vehicles.
History has shown us it's no more unsafe than liquid fueled vehicles.
Hydrogen 700 bar. LPG 25 bar. That's a significant difference.
CNG is NOT LPG !
https://www.diffen.com/difference/CNG_vs_LPG (https://www.diffen.com/difference/CNG_vs_LPG)
~200 bar (~3000 PSI) is CNG tank pressure for automotive use.
It's primary disadvantage was low BTU in an ICE which translates to limited range.
LPG is better in many respects in an ICE.
Still, we had CNG and LPG powered cars in NZ for decades after the 70's oil shock.
I wasn't aware of that; thanks.
It seems there are some CNG filling stations in the UK.
If my count is right there are 29 of them, and 13 are open to the public.
https://www.glpautogas.info/en/cng-stations-united-kingdom.html (https://www.glpautogas.info/en/cng-stations-united-kingdom.html)
LPG is far more widely available, and based on limited old experience, relevant to cars. (In the 80s I saw a car transition between LPG and petrol while moving).
Hence, in the UK at least, there is plenty of CNG in the ground but CNG in vehicles is a rarity for reasons I don't know (but can guess). I would hesitate to draw general conclusions about its characteristics if widely employed.
-
Flamability range:
(https://h2tools.org/sites/default/files/bp-images/flammability_range.jpg)
Activation energy:
(https://h2tools.org/sites/default/files/bp-images/minimum_ignition_energy.jpg)
Useful comparisons. Thanks.
-
Flamability range:
Activation energy:
Useful comparisons. Thanks.
It is not at all. Just more fear mongering. Hydrogen is very light so it will move up quickly (out of the building) where gasoline, natural gas and LPG vapours will sink forming a blanket. So the chance you'll actually get an explosion or fire from hydrogen is far lower. Putting things further into perspective: you'll need a fairly small space to achieve a flammable hydrogen mixture. With 5kg (typical for a hydrogen car) of hydrogen you'll need less than 6 parking spaces worth of air volume. All in all a hydrogen leak from a car is far less of a problem compared to a car leaking CNG, LPG or gasoline.
-
Flamability range:
Activation energy:
Useful comparisons. Thanks.
It is not at all. Just more fear mongering. Hydrogen is very light so it will move up quickly (out of the building) where gasoline, natural gas and LPG vapours will sink forming a blanket. So the chance you'll actually get an explosion or fire from hydrogen is far lower. Putting things further into perspective: you'll need a fairly small space to achieve a flammable hydrogen mixture. With 5kg (typical for a hydrogen car) of hydrogen you'll need less than 6 parking spaces worth of air volume. All in all a hydrogen leak from a car is far less of a problem compared to a car leaking CNG, LPG or gasoline.
Nobody claimed it is the whole story.
Nobody claimed it is the only story.
Nonetheless, it is a useful quantitative starting point for stories.
And a better starting point than adjectives.
-
Flamability range:
Activation energy:
Useful comparisons. Thanks.
It is not at all. Just more fear mongering. Hydrogen is very light so it will move up quickly (out of the building) where gasoline, natural gas and LPG vapours will sink forming a blanket. So the chance you'll actually get an explosion or fire from hydrogen is far lower. Putting things further into perspective: you'll need a fairly small space to achieve a flammable hydrogen mixture. With 5kg (typical for a hydrogen car) of hydrogen you'll need less than 6 parking spaces worth of air volume. All in all a hydrogen leak from a car is far less of a problem compared to a car leaking CNG, LPG or gasoline.
Natural gas is also lighter than air.
That said, as we're exchanging stories: I did a training about gas bunkering etc. The teacher stated, quite bluntly, that of the many types of gas carriers/vessels/tanks he had been involved with only hydrogen stuff scared him.
But sure. Just dismiss it as "fear mongering".
-
A cargo ship filled with hydrogen is something totally different compared to a car or a train carrying a relatively small amount as fuel. If you go onto an oil platform you'll be subjected to all kinds of safety measures & training requirements while you are basically handling the same stuff at a gas station.
-
At least one hydrogen filling plant has exploded in the past:
https://driving.ca/auto-news/news/hyundai-toyota-pause-fuel-cell-sales-over-explosion-in-norway
Though certainly not enough data to draw a conclusion over safety with this one event.
Two were injured when "their airbags went off" - I guess it could have triggered the crash sensor for a car but a bit odd as I had thought those only work when the vehicle is in motion.
-
At least one hydrogen filling plant has exploded in the past:
https://driving.ca/auto-news/news/hyundai-toyota-pause-fuel-cell-sales-over-explosion-in-norway
Though certainly not enough data to draw a conclusion over safety with this one event.
Two were injured when "their airbags went off" - I guess it could have triggered the crash sensor for a car but a bit odd as I had thought those only work when the vehicle is in motion.
Other guesses:
- you need airbags to activate if you are stationary and someone hits you at high speed
- "acceleration" setting off a gasbag can have the sensor embedded in the gasbag module, whereas "velocity" requires an external sensor and hence extra failure modes
I imagine the latter's failure modes involved with emergency detonators is more defining.
-
Indeed, side impact detection on cars is usually via an air pressure sensor in the door, rather than an accelerometer. These could have been cars driving past the plant at the time, too, I realise it's not clear if they were actually stationary or not.
-
ev kick ass, ICE feels like driving an accordian :-DD
-
Flamability range:
(https://h2tools.org/sites/default/files/bp-images/flammability_range.jpg)
Activation energy:
(https://h2tools.org/sites/default/files/bp-images/minimum_ignition_energy.jpg)
Yeah, people who are not into this field don't realize this. You can store enough energy in a 0201 capacitor, that shorting out this capacitor would create a tiny spark that can set hydrogen on fire. It's very very explosive, odorless, and the storage conditions are crazy compared to propane for example.
It can literally go through steel for example due to the small atoms, and crack it in the process (called hydrogen embrittlement). When they talk about adding it to regular district heating, I really hope they know what they are doing, because it would be a disaster, if pipes of the gas network would wear out and break.
-
When they talk about adding it to regular district heating, I really hope they know what they are doing,
we will be finding out in a couple of years time if british gas know what there doing .
-
When they talk about adding it to regular district heating, I really hope they know what they are doing,
we will be finding out in a couple of years time if british gas know what there doing .
They don't.
(https://cleantechnica.com/files/2023/01/Screenshot-2022-12-22-at-5.21.18-PM.png)
-
Good diagram. But, does it account for the difficulty in insulating UK homes to support heat pumps? Having embarked upon the process of insulating our 1930's detached home, it is definitely not a trivial process usually requiring bespoke techniques for each property.
-
Good diagram. But, does it account for the difficulty in insulating UK homes to support heat pumps? Having embarked upon the process of insulating our 1930's detached home, it is definitely not a trivial process usually requiring bespoke techniques for each property.
Heat is heat. There is no difference for heat pump heat or heat from a boiler or gas.
-
Good diagram. But, does it account for the difficulty in insulating UK homes to support heat pumps? Having embarked upon the process of insulating our 1930's detached home, it is definitely not a trivial process usually requiring bespoke techniques for each property.
Heat is heat. There is no difference for heat pump heat or heat from a boiler or gas.
Not true. optimum working temperature is different between different systems - heat pumps don't produce the higher temperatures needed to overcome poor insulation. Replacing a traditional pumped water/gas CH system with HP usually requires radiators to be up-sized to get the same output at a lower temperature drop.
-
Yeah, people who are not into this field don't realize this. You can store enough energy in a 0201 capacitor, that shorting out this capacitor would create a tiny spark that can set hydrogen on fire. It's very very explosive, odorless, and the storage conditions are crazy compared to propane for example.
It can literally go through steel for example due to the small atoms, and crack it in the process (called hydrogen embrittlement). When they talk about adding it to regular district heating, I really hope they know what they are doing, because it would be a disaster, if pipes of the gas network would wear out and break.
Again: the gas made from coal contained lots of hydrogen and was transported through steel pipes without problems. Embrittlement only happens at special conditions. Hydrogen is not something new. Secondly, most natural gas infrastructure is made from hydrogen compatible 'plastic' and joints. Yeah, people who are not into this field don't realize this.
It is all about conditions...
-
Good diagram. But, does it account for the difficulty in insulating UK homes to support heat pumps? Having embarked upon the process of insulating our 1930's detached home, it is definitely not a trivial process usually requiring bespoke techniques for each property.
Heat is heat. There is no difference for heat pump heat or heat from a boiler or gas.
Not true. optimum working temperature is different between different systems - heat pumps don't produce the higher temperatures needed to overcome poor insulation. Replacing a traditional pumped water/gas CH system with HP usually requires radiators to be up-sized to get the same output at a lower temperature drop.
If it works for Norway, there is really no reason why it wouldn't work for the UK or here.
-
Good diagram. But, does it account for the difficulty in insulating UK homes to support heat pumps? Having embarked upon the process of insulating our 1930's detached home, it is definitely not a trivial process usually requiring bespoke techniques for each property.
Heat is heat. There is no difference for heat pump heat or heat from a boiler or gas.
Not true. optimum working temperature is different between different systems - heat pumps don't produce the higher temperatures needed to overcome poor insulation. Replacing a traditional pumped water/gas CH system with HP usually requires radiators to be up-sized to get the same output at a lower temperature drop.
If it works for Norway, there is really no reason why it wouldn't work for the UK or here.
The key word here is: insulation
And the diagram is horribly optimistic where it comes to the efficiency. At low temperatures the heat pumps will have to go into resistive heating mode requiring the original 70GW. And what happens if the turbines don't spin? Bottom line: the diagram is made by a complete idiot.
What will work is using hybrid heatpump boilers. These use their heatpump only when the COP is positive and the burner to give a boost when it is really cold. Hydrogen provides electricity, storage and fuel.
