The Historically Accurate EV discussion

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by midgetman

I seem to be the only person on here that is excited and fascinated by the EV revolution.

The benefits of EVs appeal - I reckon a small hatchback EV would be an absolute hoot on my drive to work down the lanes, instant torque for maximum giggles Currently though EVs just aren't ready for mass rollout (neither the cars themselves nor the infrastructure).

Originally Posted by John Elwin

I live in the country & do very little city driving so it's currently (joke not intended!) of little or no use to me.

Whilst my daily commute would work ok with an EV (I could charge overnight on my driveway) I need the car to be capable of long runs as well. Charging times need to come down drastically, cost needs to come down, range needs to go up, battery life needs to improve. Give it another 10 years of development and we might get there.

[S griffin]

Certainly I can see why we have a push for EVs. We'll see how far the technology can go. Obviously there are plenty other options than EVs, so it will take a while.

Obviously they need to be longer lasting, because they haven't enough charge atm. It needs time to work. We'll see what happens in the future

[John Elwin]

My 2003 Alfa 156 Sportwagon is a diesel, so is no longer acceptable in certain places, including Essen, where I visit twice a year. Although it has now done 277,000km it is still a fine car. However, I have just bought a petrol-engined 2007 Alfa GT which, aside from being a superb car that cost me little, should cover those eventualities for a few more years.

After that, who knows?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by John Elwin

My first (and only) electric experience was to drive a converted Golf in Holland in 2009; I was really impressed by the performance but have things really progressed in the intervening 11 years

My experience with an electric vehicle was back in the late 70s and continued into the 80s, but the performance was absolutely woeful!

Perhaps I should explain. Back then, I was a member of my local Round Table, and one of our annual traditions was to go around the village collecting donations during the lead up to Christmas in order to provide Christmas hampers for the less well off in our locality. To do this collecting, we towed a sleigh on a trailer, with loudspeakers blasting out Christmas carols and one of our members dressed up as Santa Claus waving to all and sundry , whilst we knocked on doors with our collecting tins.

During my year as chairman of the committee responsible for raising charitable donations, it became apparent that the trailer float was at the end of it's life, and one of the committee jokingly suggested that a milk float would be the perfect platform for creating a new float. As Express Dairies (and United) were one of my customers, I was delegated to see whether they would lend us one of their floats for us to use on an annual basis. To my surprise, they actually donated a float that was surplus to their requirements, along with its great big charger. They also provided and paid for a 3 phase electric supply where we stored the float, and sent an engineer out at the end of November each year to check that the float was roadworthy.

Oh, and nought to thirty took about a day, but only if you were going downhill.

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It only had a range of 85 miles at new. The point being, battery degradation is not that drastic at 10yrs, even on early EVs.

No, the subject was the s/hand value of EVs at 10 years which is governed by the laws of supply and demand. The point is that today they only have a reasonable value because there are fewer available than the number of people who can manage with a short range vehicle.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

No, the subject was the s/hand value of EVs at 10 years which is governed by the laws of supply and demand. The point is that today they only have a reasonable value because there are fewer available than the number of people who can manage with a short range vehicle.

I would agree with you David in normal markets.

However if the current bunch of political pressure groups manage to manipulate the political arena to their liking the potential for making ICE transport non-viable in most of the country (for all practical purposes) might mean that the oldest electric vehicles turn out to be rather desirable anyway - simply because they exist whereas their ICE contemporaries don't (new or used) having been banned from most cities and thus completely annihilating the ICE market and its supporting infrastructure.

Charging at home is presently somewhat limited in capability. Probably OK for commuting or local journeys. Even if battery capacity and longevity management both massively improve with faster and faster charge rate potential, home charging is not likely to be able to take advantage of optimal charge rates (or even higher capacities) unless all homes are equipped with 3 phase supplies - and then some.

Now that would be an interesting infrastructure challenge.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by grantp

Does that in any way explain why there seem to be more motorway lorry fires that start in the areas of the engine these days?

When I was a regular M-way user I saw relatively few fires and those I did see usually seemed to be related to things like un-noticed punctures or possibly sticking brakes on artic trailers.

These days there seam to be many more and with so many photos and videos published we have visual evidence that seems to suggest the fires have started in the area of the engine rather than somewhere further back.

This is sort of Zafira and BMW territory (and Ferrari but for different reasons).

I get the impression that a lot of BMW fires are diesel rather than petrol related which would be counter-intuitive to my old-school expectations. But back that diesels were nothing like as complex as they are now so perhaps less prone to dramatic conflagrations? (also fewer of them in the terms of cars but the lorry and van fire incidence compared to fleet size appears to be higher these days.

I suppose there will be some sort of stats around somewhere.

