EV-based road transportation is not viable

[MadScientist]

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

[MadScientist]

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

[MadScientist]

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!

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 !!

[nctnico]

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.

[NiHaoMike]

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.

[JPortici]

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 
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.

[themadhippy]

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

[MadScientist]

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

[rstofer]

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!

[coppice]

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.

[MadScientist]

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 
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.

[rstofer]

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.

[nctnico]

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.

[eti]

I find it very amusing that you’re all sitting here, discussing something that isn’t gonna happen

[TimFox]

Meanwhile, in the US, the market share of EVs is slowly increasing.
https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/u-s-electric-vehicle-market-106396
Do you think that will stop happening anytime soon?

[Bud]

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.

[rstofer]

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.

[bdunham7]

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.

[tautech]

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 ! 
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.

[tggzzz]

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.

 

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/

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

[NiHaoMike]

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.

[MadScientist]

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.

 

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/

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

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.

[MadScientist]

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.

[MadScientist]

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 ! 
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.

[tom66]

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.