-
Flamability range:
Detonation has far worse effects than deflagration.
-
Heat is heat. There is no difference for heat pump heat or heat from a boiler or gas.
Imagine the outside temperature is 0C and you want to heat your house to 23C. I supply you with an unlimited amount of water at 24C. Can you heat your house with that? After all, you have infinite heat available...
-
Heat is heat. There is no difference for heat pump heat or heat from a boiler or gas.
Imagine the outside temperature is 0C and you want to heat your house to 23C. I supply you with an unlimited amount of water at 24C. Can you heat your house with that? After all, you have infinite heat available...
To heat the interior of your house to 23o C when the outside temperature is, say, 10o C requires delivery of hot air at a temperature above 24o C, even with reasonable wall insulation.
-
I don't have a horse in the heat pump debate but found this interesting in the "against" column:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhAKMAcmJFg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhAKMAcmJFg)
-
heat pumps don't produce the higher temperatures needed to overcome poor insulation.
That depends a bit on what you use for heating. Floor/wall/ceiling hydronic heating can dump much larger amounts of heat into a home at a given water temperature than high temperature radiators, though that's a more involved retrofit (with floating laminate floors it's a relatively easy retrofit though, just raises the floor a tiny bit).
What is almost always an easy retrofit are Fan Coil Units, with the added advantage that they give you cooling too. I'm amazed no installers are specializing in this, it's such a perfect package.
-
Recently, my undergraduate college replaced their traditional central boiler with a heat pump, heat-sunk to a subterranean layer of ground water at approximately 13o C in the middle of the local seasonal temperature range (roughly -30o C to +35o C, a continental climate in southern Minnesota).
I'm not sure how much they use this for summer cooling.
-
What is almost always an easy retrofit are Fan Coil Units, with the added advantage that they give you cooling too. I'm amazed no installers are specializing in this, it's such a perfect package.
Fan noise? Mechanical parts that can fail? I also have serious doubts about the ability of installers of heating systems to be able to understand how to install these units properly. Look at the huge amount of aftermarket devices you can buy for underfloor heating to -for example- stop the pump when the heating is off. Something simple like that should come standard with any underfloor heating system.
-
Not true. optimum working temperature is different between different systems - heat pumps don't produce the higher temperatures needed to overcome poor insulation. Replacing a traditional pumped water/gas CH system with HP usually requires radiators to be up-sized to get the same output at a lower temperature drop.
You only need higher temperatures to overcome high heat losses if you use convection alone. A little fanning goes a long way.
-
Fan noise? Mechanical parts that can fail?
Sure, it has its downsides. The fact it comes with cooling too is a huge upside though. Lots of people using splits for heating/cooling too.
I also have serious doubts about the ability of installers of heating systems to be able to understand how to install these units properly.
That's why I said specialise. If one install in a hundred has FCUs, sure it will be a mess. If they do 5 in a week, it shouldn't take them too long to find out how to prevent complaints and return visits.
-
Good diagram. But, does it account for the difficulty in insulating UK homes to support heat pumps? Having embarked upon the process of insulating our 1930's detached home, it is definitely not a trivial process usually requiring bespoke techniques for each property.
Heat is heat. There is no difference for heat pump heat or heat from a boiler or gas.
Not true. optimum working temperature is different between different systems - heat pumps don't produce the higher temperatures needed to overcome poor insulation. Replacing a traditional pumped water/gas CH system with HP usually requires radiators to be up-sized to get the same output at a lower temperature drop.
If it works for Norway, there is really no reason why it wouldn't work for the UK or here.
And the diagram is horribly optimistic where it comes to the efficiency.
Why??? A well insulated house allows for a SCOP of 4.5 or so. Badly insulated houses obviously need to get moving on improving that but would still allows for a 3+ SCOP (with fan trays or whatever).
At low temperatures the heat pumps will have to go into resistive heating mode requiring the original 70GW.
I think perhaps you're working with an outdated set of information on heatpumps.
And what happens if the turbines don't spin?
Well, that's an interesting question for any discussion on renewables but for fun and giggles: with a COP of 4 you'd still only burn half the gas in an electricity plant compared to your house boiler.
Bottom line: the diagram is made by a complete idiot.
In that case a lot of people are complete idiots because it pretty much represents the consensus amongst energy scientists. Yes, putting the windmills as energy source in the picture is a bit rosy but that doesn't change the bottom line.
-
most natural gas infrastructure is made from hydrogen compatible 'plastic' and joints. Yeah, people who are not into this field don't realize this.
whilst the main pipe work maybe plastic,in the uk at least ,often the final connection to the meter is a flexible metal pipe and from the meter to boiler/cooker,copper or in older propertys iron.Could be fun times ahead.
-
Good diagram. But, does it account for the difficulty in insulating UK homes to support heat pumps? Having embarked upon the process of insulating our 1930's detached home, it is definitely not a trivial process usually requiring bespoke techniques for each property.
And external insulation is very easy to get badly wrong, e.g. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/victims-home-insulation-scandal-scandal-26076372.amp (https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/victims-home-insulation-scandal-scandal-26076372.amp)
Somewhere there's a report on the faults, and it isn't pretty.
-
Good diagram. But, does it account for the difficulty in insulating UK homes to support heat pumps? Having embarked upon the process of insulating our 1930's detached home, it is definitely not a trivial process usually requiring bespoke techniques for each property.
Heat is heat. There is no difference for heat pump heat or heat from a boiler or gas.
Not true. optimum working temperature is different between different systems - heat pumps don't produce the higher temperatures needed to overcome poor insulation. Replacing a traditional pumped water/gas CH system with HP usually requires radiators to be up-sized to get the same output at a lower temperature drop.
If it works for Norway, there is really no reason why it wouldn't work for the UK or here.
And the diagram is horribly optimistic where it comes to the efficiency.
Why??? A well insulated house allows for a SCOP of 4.5 or so. Badly insulated houses obviously need to get moving on improving that but would still allows for a 3+ SCOP (with fan trays or whatever).
Simple: the COP of a heatpump depends greatly on the outside and inside temperature. The listed COP is an optimum, not a minimum. Last year I installed a brand new airco / heater system from Panasonic (IOW: not some shoddy B-brand). The specified COP for heating is 4.6. You'd say that is great but the service manual comes with pages of tables with the cooling and heating capacity (input versus output power). When the outside temperature gets below 0 degrees, the COP drops below 2.
-
Good diagram. But, does it account for the difficulty in insulating UK homes to support heat pumps? Having embarked upon the process of insulating our 1930's detached home, it is definitely not a trivial process usually requiring bespoke techniques for each property.
Heat is heat. There is no difference for heat pump heat or heat from a boiler or gas.
Not true. optimum working temperature is different between different systems - heat pumps don't produce the higher temperatures needed to overcome poor insulation. Replacing a traditional pumped water/gas CH system with HP usually requires radiators to be up-sized to get the same output at a lower temperature drop.
If it works for Norway, there is really no reason why it wouldn't work for the UK or here.
The key word here is: insulation
And the diagram is horribly optimistic where it comes to the efficiency. At low temperatures the heat pumps will have to go into resistive heating mode requiring the original 70GW. And what happens if the turbines don't spin? Bottom line: the diagram is made by a complete idiot.
What will work is using hybrid heatpump boilers. These use their heatpump only when the COP is positive and the burner to give a boost when it is really cold. Hydrogen provides electricity, storage and fuel.
(https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41597-019-0199-y/MediaObjects/41597_2019_199_Fig6_HTML.png?as=webp)
Typical winter with this climate, the deltaT is 20-30, entirely possible to provide this even with air source heatpump.
Heat is heat. There is no difference for heat pump heat or heat from a boiler or gas.
Imagine the outside temperature is 0C and you want to heat your house to 23C. I supply you with an unlimited amount of water at 24C. Can you heat your house with that? After all, you have infinite heat available...
Yes, a spherical 1m diameter cow is floating in outer space, and a constant 1000A current is flowing into it on a tiny wire, what's going to be the voltage of the cow, and which way is is going to move from earth at what speed?
-
Look up "SCOP".
EDIT: also, I assume this is an air/air unit. Not exactly apples to apples.
-
Good diagram. But, does it account for the difficulty in insulating UK homes to support heat pumps? Having embarked upon the process of insulating our 1930's detached home, it is definitely not a trivial process usually requiring bespoke techniques for each property.
And external insulation is very easy to get badly wrong, e.g. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/victims-home-insulation-scandal-scandal-26076372.amp (https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/victims-home-insulation-scandal-scandal-26076372.amp)
One of my relatives is an advisor for people who seek to improve the insulation & lower the carbon footprint of their homes. His conclusion is that it is not worthwhile to re-insulate older homes because the basic structure doesn't allow for it. Better insulation also means adding air treatment to manage the moisture inside a home which means adding ducts and mechanical ventilation. So the only option is to use hybrid heaters (heatpump + boiler) in order to get enough heat into such homes. Heating is not just necessary to keep the people inside a home warm, but also to keep the home itself dry in order not to get problems with mold and wood rot. It is pretty complicated to get right from the start. Let alone trying to do a retrofit.
-
Look up "SCOP".
Did that. It is a meaningless number. Just like NEDC / WLTP for cars. It doesn't tell you anything about the actual performance.
-
And external insulation is very easy to get badly wrong
Meh, moisture problems from barrier effects tend to be overblown. If they screw up badly enough blown rain can get behind the insulation it's because they are half assing it, not because it's difficult.
The main problem with external insulation is that it's bloody expensive still. They need some kind of system which just 3D scans the external walls and gives the workmen a bunch of legoblocks to fill it with in a day.