During a DPF Re-Generation the inside of the filter can reach temperatures of 600°C,this is generally why a lot are only done when moving (and often above a minimum of 50KPH) so there is sufficient air-flow over the exhaust.
Regarding the BMW engine fires, I think that a lot of these are related to faults within the Exhaust Gas Recirculation system and plastic inlet manifolds.

[GORDON STREETER]

About 10 years ago there was a big campaign and a lot of shouting about growing plants on a huge piece of land for manufacturing biofuel not too far from me near the Almeria race track near Tabernas. I believe that a fair bit of EU money was thrown at the idea but like a lot of things in Spain it came to nothing. Just like the HS railway line to Almeria that has been started and mothballed just up the road again using EU money ! I haven't looked into the pros & cons of biofuels and I wonder what the "experts" on here have to say

[midgetman]

All this negativity to electric cars is because everyone is comparing old technology electrics to current ICEs. What will it take for you to do a volte face? I'm sure you'll be more positive as new technology rolls out. There'll be a battery of new ideas on the horizon soon.

That's because of the sort of pressure the Government has tried to exert by bringing forward the date ICEs cannot be put in new cars. If there were no pressure, there would be no movement. Be it hydrogen, new means of charging or whatever, we will progress, and also progress in the power infrastructure required.

Of course we will develop new technology, the ICE has not stood still for a hundred years has it?

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by midgetman

All this negativity to electric cars is because everyone is comparing old technology electrics to current ICEs. What will it take for you to do a volte face? I'm sure you'll be more positive as new technology rolls out. There'll be a battery of new ideas on the horizon soon.

That's because of the sort of pressure the Government has tried to exert by bringing forward the date ICEs cannot be put in new cars. If there were no pressure, there would be no movement. Be it hydrogen, new means of charging or whatever, we will progress, and also progress in the power infrastructure required.

Of course we will develop new technology, the ICE has not stood still for a hundred years has it?

Max, I do see what you're saying (and commend the fd electrical pun you've managed to slip in there too) but I have no faith in the Government (any Govenment) making the best decision, they are just relying on advisers, advisers who mostly have a vested interest. Let's face it, it's not that long ago that they decided that lovely diesel was better than horrible petrol, (because they emitted less CO2) so changed rules and things to entice people to buy them. More recently they've decided that diesels are dirty (because of the particulates), so currently Diesel is demonised. What they will do when or if they realise that the new generation of Direct Injection petrol engines emit even more particulates that the equivalent Diesel engines, meaning even more costly & complicated Petrol Particulate Filters in their exhausts remains to be seen!

[S griffin]

It’s a tricky one. Certainly we should have faith in the government, but as you say, sometimes they are influenced by lobbying from certain people who have connections to companies. As you say diesel became a bit of a thing over petrol, but how long with that last? I still think there will be a place for diesel, but at the same time we should explore other fuels

[Peter Mallett]

Sigh.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

Video of a scientist talking about ICE versus Electric . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNRk4iGreSw
40 odd minutes , & he does waffle a lot , but shows that the ICE will still be the only thing for transport use .With over 90% of all goods vehicles , which use over 55% of road fuel. [ A large container ship would need a 1 million ton battery & aircraft will not get off the ground ]

This video will probably never get in the MSM , & Google will probably censor it as it does not comply with their left wing agenda , but it does tell a few truths .

Sadly, this now comes across as a bit tin hat-ish.

Youtube is a Google company, so obviously it is not being censored by them if you can watch it on their platform?
Why is movement to EVs as a current/future technology a left wing agenda. If I'm not mistaken, the current changes to UK policy regarding ICE powered vehicles are being delivered by a government that is right of centre?

With regards to the claims that 'A large container ship would need a 1 million ton battery & aircraft will not get off the ground', then we already have real world examples that disprove this.

A retrofitted DHC-2 de Havilland Beaver seaplane is currently going through final testing, after successfully proving the technology as viable.
The Rolls-Royce, Airbus and Siemens programme 'E-Fan X' is scheduled to begin flights in 2021.

Admittedly, we are not at the point where a fully electric aircraft can carry 3-digit passenger numbers on long ranges, but you have to consider how long it took to progress from the Kitty Hawk to the Model 14 Benoist air-boat (13 years).
It took roughly 50 years, and the development of jet-powered airliners, before long-haul wide-body transportation became available.
Don't assume that what is possible today will always remain so, or you undermine the ability of the human race to advance in the field of technology.

When steam traction was king, many could not see how internal combustion could change things.

As for the claim that a large container ship would require a 1 million ton battery - I suggest the author looks at the real-world example of battery-electric locomotive power.
In comparison to diesel engine locomotives, electric railways offer substantially better energy efficiency, lower emissions and lower operating costs. Electric locomotives are also usually quieter, more powerful, and more responsive and reliable than diesels.