-
So, uhm, that's your argument then? You disregard any data that doesn't fit your narrative and call all those that run with it idiots? :o
-
Typical winter with this climate, the deltaT is 20-30, entirely possible to provide this even with air source heatpump.
It is not about the temperature delta, but the absolute temperature operating range of a heatpump! And at some point the outside unit will ice up preventing extracting heat from the environment. The graph you posted is way too optimistic. A heatpump simply does not work well in a climate that has close to or sub-zero temperatures.
-
Good diagram. But, does it account for the difficulty in insulating UK homes to support heat pumps? Having embarked upon the process of insulating our 1930's detached home, it is definitely not a trivial process usually requiring bespoke techniques for each property.
Heat is heat. There is no difference for heat pump heat or heat from a boiler or gas.
Not really. Heatpumps have the highest COP when running at lower power outputs. The ideal heatpump runs all day (when you're awake) at low power outputs, relatively low delta-T at the radiators. Typical flow and return of 55C and 35C not uncommon, well below that of used for boilers. If you have insufficient insulation, you need a very large heat pump, which becomes uneconomical.
-
So, uhm, that's your argument then? You disregard any data that doesn't fit your narrative and call all those that run with it idiots? :o
There is no narrative and there is no argument. Just the fact that heatpumps are not economic to run when it is cold. This is obviously clear from looking at specifications from actual heatpumps. There is no need for yet another fantasy number that is invented to compare heatpumps because it says nothing about the suitability of heatpump for a less insulated home.
-
Typical winter with this climate, the deltaT is 20-30, entirely possible to provide this even with air source heatpump.
It is not about the temperature delta, but the absolute temperature operating range of a heatpump! And at some point the outside unit will ice up preventing extracting heat from the environment. The graph you posted is way too optimistic. A heatpump simply does not work well in a climate that has close to or sub-zero temperatures.
Below zero most ASHPs cycle and turn the outside radiator into a heating element by extracting a bit of heat from the interior to melt ice. This typically happens for 1 minute every 15-20 minutes. I guess some may also use an electric heating element now and then. For multi split units only one of the units does this, the others shut off entirely.
From someone who I know who owns a cheaper TCL unit (Chinese air conditioner) the bigger problem is the firmware doesn't detect the icing condition soon enough, so efficiency falls off because air flow through the rad drops. The better units have ice sensors, but the cheaper units just wait until the system doesn't seem to be performing as well as is expected.
I also wonder if anyone has considered periodically spraying an antifreeze onto the fins, though you'd probably go through a lot of glycol you might be able to recycle it a few times.
-
So, uhm, that's your argument then? You disregard any data that doesn't fit your narrative and call all those that run with it idiots? :o
There is no narrative and there is no argument. Just the fact that heatpumps are not economic to run when it is cold. This is obviously clear from looking at specifications from actual heatpumps. There is no need for yet another fantasy number that is invented to compare heatpumps because it says nothing about the suitability of heatpump for a less insulated home.
But.... it does. Nobody is arguing that the efficiency of a heatpump goes down when temperature does. That's why you have the SCOP value. It tells you what your seasonal efficiency will be. And it does say something about suitability for less isolated houses as you typically have this value for 35C and 55C feed temperatures. And if 55C doesn't suffise: get crackin' on isolating your barn, please.
-
The better units have ice sensors, but the cheaper units just wait until the system doesn't seem to be performing as well as is expected.
Not sure what mine is but probably classed as a cheap unit - when turned on, if the desired temperature is the same as the actual temperature it can get into a permanent defrosting cycle (fix is to just turn up the desired temperature until it recovers, then put it back). When it is cold outside, like below freezing, I do notice it goes into the defrost cycle now and then, but it never actually fails to keep the place warm. Worst case is it feels like it's idling (which, I suppose it is if it's just recirculating air) but it doesn't last long enough to make any difference.
-
Good diagram. But, does it account for the difficulty in insulating UK homes to support heat pumps? Having embarked upon the process of insulating our 1930's detached home, it is definitely not a trivial process usually requiring bespoke techniques for each property.
Heat is heat. There is no difference for heat pump heat or heat from a boiler or gas.
Not true. optimum working temperature is different between different systems - heat pumps don't produce the higher temperatures needed to overcome poor insulation. Replacing a traditional pumped water/gas CH system with HP usually requires radiators to be up-sized to get the same output at a lower temperature drop.
If it works for Norway, there is really no reason why it wouldn't work for the UK or here.
But it requires significant remedial work to the properties.
My house would be quite impractical to heat with a heatpump: The floors are leaky, and the existing pipework is microbore and fairly severely contaminated by iron oxide buildup. Every radiator and every pipe would require replacement, along with lifting the entire ground floor and insulating and sealing. Oh, yes, all the windows upstairs also need replacing, along with a properly sealed loft hatch.
By the time you've done all this you've not only tripled the cost of the installation, but required the occupants and their belongings to be removed from the house for at least several weeks.
I'd love to go this route. Hell, I'd take the opportunity to fit some AC to a couple of rooms. You supplying the £30,000?
-
So, uhm, that's your argument then? You disregard any data that doesn't fit your narrative and call all those that run with it idiots? :o
There is no narrative and there is no argument. Just the fact that heatpumps are not economic to run when it is cold. This is obviously clear from looking at specifications from actual heatpumps. There is no need for yet another fantasy number that is invented to compare heatpumps because it says nothing about the suitability of heatpump for a less insulated home.
But.... it does. Nobody is arguing that the efficiency of a heatpump goes down when temperature does. That's why you have the SCOP value. It tells you what your seasonal efficiency will be. And it does say something about suitability for less isolated houses as you typically have this value for 35C and 55C feed temperatures. And if 55C doesn't suffise: get crackin' on isolating your barn, please.
If you look at what SCOP actually means, you'll notice it is not a number that tells you something about the suitability of a unit. Seasonal efficiency doesn't mean that a unit will be able to heat a home when it is cold. The COP might be too low and SCOP doesn't tell you that at all.
Also, you don't need high water temperatures perse. It is relatively easy to retrofit an existing home with underfloor heating (been there, done that) which doesn't need high water temperatures at all.
-
What I do find nuts is that the UK government is allowing new homes to be built (a) with gas boilers and (b) without good insulation, such that when they do get heatpumps fitted, they will need additional remedial work to make it work properly. It's bonkers.
-
Good diagram. But, does it account for the difficulty in insulating UK homes to support heat pumps? Having embarked upon the process of insulating our 1930's detached home, it is definitely not a trivial process usually requiring bespoke techniques for each property.
And external insulation is very easy to get badly wrong, e.g. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/victims-home-insulation-scandal-scandal-26076372.amp (https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/victims-home-insulation-scandal-scandal-26076372.amp)
One of my relatives is an advisor for people who seek to improve the insulation & lower the carbon footprint of their homes. His conclusion is that it is not worthwhile to re-insulate older homes because the basic structure doesn't allow for it. Better insulation also means adding air treatment to manage the moisture inside a home which means adding ducts and mechanical ventilation. So the only option is to use hybrid heaters (heatpump + boiler) in order to get enough heat into such homes. Heating is not just necessary to keep the people inside a home warm, but also to keep the home itself dry in order not to get problems with mold and wood rot. It is pretty complicated to get right from the start. Let alone trying to do a retrofit.
All plausible, and questions I would want answered before doing anything like that.
IIRC the S Wales situation was exacerbated by grossly incompetent work, allowing driving rain to enter the external insulation. Even if done competently, it sounds like a fragile installation which is certain to deteriorate over the decades.
-
What I do find nuts is that the UK government is allowing new homes to be built (a) with gas boilers and (b) without good insulation, such that when they do get heatpumps fitted, they will need additional remedial work to make it work properly. It's bonkers.
There's always a balance to be struck w.r.t. planning for a future that might not come. I've known people that put RS232 everywhere in their house so they wouldn't have to retrofit it.
Having said that, the lack of good insulation does seem unsupportable.
-
It's pretty simple, at the very least properties should be built to support heatpump retrofit, so large radiators or underfloor heating, hot water tank instead of a combi boiler, no electric showers, passive-haus class insulation with room vents etc. Yet I've looked around 1-2 year old properties and they often don't meet these standards.
If you do it right, you can heat a house (in UK climates, typical winter day) with less than 500W - that's not one room, that's the whole bloody house.
We do need more homes (complex issue though) but no point putting up homes that are leaky and draughty.
-
Have developers spending money on insulation and doing a decent job instead of slipping a fraction of the amount to there political chums to keep things as they are,never gonna happen.
-
crazy, I didn't realize the title of this thread was "heat pumps in houses are not viable"
We had that:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/new-world-of-electrical-power-generation/?all (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/new-world-of-electrical-power-generation/?all)
Same people, same completely misleading "arguments" that they cant possibly use heat pumps because:
older heat pumps didn't have enough performance at low temperatures (no longer true for modern units)
massive invested capital in complex Rube Goldberg heating systems, insisting on retaining that system like for like (refusing to trade any benefits against losses in function, stick to your horse and cart and stop complaining....)
-
So, uhm, that's your argument then? You disregard any data that doesn't fit your narrative and call all those that run with it idiots? :o
There is no narrative and there is no argument. Just the fact that heatpumps are not economic to run when it is cold. This is obviously clear from looking at specifications from actual heatpumps. There is no need for yet another fantasy number that is invented to compare heatpumps because it says nothing about the suitability of heatpump for a less insulated home.
But.... it does. Nobody is arguing that the efficiency of a heatpump goes down when temperature does. That's why you have the SCOP value. It tells you what your seasonal efficiency will be. And it does say something about suitability for less isolated houses as you typically have this value for 35C and 55C feed temperatures. And if 55C doesn't suffise: get crackin' on isolating your barn, please.
If you look at what SCOP actually means, you'll notice it is not a number that tells you something about the suitability of a unit. Seasonal efficiency doesn't mean that a unit will be able to heat a home when it is cold. The COP might be too low and SCOP doesn't tell you that at all.
Also, you don't need high water temperatures perse. It is relatively easy to retrofit an existing home with underfloor heating (been there, done that) which doesn't need high water temperatures at all.
(https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/C4E22AQGnCwHQz95xfg/feedshare-shrink_1280/0/1675791221529?e=1679529600&v=beta&t=UaqGexlcVYPr081eFChiNj8lvWBVJhliCk8CH8KbV1E)
Why do you think this is happening? Do you think that this is a huge mistake that half the households are doing in these countries? I give you an even better idea. I have district heating, coming from a coal power plant, as I understand it's scheduled to be shut down. And the company maffia organization, Ennaturlijk, was doing absolutely nothing to replace this with something more environmentally friendly. While district heating is the perfect example, with one plant, doing water to water heatpumping, can do enormous energy savings for tens of thousands of households.
But I can already see the people protesting that "it will freeze the fishes" or some other reason, and it's too cold here (clearly not).
-
New flash in NZ last few days is that our dairy giant Fonterra is partnering with MAN to develop electric heatpump boilers to cease reliance on coal.
https://www.fonterra.com/nz/en/our-stories/media/fonterra-and-man-energy-solutions-enter-into-major-partnership.html (https://www.fonterra.com/nz/en/our-stories/media/fonterra-and-man-energy-solutions-enter-into-major-partnership.html)
Who says cant ?
-
Just use suitable radiators to have a 45°C system, it is not a problem, they are thicker and have denser fins inside, but they definitely can be fitted to old uninsulated houses.
10 or so years ago was common to install heat pumps rated to 15-25kW output in old uninsulated houses. The cost of the bigger pump was still cheaper than house insulation. And making the heat pump bigger can be relatively inexpensive. Two times bigger compressor does not cost two times but just lower tens of percent more. The evaporator is also relatively cheap and the expensive control electronics remains the same.
-
Just use suitable radiators to have a 45°C system, it is not a problem, they are thicker and have denser fins inside, but they definitely can be fitted to old uninsulated houses.
'just' replace every radiator in the building and all the pipework. Five minute job.
-
Just use suitable radiators to have a 45°C system, it is not a problem, they are thicker and have denser fins inside, but they definitely can be fitted to old uninsulated houses.
10 or so years ago was common to install heat pumps rated to 15-25kW output in old uninsulated houses. The cost of the bigger pump was still cheaper than house insulation. And making the heat pump bigger can be relatively inexpensive. Two times bigger compressor does not cost two times but just lower tens of percent more. The evaporator is also relatively cheap and the expensive control electronics remains the same.
If you are going to that much expense and disruption, why would you use radiators at all? If you want radiators to run at 45C in most rooms you will need to used forced air. A passive radiator would be huge. You might as well force much cooler air around the entire house, and get a much better COP from the heat pump.
-
'just' replace every radiator in the building and all the pipework. Five minute job.
Hmm, radiators aren't *that* difficult to change if you're also going to be installing a heatpump. Doing insulation throughout though, that requires redecoration and most rooms to be emptied out, so isn't really trivial.
-
So, uhm, that's your argument then? You disregard any data that doesn't fit your narrative and call all those that run with it idiots? :o
There is no narrative and there is no argument. Just the fact that heatpumps are not economic to run when it is cold. This is obviously clear from looking at specifications from actual heatpumps. There is no need for yet another fantasy number that is invented to compare heatpumps because it says nothing about the suitability of heatpump for a less insulated home.
But.... it does. Nobody is arguing that the efficiency of a heatpump goes down when temperature does. That's why you have the SCOP value. It tells you what your seasonal efficiency will be. And it does say something about suitability for less isolated houses as you typically have this value for 35C and 55C feed temperatures. And if 55C doesn't suffise: get crackin' on isolating your barn, please.
If you look at what SCOP actually means, you'll notice it is not a number that tells you something about the suitability of a unit. Seasonal efficiency doesn't mean that a unit will be able to heat a home when it is cold. The COP might be too low and SCOP doesn't tell you that at all.
Also, you don't need high water temperatures perse. It is relatively easy to retrofit an existing home with underfloor heating (been there, done that) which doesn't need high water temperatures at all.
Why do you think this is happening? Do you think that this is a huge mistake that half the households are doing in these countries?
You keep missing the point here which has been explained by several people already. But I will repeat is once more so you may finally understand it: a heatpump can only work for a home that is well insulated. When the COP bottoms out, it has still has the capacity to provide enough heat through resistive heating. However, in many countries that have relatively mild climates (like UK, NL, Germany), homes (especially the older ones) are not insulated well enough to be heated with a heatpump all year long. It is logical that you see heatpumps in countries with colder climates because those homes are way better insulated already and thus suitable for heating by a heatpump.
It is not about black / white, heatpumps bad / good, it is about suitability. I have been using the word 'suitable' a lot but people keep missing it.
-
'just' replace every radiator in the building and all the pipework. Five minute job.
Hmm, radiators aren't *that* difficult to change if you're also going to be installing a heatpump. Doing insulation throughout though, that requires redecoration and most rooms to be emptied out, so isn't really trivial.
Peoples are crazy and changing radiators just because they want a modern look or some snake oil salesman telling them these new ones will save them so much money. I see it all around.
Tossing out perfectly fine cast iron ones just to replace them with fancy sheet metal ones. And similar nonsense. And they replace the old gas boiler with a new one. So system parameters remain the same.
I agree fan coils will be better for a 45°C system, but for a bedroom, it is a no go.
Big remodel with floor heating will add way more comfortable for many houses but it is a big job and probably will be bodged, just like the insulation is.
So fashionable ::) And a typical example of where is plenty of space for a big low-temperature one.
(https://okolobytu.cz/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/RADIK-KLASIK-R_2.jpg)
-
You keep missing the point here which has been explained by several people already. But I will repeat is once more so you may finally understand it: a heatpump can only work for a home that is well insulated. In many countries that have relatively mild climates (like UK, NL, Germany), homes (especially the older ones) are not insulated well enough to be heated with a heatpump all year long. It is logical that you see heatpumps in countries with colder climates because those homes are way better insulated already and thus suitable for heating by a heatpump.
So this is not entirely true. Heat is heat at the end of the day.
You can make a heatpump work on a poorly insulated home, but it will need to be much larger and the radiators will have to be large to get the required room heat output. The challenge is the heatpump output power will begin to decline as the outside temperature falls, so you end up with very large heatpumps serving just a few days a year - and heatpumps don't run as efficiently when cycling or running at lower loads.
There is no reason a heatpump cannot work on a poorly insulated home. You can just put a bigger and bigger one in. Unfortunately, a 24kW boiler costs about £2,000 but a 24kW output power heatpump costs about £15,000. Not economical.
So instead you sometimes see "engineers" try to fit the 12kW heatpump and people complain their home takes forever to heat up (or is too cold in winter.)
A few things need to change for heatpumps to be more economical. The price needs to fall drastically. They are a motor, refrigeration system, controller. Shouldn't cost that much. And the installers need to get better. The scheme around F-Gas in this country is a bit bizarre and segmented and too few people do air con systems.
-
You keep missing the point here which has been explained by several people already. But I will repeat is once more so you may finally understand it: a heatpump can only work for a home that is well insulated. In many countries that have relatively mild climates (like UK, NL, Germany), homes (especially the older ones) are not insulated well enough to be heated with a heatpump all year long. It is logical that you see heatpumps in countries with colder climates because those homes are way better insulated already and thus suitable for heating by a heatpump.
So this is not entirely true. Heat is heat at the end of the day.
You can make a heatpump work on a poorly insulated home, but it will need to be much larger and the radiators will have to be large to get the required room heat output. The challenge is the heatpump output power will begin to decline as the outside temperature falls, so you end up with very large heatpumps serving just a few days a year - and heatpumps don't run as efficiently when cycling or running at lower loads.
There is no reason a heatpump cannot work on a poorly insulated home. You can just put a bigger and bigger one in. Unfortunately, a 24kW boiler costs about £2,000 but a 24kW output power heatpump costs about £15,000. Not economical.
Financially not viable = cannot work. For all intends and purposes it comes down to the same: you'll need a different solution for the problem. There is no semantic discussion necessary on what can work 'in theory' but has no practical application.
-
'just' replace every radiator in the building and all the pipework. Five minute job.
Hmm, radiators aren't *that* difficult to change if you're also going to be installing a heatpump. Doing insulation throughout though, that requires redecoration and most rooms to be emptied out, so isn't really trivial.
But it's not just the radiators. You cannot get enough flow through a microbore pipe (8 or 10mm OD, typically) with half the bore clogged by the remains of the old radiators to feed these large radiators at such low flow temperatures. This means significant additional work. Even once you've done that, if the house is inadequately insulated or leaks too much cold air, you'll have problems getting things consistently warm.
Heatpumps will work fine, so long as someone ponies up the money to deploy them effectively.
-
Financially not viable = cannot work. For all intends and purposes it comes down to the same: you'll need a different solution for the problem. There is no semantic discussion necessary on what can work 'in theory' but has no practical application.
Being not viable today doesn't mean not viable in 10-20 years though. If you could get the cost of the heatpump down then they become a lot more viable.
Fundamentally there's no good reason you could not build much cheaper heatpumps at higher output powers, but there would need to be enough demand for it. Currently there is limited demand, most heatpumps are sold as air conditioning, used more in summer, so efficiency/power output are seen as less critical. A 24kW heatpump versus a 3kW air con is a bigger motor, bigger radiator, and a more powerful drive inverter, but the costs for those don't rise in a linear fashion.
This is why the UK government (and EU) should ban the installation of new gas boilers and only allow boilers to be sold as replacements for existing ones, with the objective to phase out the sale of gas/oil boilers in their entirety by a future date. Suddenly you create a huge market for these devices and let capitalism work on the problem. You need to get the phase out right because it will take a lot longer to fit appropriate heatpumps to the leakiest properties but it will be possible eventually. As I said, there's no fundamental reason that can't be done.
-
The price needs to fall drastically
:-DD the minute installers heard theres a £5k grant available from the government prices shot up,just like solar instals and car charging points
-
with the objective to phase out the sale of gas/oil boilers in their entirety by a future date. Suddenly you create a huge market for these devices and let capitalism work on the problem.
The way capitalism would work on that is to raise the price, since there will be no choice - you have to buy it and can't use the (old) alternative. And the massive demand will just raise the price again - look at what happens whenever there is a scarcity of something. The time when it becomes cheap would be after the majority of those who would install them have done so, and the demand tails off.
-
Almost like some sort of regulation is needed to control the markets rather than letting them abuse people.
-
Almost like some sort of regulation is needed to control the markets rather than letting them abuse people.
And regulators don't ?
-
This thread needs a flippin wake up call. Go and watch Guy Martin's Great British Power Trip” on Channel Four (UK) if you can - that’ll wake all the fantasists up from their EV utopian daydreams. Wake the #### up lol.
-
Go and watch Guy Martin's Great British Power Trip” on Channel Four (UK)
And 1) spot the several technical errors
2) spot the propaganda being slipped in
-
Go and watch Guy Martin's Great British Power Trip” on Channel Four (UK)
And 1) spot the several technical errors
2) spot the propaganda being slipped in
By your own admission you’re mad. I’m out. 😁
-
You keep missing the point here which has been explained by several people already. But I will repeat is once more so you may finally understand it: a heatpump can only work for a home that is well insulated.
And this is the part which is plain bullshit.
It's something I keep hearing from the Dutch and there is just no evidence for it. There is especially large blowback, because they want to make it mandatory.
Financially not viable = cannot work. For all intends and purposes it comes down to the same: you'll need a different solution for the problem. There is no semantic discussion necessary on what can work 'in theory' but has no practical application.
Last time I checked, I could borrow up to 30K with 10 or 15 year green mortgage for energy saving renovations. This is a separate mortgage. Plus there were bunch of local incentives, tax rebate and other forms to do projects like this. You can do these changes with almost no money up front.
-
There is no reason a heatpump cannot work on a poorly insulated home. You can just put a bigger and bigger one in. Unfortunately, a 24kW boiler costs about £2,000 but a 24kW output power heatpump costs about £15,000. Not economical.
So instead you sometimes see "engineers" try to fit the 12kW heatpump and people complain their home takes forever to heat up (or is too cold in winter.)
A few things need to change for heatpumps to be more economical. The price needs to fall drastically. They are a motor, refrigeration system, controller. Shouldn't cost that much. And the installers need to get better. The scheme around F-Gas in this country is a bit bizarre and segmented and too few people do air con systems.
There are no name units for as low as €/£5,000 for 24kW air-water monoblock, and some use two, or even more compressors for bigger units, with simple old on-off regulations, so can run at half the rating to limit cycling.
Yes, it probably uses a cheap ~500$ Chinese compressor which will not last many decades.
But it can be easily serviced and replaced either with a cheap one or a better one, a reasonable brand compressor for a heat pump is about 1000€
And if the unit has no inverter there is little that can go wrong
I agree those units have somewhat lower efficiency. The question is if ti makes economic sense.
-
You keep missing the point here which has been explained by several people already. But I will repeat is once more so you may finally understand it: a heatpump can only work for a home that is well insulated.
And this is the part which is plain bullshit.
It's something I keep hearing from the Dutch and there is just no evidence for it.
You've missed the part about a relative of mine who did the math on this (using a detailed thermal model of a home; thermal modelling is his profession) and came to the same conclusion.
-
So even if you cover every wall ceiling and floor in the house with hydronic heating and it's blasting 100 kW of heating into the house with 40 degrees water temperature and a huge amount of flow, somehow the power poofs outside because the source is a heatpump?
Insulation and the thermal resistance between water and the room air are entirely orthogonal. If by some fluke of design the former is shit, but the latter is already superb (floor heating with the pipes just below a thin laminate floor, for instance) it just means you need a larger heatpump.
-
So even if you cover every wall ceiling and floor in the house with hydronic heating and it's blasting 100 kW of heating into the house with 40 degrees water temperature and a huge amount of flow, somehow the power poofs outside because the source is a heatpump?
Insulation and the thermal resistance between water and the room air are entirely orthogonal. If by some fluke of design the former is shit, but the latter is already superb (floor heating with the pipes just below a thin laminate floor, for instance) it just means you need a larger heatpump.
You are throwing things together that aren't related at all. It doesn't matter how you put the heat into a home; that is a question to be answered once you know how much energy you need and determined a heatpump is financially viable. There are several other options compared to retrofitting existing radiators as well. Like combining air-to-air heatpump (aka airconditioning) with an existing boiler + radiators. This is relatively easy & cheap to retrofit in most homes. Added bonus is cooling as well.
If you need a lot of energy then the costs for the energy will be high. Especially since at low COP the heat from electricity will cost way more compared to gas, you are spending a lot more money during cold days with a heat-pump only solution. A bigger heatpump will also cost more to buy so you'll be throwing any chance of a positive ROI out of the window. Again: first step is to investigate the insulation of a home to determine required energy input (like walk before trying to run).
-
If you need a lot of energy then the costs for the energy will be high. Especially since at low COP the heat from electricity will cost way more compared to gas, you are spending a lot more money during cold days with a heat-pump only solution. A bigger heatpump will also cost more to buy so you'll be throwing any chance of a positive ROI out of the window. Again: first step is to investigate the insulation of a home to determine required energy input (like walk before trying to run).
The cost of larger systems doesn't grow that fast. Sure the subsidy effect falls off, but the labour cost stay the same ... until you get to really large systems, linear is a good enough approximation. So if there is ROI to be had at a given ratio of electricity/gas use, the size of the system doesn't matter, only the ratio of electricity/gas matters.
The ratio of electricity/gas use is determined not by insulation, but by heating system thermal resistance. Insulation is thus not the determining factor.
-
To reduce the recenr volume of hot air (ho ho) and get back to BEV charge points, here's my local council's assessment and predictions...
As you can see, the predictions for charging points 2030 are
- populated areas: a significant shortfall, principally urban and suburban but also rural areas. N.B. those area are not the densely populated city areas I have previously used as illustrations; these areas are easier :(
- sparsely populated areas: a moderate shortfall (pale yellow areas), principally low-lying farmland with lots of drainage ditches
That' s not a surprise, and I expect it to be mirrored across the country.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/ev-based-road-transportation-is-not-viable/?action=dlattach;attach=1724204)
The council favours funding public charging points by a concession model, presumably since there would be no capital outlay. There is no indication of the feasibility nor any commercial terms.
On-street charging will be required, and they have an objective to investigate the technology. Translation: don't know cost and feasibility.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/ev-based-road-transportation-is-not-viable/?action=dlattach;attach=1724210)
FFI read the full report https://n-somerset.inconsult.uk/gf2.ti/-/1473250/159997125.1/PDF/-/NSC%20Formatted%20EV%20Strategy%20Exec%20Summary%20Numbered.pdf (https://n-somerset.inconsult.uk/gf2.ti/-/1473250/159997125.1/PDF/-/NSC%20Formatted%20EV%20Strategy%20Exec%20Summary%20Numbered.pdf)
-
On-street charging will be required, and they have an objective to investigate the technology. Translation: don't know cost and feasibility.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/ev-based-road-transportation-is-not-viable/?action=dlattach;attach=1724210)
Interesting that the complexity of lamppost charging is medium, rather than low. I guess that is due to heaver cables being required along the whole street. Does anyone know what "gullies (cable channels)" means in this context? It sounds like a component of a solution, rather than a complete one.
-
Gullies refers to something like the Oxford pilot project: https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/case-study/oxgul-e/ (though this has been done in a few areas of the UK now, both arranged by LA's and arranged by a few owners privately by planning request, it's basically the same as getting a dropped curb.)
It requires you to be able to park outside (or reasonably near) to your home on the street, so either neighbourly cooperation is required, or more likely allocated street parking will become more common.
Most lamp-posts hang off the street ring main and even in the newer estate I lived in, were fused with a 20A fuse, suggesting a capacity of at least 16A for the incomer. Obviously the street itself needs to have enough capacity but that's an issue either way you charge cars. LED streetlamps free up some capacity but it's my understanding that this capacity always existed even with SOx lamps because those were only a few hundred watts. As to why so much capacity was designed in, I have no idea.
Overall that study seems to be a fair assessment of the challenge - certainly not impossible to accommodate EV's on UK streets but work needs to be done (and importantly, the work needs to start 'now' to accommodate EV's becoming the only new car by 2030).
-
On-street charging will be required, and they have an objective to investigate the technology. Translation: don't know cost and feasibility.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/ev-based-road-transportation-is-not-viable/?action=dlattach;attach=1724210)
Interesting that the complexity of lamppost charging is medium, rather than low. I guess that is due to heaver cables being required along the whole street.
Others are the need to have a payment device in each lamppost, and what happens to the 75%+ of cars that aren't next to a lamp post. Rationale: my suburban street has ~8 cars between two lamp posts, and hope that 2 cars can simultaneously charge from each lamp post.
Does anyone know what "gullies (cable channels)" means in this context? It sounds like a component of a solution, rather than a complete one.
Gullies are things that
- will get blocked with detritus and vegetation
- will channel rainwater into some properties. My property is downhill from the road, and the road (but not the properties!) has a low risk of flash flooding. There are many others in my village, since it it on a hll
Gullies refers to something like the Oxford pilot project: https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/case-study/oxgul-e/ (https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/case-study/oxgul-e/) (though this has been done in a few areas of the UK now, both arranged by LA's and arranged by a few owners privately by planning request, it's basically the same as getting a dropped curb.)
It requires you to be able to park outside (or reasonably near) to your home on the street, so either neighbourly cooperation is required, or more likely allocated street parking will become more common.
What kind of cooperation are you thinking of?
I'm not going to allow someone from down the road to charge their vehicle with my electricity.
Even in my suburban street there is around zero chance that I would be able to park outside my house. Too often I've had to chase around trying to find who is blocking my drive and preventing me from getting out. And this is, by all accounts, a good and desireable neighbourhood.
(Good luck where my daughter used to live in a capital city; if you put scrap metal on the pavement you wouldn't be done for littering - since the "metal fairies" always disappeared it within a few hours :) Copper cables would disappear equally fast :( )
Overall that study seems to be a fair assessment of the challenge - certainly not impossible to accommodate EV's on UK streets but work needs to be done (and importantly, the work needs to start 'now' to accommodate EV's becoming the only new car by 2030).
I think "assessment" is too strong a word; "summary" would be appropriate.
-
What kind of cooperation are you thinking of?
I'm not going to allow someone from down the road to charge their vehicle with my electricity.
Even in my suburban street there is around zero chance that I would be able to park outside my house. Too often I've had to chase around trying to find who is blocking my drive and preventing me from getting out. And this is, by all accounts, a good and desireable neighbourhood.
(Good luck where my daughter used to live in a capital city; if you put scrap metal on the pavement you wouldn't be done for littering - since the "metal fairies" always disappeared it within a few hours :) Copper cables would disappear equally fast :( )
The cooperation aspect is being able to park outside of your home if you wanted to use a cable gulley setup. This is possible in some areas, for instance my street it seems that most people park in the same space even if they don't have a driveway. Other streets will be more difficult. So they will either have allocated parking (this space is for No. 32) or will need other solutions (pop up charging, lamp post charging, standard charging posts etc.)
There will not be one solution appropriate to all areas, that's guaranteed.
We have a few of these chargers now around me - pity they're a bit ugly.
https://transportandenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/LibertyCharge_Wandsworth_GatwickRoad_002-scaled.jpg
-
What kind of cooperation are you thinking of?
I'm not going to allow someone from down the road to charge their vehicle with my electricity.
Even in my suburban street there is around zero chance that I would be able to park outside my house. Too often I've had to chase around trying to find who is blocking my drive and preventing me from getting out. And this is, by all accounts, a good and desireable neighbourhood.
(Good luck where my daughter used to live in a capital city; if you put scrap metal on the pavement you wouldn't be done for littering - since the "metal fairies" always disappeared it within a few hours :) Copper cables would disappear equally fast :( )
The cooperation aspect is being able to park outside of your home if you wanted to use a cable gulley setup. This is possible in some areas, for instance my street it seems that most people park in the same space even if they don't have a driveway. Other streets will be more difficult. So they will either have allocated parking (this space is for No. 32) or will need other solutions (pop up charging, lamp post charging, standard charging posts etc.)
There will not be one solution appropriate to all areas, that's guaranteed.
Based on what I can see inside cities and in the suburbs...
If there is enough space for such cooperation to be practical, there won't be much need for on-screen charging. That's not a problem.
But the inverse is also true: on-screen charging will be required where there is little space. And it will be difficult to arrange cooperation there, so that will be a big and more-or-less unsolvable problem.
-
Even in my suburban street there is around zero chance that I would be able to park outside my house. Too often I've had to chase around trying to find who is blocking my drive and preventing me from getting out. And this is, by all accounts, a good and desirable neighbourhood.
There are plenty of suburban UK city areas where people park within a couple of metres of the same spot each day There are also plenty where the last part of any journey home is filled with dread, not always that of what horrors the family has in store for you. One size will never fit all with parking and charging issues.
-
Even in my suburban street there is around zero chance that I would be able to park outside my house. Too often I've had to chase around trying to find who is blocking my drive and preventing me from getting out. And this is, by all accounts, a good and desirable neighbourhood.
There are plenty of suburban UK city areas where people park within a couple of metres of the same spot each day There are also plenty where the last part of any journey home is filled with dread, not always that of what horrors the family has in store for you. One size will never fit all with parking and charging issues.
I contend that where you can reliably park in one spot on the street, there will usually be sufficient space for off street parking. And that would render the on street charging moot.
Numbers are required; adjectives are useless. Emotive statements are to be deprecated.
-
Even in my suburban street there is around zero chance that I would be able to park outside my house. Too often I've had to chase around trying to find who is blocking my drive and preventing me from getting out. And this is, by all accounts, a good and desirable neighbourhood.
There are plenty of suburban UK city areas where people park within a couple of metres of the same spot each day There are also plenty where the last part of any journey home is filled with dread, not always that of what horrors the family has in store for you. One size will never fit all with parking and charging issues.
I contend that where you can reliably park in one spot on the street, there will usually be sufficient space for off street parking. And that would render the on street charging moot.
Numbers are required; adjectives are useless. Emotive statements are to be deprecated.
Its quite common for 1930s North London housing to be a compromise between terraced and semi-detached - blocks of 4, with 2 car widths between each block. So, 50% of the houses have their own driveway. The other 50% usually park in the street in a consistent place, because the driveways reduce the pressure on kerb space. Unreliable park is a threshold problem. When the cars per house are below a threshold that the street can accommodate parking can be quite reliable. Go over the threshold and parking rapidly descends into chaos. You see streets where parking has never been a problem, where one house getting an extra car puts the whole street's parking in chaos.
-
In the city of Chicago, we have a long-standing, controversial, and quite illegal street-parking tradition of "dibs", especially after snowstorms.
By tradition, when one shovels out the street in front of ones house to park there, it is thereafter reserved by placing unfashionable furniture (especially chairs) in the newly-cleared space.
The media like to report on the more artistic placeholders, such as a pair of free-standing frozen bluejeans or a plastic basketball hoop.
The authorities tend to tolerate this in the immediate aftermath of a heavy snowfall, but will make formal announcements about when all that trash will get picked up.
See https://gladstonepark.net/community/dibs/
-
Even in my suburban street there is around zero chance that I would be able to park outside my house. Too often I've had to chase around trying to find who is blocking my drive and preventing me from getting out. And this is, by all accounts, a good and desirable neighbourhood.
There are plenty of suburban UK city areas where people park within a couple of metres of the same spot each day There are also plenty where the last part of any journey home is filled with dread, not always that of what horrors the family has in store for you. One size will never fit all with parking and charging issues.
I contend that where you can reliably park in one spot on the street, there will usually be sufficient space for off street parking. And that would render the on street charging moot.
Numbers are required; adjectives are useless. Emotive statements are to be deprecated.
Its quite common for 1930s North London housing to be a compromise between terraced and semi-detached - blocks of 4, with 2 car widths between each block. So, 50% of the houses have their own driveway. The other 50% usually park in the street in a consistent place, because the driveways reduce the pressure on kerb space. Unreliable park is a threshold problem. When the cars per house are below a threshold that the street can accommodate parking can be quite reliable. Go over the threshold and parking rapidly descends into chaos. You see streets where parking has never been a problem, where one house getting an extra car puts the whole street's parking in chaos.
Yes, just so. That non-linearity is real and a pain.
I have a 1930 semi, and cars from surrounding roads occasionally infest the road. It is, of course, very difficult to be sure of that since the "residence" associated with any given car is difficult to determine. I once found a car from a neighbouring road partially blocking my drive, and had to insist they !over it pronto.
-
In the city of Chicago, we have a long-standing, controversial, and quite illegal street-parking tradition of "dibs", especially after snowstorms.
By tradition, when one shovels out the street in front of ones house to park there, it is thereafter reserved by placing unfashionable furniture (especially chairs) in the newly-cleared space.
The media like to report on the more artistic placeholders, such as a pair of free-standing frozen bluejeans or a plastic basketball hoop.
The authorities tend to tolerate this in the immediate aftermath of a heavy snowfall, but will make formal announcements about when all that trash will get picked up.
See https://gladstonepark.net/community/dibs/
I'm going to have to reserve headspace for a woodchipper while a tree is pruned. It won't be easy: I'll have to keep twitching the curtains until I see a space, then rush out and park my car and a wheelie rubbish bin in the space.
Painful enough for 1day/decade; intolerable every day.
-
I hear you loud and clear, cobber. You're not wrong about some carmakers dragging their anchors on the whole EV wave. The Japanese giants, bless their petrol-powered hearts, have been a bit, well, stubborn about it. Took a rumble in the boardroom to loosen Toyota's grip on the combustion engine and Nissan needed a good shove from Renault and Ghosn to dip their toes in the electric pool.
But hey, I wouldn't say they're missing the boat entirely. More like they're taking the scenic route, admiring the view before making a splash. Just look at the Yanks and the Euros! Ford went from chucking a battery in a Focus like it was an afterthought to electrifying their cash cow, the F-150, and people are eating those trucks up like pav at a barbie. BMW ditched the quirky i3 and unleashed a whole fleet of EVs. It's happening, mate, even if it's at a "shrimp on the barbie" pace.
And maybe that's not a bad thing. Let the early adopters iron out the kinks, find the best charging spots, and figure out which seats are the comfiest for these long electric journeys. Speaking of comfy seats, have you heard of [spam reference removed by moderator] They're like the MacGyver of boat seats, transforming into recliners, fishing thrones, and sunbathing havens on a whim. Imagine cruising along in your EV, then pulling up at a stunning view and whipping out Sege seats that make you feel like you're floating on air. Now that's a game-changer.
So yeah, the EV revolution might be chugging along like a tinnie on the Hawkesbury, but it's definitely heading in the right direction. And while we wait for it to pick up speed, let's enjoy the ride, keep an eye out for those trusted boat seats- [spam URL removed by moderator] and maybe, just maybe, convince the Japanese to ditch the oars and grab a life jacket. Cheers to that, mate!
-
And keep burning coal to charge them.
Or as witnessed in a recent WA trip, most of their power is from gas turbines......
-
That's one of the more determined spam posts I've seen. Didn't think seat manufacturers were that desperate.
-
And keep burning coal to charge them.
Or as witnessed in a recent WA trip, most of their power is from gas turbines......
But how dare you!
-
And keep burning coal to charge them.
Or as witnessed in a recent WA trip, most of their power is from gas turbines......
But how dare you!
Convenient lies are the inconvenient truth.
-
That's one of the more determined spam posts I've seen. Didn't think seat manufacturers were that desperate.
Looks like some kind of ChatGPT large-language model based on the prompt "Sound like an old grandma moaning about 'EV-based road transportation is not viable' and mention my seat company 'X' and how good those seats are".
Sadly, spam like this is only going to get worse.
Also, holy thread necromancy, batman!
-
I'd want to own an EV even if it wasn't practical.
-
But you'll own nothing.
-
And keep burning coal to charge them.
Or as witnessed in a recent WA trip, most of their power is from gas turbines......
As opposed to using the same electricity to refine oil into gasoline?
https://www.autoblog.com/amp/2011/10/14/how-gas-cars-use-more-electricity-to-go-100-miles-than-evs-do/ (https://www.autoblog.com/amp/2011/10/14/how-gas-cars-use-more-electricity-to-go-100-miles-than-evs-do/)
-
And keep burning coal to charge them.
Or as witnessed in a recent WA trip, most of their power is from gas turbines......
They are using less and less coal in Europe, often replacing it with renewables. Here's how it works:
A forest is uprooted in the United States, timber is processed into fuel pellets, shipped to another continent, using petrol and diesel fuels for transportation. In Europe, customers burn these fuel pellets, generating power, including for BEVs.
Customers are happy because CO2 from burning renewable biofuels is allegedly better than CO2 from locally mined coal in places like Germany. Perhaps the quantum properties of a carbon atom that comes from a recently alive tree are better than the quantum properties of a carbon atom that comes from coal.
-
And keep burning coal to charge them.
Or as witnessed in a recent WA trip, most of their power is from gas turbines......
They are using less and less coal in Europe, often replacing it with renewables. Here's how it works:
A forest is uprooted in the United States, timber is processed into fuel pellets, shipped to another continent, using petrol and diesel fuels for transportation. In Europe, customers burn these fuel pellets, generating power, including for BEVs.
Customers are happy because CO2 from burning renewable biofuels is allegedly better than CO2 from locally mined coal in places like Germany. Perhaps the quantum properties of a carbon atom that comes from a recently alive tree are better than the quantum properties of a carbon atom that comes from coal.
I live not too far from the Drax power station in Yorkshire which runs on virgin US forestry. Its very much a WTF topic in most conversations. Its fully renewable energy in the view of people in power, clinging to anything that makes their "moves towards net zero" look better.
-
[Edit to make clear this is about the chip-powered charging stations, not generic umpty-gigawatt power stations.]
You cannot switch from one means to another in the blink of an eye. It's almost as difficult to do it piecemeal too, hence there is massive inertia to keep things more or less as they are. So, bearing that in mind...
You gotta start somewhere and it's no good killing oil and switching entirely to electrics if there is (relatively) nothing to consume that. And there won't be consumers if there is nothing to consume. Classic chicken and egg. So why not get the provision going somehow and let the consumers build up (meantime reducing consumption for non-preferred supplies). Once that's all working you can switch the backend to whatever you fancy. Currently, wood chips shipped across the globe allow for the generators to be generating, and once your consumers just consume electricity you can bugger about with how you generate it. Hell, use coal if you want, or gas or chips or solar or shit - your consumers won't notice or care.
I would see a good case for having charging stations using petrol, just to get the charging stations in place and used. Later, they can be wired to the grid and/or use whatever the green source du jour is, but many tiny steps is better than a huge leap usually.
-
[Edit to make clear this is about the chip-powered charging stations, not generic umpty-gigawatt power stations.]
You cannot switch from one means to another in the blink of an eye. It's almost as difficult to do it piecemeal too, hence there is massive inertia to keep things more or less as they are. So, bearing that in mind...
You gotta start somewhere and it's no good killing oil and switching entirely to electrics if there is (relatively) nothing to consume that. And there won't be consumers if there is nothing to consume. Classic chicken and egg. So why not get the provision going somehow and let the consumers build up (meantime reducing consumption for non-preferred supplies). Once that's all working you can switch the backend to whatever you fancy. Currently, wood chips shipped across the globe allow for the generators to be generating, and once your consumers just consume electricity you can bugger about with how you generate it. Hell, use coal if you want, or gas or chips or solar or shit - your consumers won't notice or care.
I would see a good case for having charging stations using petrol, just to get the charging stations in place and used. Later, they can be wired to the grid and/or use whatever the green source du jour is, but many tiny steps is better than a huge leap usually.
Yup.
Even an electric vehicle running off the UK grid with its mix of gas, tiny bit of coal, wind, nuclear, biomass etc. has a carbon footprint of around 250 grams CO2eq per kWh. That is around 60 grams per vehicle mile, around a third of a petrol car.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Yes, EVs are not "the solution" to climate change, they represent one of the many ways we can seek to decarbonise road transport, and would be combined with longer vehicle lifecycles, improved battery manufacturing techniques, more public transport provision, more cycling provision, more opportunities for hybrid/remote working and so on.
It seems the anti-green people mostly think in binary, something is either dirty or clean; and anything that is not completely clean, is dirty, and therefore not worth considering.
-
The inconvenient truth is that tons of CO2 are thrown into the atmosphere before an EV's first charge. The actual emission values are not reported by the industry and are estimated in a range from 30 to 200 kg of CO2 per kWh capacity of the battery, depending on the mining and manufacturing process. Taking the midpoint of 115 kg/kWh would estimate 9 metric tons of CO2 for a typical Tesla Model 3.
If a person believes that CO2 emissions are bad for the climate and, for that reason, opts for a BEV, he/she is kidding him/herself. The person prepays the emissions by allowing mining companies in Africa and battery manufacturing companies in China to pollute the atmosphere with many tons of CO2 before the car even leaves the manufacturing plant.
Whether the prepayment is justifiable, due to presumably lower carbon emissions per mile driven compared to an ICE vehicle, depends on many factors, such as the make and model of the specific BEV and alternative ICE vehicle, lifetime of the vehicles, driver's habits, average miles driven, local climate, electricity source, energy required to dispose of the vehicle and its hazardous materials, driver’s luck, etc.
As I mentioned in a parallel thread, a tradie who would swap a RAM 1500 for a Cybertruck and drive 50K miles per year would probably cause fewer carbon emissions over the lifetime of the vehicle, assuming the car is kept for several years and doesn't get into minor accidents causing battery damage or deformation requiring replacement. However, a casual, climate-concerned driver with low annual mileage might be better off keeping their current VW Golf instead of trading it for a Chinese-made Tesla Model 3 to be faithful to their beliefs.
-
And keep burning coal to charge them.
Or as witnessed in a recent WA trip, most of their power is from gas turbines......
They are using less and less coal in Europe, often replacing it with renewables. Here's how it works:
A forest is uprooted in the United States, timber is processed into fuel pellets, shipped to another continent, using petrol and diesel fuels for transportation. In Europe, customers burn these fuel pellets, generating power, including for BEVs.
Customers are happy because CO2 from burning renewable biofuels is allegedly better than CO2 from locally mined coal in places like Germany. Perhaps the quantum properties of a carbon atom that comes from a recently alive tree are better than the quantum properties of a carbon atom that comes from coal.
I live not too far from the Drax power station in Yorkshire which runs on virgin US forestry. Its very much a WTF topic in most conversations. Its fully renewable energy in the view of people in power, clinging to anything that makes their "moves towards net zero" look better.
And soon to get £40e9(!) to employ carbon capture storage :( https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/16/drax-gets-go-ahead-for-carbon-capture-project-at-estimated-40bn-cost-to-bill-payers (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/16/drax-gets-go-ahead-for-carbon-capture-project-at-estimated-40bn-cost-to-bill-payers)
Without Drax we would be in a bind. Currently a 4 reactors are unexpectedly offline, and even though wind power is high we are still importing >7GW of electricity.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ (http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/)
https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/power-station/daily-statuses (https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/power-station/daily-statuses)
A lot of German "coal" is actually brown lignite, an especially polluting source.
-
The inconvenient truth is that tons of CO2 are thrown into the atmosphere before an EV's first charge.
This is a bit orange and apples, isn't it? Because:
However, a casual, climate-concerned driver with low annual mileage might be better off keeping their current VW Golf instead of trading it for a Chinese-made Tesla Model 3
This is the only argument that makes sense for EV being similarly polluting to ICE: taking account of the manufacturing cost for EV where there is none at all for ICE. Of course that's going to be in ICE favour! In reality we should be looking at replacements - where you go to get a new car to replace the one you have, the choice is EV or ICE, and then EV wins every time.
That's not an argument not to get an EV. It's an argument not to replace your existing motor, that's all.
-
My point was: the manufacturing of a BEV causes much greater CO2 pollution than the manufacturing of an ICE vehicle because of the battery.
Whether a casual driver replaces an old vehicle or chooses between a BEV and a brand new greenish-green ICE that meets Euro 7 emissions standards, there is always a mileage threshold. If you drive under that mileage, you would be contributing more to CO2 pollution. The exact value of the threshold depends on a myriad of factors.
-
A lot of German "coal" is actually brown lignite, an especially polluting source.
If you are capturing the entire flue output for CCS, won't all those nasties be captured too?
-
My point was: the manufacturing of a BEV causes much greater CO2 pollution than the manufacturing of an ICE vehicle because of the battery.
Whether a casual driver replaces an old vehicle or chooses between a BEV and a brand new greenish-green ICE that meets Euro 7 emissions standards, there is always a mileage threshold. If you drive under that mileage, you would be contributing more to CO2 pollution. The exact value of the threshold depends on a myriad of factors.
We've been here before. The emissions are typically "paid off" within about 30,000 - 50,000 miles, depending on the manufacturing location of the battery, the source of the electricity used to power the car and so on. The figure provided is a typical one from one of the many studies available.
It is true you could create a scenario of say a 100kWh SUV driven 4000 miles a year powered by average electricity where an ICE possibly wins out if the car meets its maker within say 10 years (crash damage for example...)
But the average use case will certainly be more negative in CO2 emissions than not which is why it is the case that EVs are promoted as a good alternative to ICE cars for the average person, if they can accommodate them.
Remember most cars, EVs included, made today with reasonable maintenance should last at least 15 years, maybe more. So even if the first owner doesn't work out, the second or third owner might.
A lot of German "coal" is actually brown lignite, an especially polluting source.
If you are capturing the entire flue output for CCS, won't all those nasties be captured too?
No. Most CCS systems work by using amine gas treatment which only works on CO2 and H2S. The flue itself isn't stored so you get other emissions still like NOx.
-
A lot of German "coal" is actually brown lignite, an especially polluting source.
If you are capturing the entire flue output for CCS, won't all those nasties be captured too?
The Germans don't.
Capturing CO2 consumes noticeable energy.
The nasties would probably gunk up the pipes, in a way CO2 doesn't. Think coal/tobacco tar :)
-
A lot of German "coal" is actually brown lignite, an especially polluting source.
If you are capturing the entire flue output for CCS, won't all those nasties be captured too?
No. Most CCS systems work by using amine gas treatment which only works on CO2 and H2S. The flue itself isn't stored so you get other emissions still like NOx.
Most CO2 capture to date has been for pulling H2S and CO2 out of a mix of stuff, and amine processing is widely used for that. A flue is basically CO2, H2O and some nasty trace contents. Amine capture is a high energy consumption process, and only works well with high pressure gas. That's not very compatible with an energy production process, with a low pressure flue. I assume they must be targeting other ways of doing CCS at Drax. Possibly storing the stuff in old mines around Yorkshire. That's certainly an approach to CCS from flues I keep hearing about. Of course, if you can't seal those mines well enough, the CO2 will leak out. Most things I see proposed for CCS don't sound like they are likely to offer good reliability.
-
Most CO2 capture to date has been for pulling H2S and CO2 out of a mix of stuff, and amine processing is widely used for that. A flue is basically CO2, H2O and some nasty trace contents. Amine capture is a high energy consumption process, and only works well with high pressure gas. That's not very compatible with an energy production process, with a low pressure flue. I assume they must be targeting other ways of doing CCS at Drax. Possibly storing the stuff in old mines around Yorkshire. That's certainly an approach to CCS from flues I keep hearing about. Of course, if you can't seal those mines well enough, the CO2 will leak out. Most things I see proposed for CCS don't sound like they are likely to offer good reliability.
CCS for power plants, in general, doesn't really work in the real world. There's a reason most plants are doing pilot studies here or there but there are limited practical examples. The energy usage of a hypothetical 99% CCS, that would capture all of the CO2 from a plant, would represent a significant proportion of the production output of that plant. In any case, it hugely increases the cost of fossil fuel energy, to the point where it would be uncompetitive with renewables, so it could only ever form a small part of the grid.
This is a good video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlsjvKKugKI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlsjvKKugKI)
-
CCS for power plants, in general, doesn't really work in the real world. There's a reason most plants are doing pilot studies here or there but there are limited practical examples. The energy usage of a hypothetical 99% CCS, that would capture all of the CO2 from a plant, would represent a significant proportion of the production output of that plant. In any case, it hugely increases the cost of fossil fuel energy, to the point where it would be uncompetitive with renewables, so it could only ever form a small part of the grid.
So why did you throw amine techniques into the discussion? Drax is, apparently, due to get a pile of cash which they need to waste by putting it into some vague unworkable concept of CCS. So, there must be a principal they are pushing. Filling old mines is the only one that comes to mind for Yorkshire. On the other hand they ship in the wood they burn from the US, so maybe they want to send the CO2 back to the US to be pumped into underground US cavities. Its doesn't need to make any sense.
-
CCS for power plants, in general, doesn't really work in the real world. There's a reason most plants are doing pilot studies here or there but there are limited practical examples. The energy usage of a hypothetical 99% CCS, that would capture all of the CO2 from a plant, would represent a significant proportion of the production output of that plant. In any case, it hugely increases the cost of fossil fuel energy, to the point where it would be uncompetitive with renewables, so it could only ever form a small part of the grid.
So why did you throw amine techniques into the discussion? Drax is, apparently, due to get a pile of cash which they need to waste by putting it into some vague unworkable concept of CCS. So, there must be a principal they are pushing. Filling old mines is the only one that comes to mind for Yorkshire. On the other hand they ship in the wood they burn from the US, so maybe they want to send the CO2 back to the US to be pumped into underground US cavities. Its doesn't need to make any sense.
I suspect it is the offshore caverns that used to contain North Sea gas. They are more likely to be taught than coal mines!
-
CCS for power plants, in general, doesn't really work in the real world. There's a reason most plants are doing pilot studies here or there but there are limited practical examples. The energy usage of a hypothetical 99% CCS, that would capture all of the CO2 from a plant, would represent a significant proportion of the production output of that plant. In any case, it hugely increases the cost of fossil fuel energy, to the point where it would be uncompetitive with renewables, so it could only ever form a small part of the grid.
So why did you throw amine techniques into the discussion? Drax is, apparently, due to get a pile of cash which they need to waste by putting it into some vague unworkable concept of CCS. So, there must be a principal they are pushing. Filling old mines is the only one that comes to mind for Yorkshire. On the other hand they ship in the wood they burn from the US, so maybe they want to send the CO2 back to the US to be pumped into underground US cavities. Its doesn't need to make any sense.
I suspect it is the offshore caverns that used to contain North Sea gas. They are more likely to be taught than coal mines!
Good point. All the underwater pipework must still be in place to feed stuff into those wells. Drax is about 50 miles from the coast. All they need is some pipe across land, some huge compressors, and a lot of energy to drive the compressors. Maybe they can build an extra power station to power those compressors.
-
Starve the atmosphere of CO2 and plant life will suffer.
Then how will we have the wood pellet feedstock to fuel power plants or grow food for the masses ?
Consider as we clean up the atmosphere of 150+ years of industrial revolution air pollution we also reduce the solar filtering it provided so with the additional radiation getting to the earths surface more GloBULL warming can take place.
Things are not as straightforward as they might seem.....
-
Starve the atmosphere of CO2 and plant life will suffer.
Then how will we have the wood pellet feedstock to fuel power plants or grow food for the masses ?
The increase in CO2 is making deserts shrink. Turns out more CO2 means the pores on leaves don't need to open so much, water loss is reduced, and more plants can do well in arid conditions.
-
CCS for power plants, in general, doesn't really work in the real world. There's a reason most plants are doing pilot studies here or there but there are limited practical examples. The energy usage of a hypothetical 99% CCS, that would capture all of the CO2 from a plant, would represent a significant proportion of the production output of that plant. In any case, it hugely increases the cost of fossil fuel energy, to the point where it would be uncompetitive with renewables, so it could only ever form a small part of the grid.
So why did you throw amine techniques into the discussion? Drax is, apparently, due to get a pile of cash which they need to waste by putting it into some vague unworkable concept of CCS. So, there must be a principal they are pushing. Filling old mines is the only one that comes to mind for Yorkshire. On the other hand they ship in the wood they burn from the US, so maybe they want to send the CO2 back to the US to be pumped into underground US cavities. Its doesn't need to make any sense.
I didn't say I agreed with Drax's method at all? Amine techniques are just the most common way to do CCS, but they don't capture the other nasties of combustion, like NOx and sulfur (not sure what combusting wood produces without researching it, but coal is pretty dirty... in most countries, coal power is the majority source of atmospheric NOx.)
Starve the atmosphere of CO2 and plant life will suffer.
Then how will we have the wood pellet feedstock to fuel power plants or grow food for the masses ?
No one sensible is suggesting we remove more CO2 than we add - just bring the atmosphere to around what it was in the 1970s or thereabouts. Even steady state 2025 levels would probably be 'ok' with mitigations.
-
Starve the atmosphere of CO2 and plant life will suffer.
Then how will we have the wood pellet feedstock to fuel power plants or grow food for the masses ?
No one sensible is suggesting we remove more CO2 than we add - just bring the atmosphere to around what it was in the 1970s or thereabouts. Even steady state 2025 levels would probably be 'ok' with mitigations.
Yet here 100 yrs ago the storms we are to expect from GloBULL warming were worse and more frequent than we have seen for decades and the CO2 levels were much lower then.
The climate science we have been fed just doesn't add up.