Metronet locomotives for example weigh 15 tonnes and have a capacity to haul that is roughly equivalent to a 12 tonne (plus fuel) diesel equivalent.

A more sensible opinion comes from the IEEE - which calculates the total requirement for an 18,000 TEU cargo ship to go from Hong Kong to Hamburg as being a battery weight of 100,000 metric tons (non-stop).
Currently, it is not economically viable to replace the diesel motor (and fuel tanks) with an all-electric power-train.
But it will not be long before the balance tips, initially to complete the journey with charging stops and eventually non-stop. The GWh/kg capacity of batteries is continually improving and fuel costs are rising. Shipping firms will take the most cost-effective option, which is continually heading to all-electric.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

No, the subject was the s/hand value of EVs at 10 years which is governed by the laws of supply and demand. The point is that today they only have a reasonable value because there are fewer available than the number of people who can manage with a short range vehicle.

I didn't bring up the 85 mile range as being a problem.

The ads I linked to were in response to the comment:

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

The big worry is depreciation. Whatever you buy now will be worthless in ten years either because the batteries are dead, or nobody will be able to afford to run a ICE vehicle.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Sadly, this now comes across as a bit tin hat-ish.

Youtube is a Google company, so obviously it is not being censored by them if you can watch it on their platform?
Why is movement to EVs as a current/future technology a left wing agenda. If I'm not mistaken, the current changes to UK policy regarding ICE powered vehicles are being delivered by a government that is right of centre?

With regards to the claims that 'A large container ship would need a 1 million ton battery & aircraft will not get off the ground', then we already have real world examples that disprove this.

A retrofitted DHC-2 de Havilland Beaver seaplane is currently going through final testing, after successfully proving the technology as viable.
The Rolls-Royce, Airbus and Siemens programme 'E-Fan X' is scheduled to begin flights in 2021.

Admittedly, we are not at the point where a fully electric aircraft can carry 3-digit passenger numbers on long ranges, but you have to consider how long it took to progress from the Kitty Hawk to the Model 14 Benoist air-boat (13 years).
It took roughly 50 years, and the development of jet-powered airliners, before long-haul wide-body transportation became available.
Don't assume that what is possible today will always remain so, or you undermine the ability of the human race to advance in the field of technology.

When steam traction was king, many could not see how internal combustion could change things.

As for the claim that a large container ship would require a 1 million ton battery - I suggest the author looks at the real-world example of battery-electric locomotive power.
In comparison to diesel engine locomotives, electric railways offer substantially better energy efficiency, lower emissions and lower operating costs. Electric locomotives are also usually quieter, more powerful, and more responsive and reliable than diesels.

Metronet locomotives for example weigh 15 tonnes and have a capacity to haul that is roughly equivalent to a 12 tonne (plus fuel) diesel equivalent.

A more sensible opinion comes from the IEEE - which calculates the total requirement for an 18,000 TEU cargo ship to go from Hong Kong to Hamburg as being a battery weight of 100,000 metric tons (non-stop).
Currently, it is not economically viable to replace the diesel motor (and fuel tanks) with an all-electric power-train.
But it will not be long before the balance tips, initially to complete the journey with charging stops and eventually non-stop. The GWh/kg capacity of batteries is continually improving and fuel costs are rising. Shipping firms will take the most cost-effective option, which is continually heading to all-electric.

If you don,t believe that Google does censorship , then you must be ignoring the obvious .
Have you never clicked on a Google search to find " This Site Cannot provide A secure Connection " . That is because they do not like it & are trying to stop people it .
And you can get straight through there using a different search engine .

And as for your opinions about electric power ,being worth more than a very experienced scientist , then I think I know who I would rather believe .

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

If you don,t believe that Google does censorship , then you must be ignoring the obvious .
Have you never clicked on a Google search to find " This Site Cannot provide A secure Connection " . That is because they do not like it & are trying to stop people it .
And you can get straight through there using a different search engine .

And as for your opinions about electric power ,being worth more than a very experienced scientist , then I think I know who I would rather believe .

OK - they're not by own opinions, but ones from peer-reviewed articles published by the IEEE along with real world examples that disprove the 'very experienced scientist'. If you don't trust them when it comes to opinions on electric power, then fine.

I also never said that Google does not censor, just pointing out that the video you claim that Google will censor is actually hosted on a Google platform.

[Tel 911S]

Google always were very Green biased , & were determined to run all of their operations on renewable energy .
Until a few years ago when they eventually discovered that " Renewable energy simply won,t work"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/...ply-wont-work/

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

Google always were very Green biased , & were determined to run all of their operations on renewable energy .
Until a few years ago when they eventually discovered that " Renewable energy simply won,t work"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/...ply-wont-work/

Probably worth reading the IEEE article that the link references.

'In 2011, the company decided that RE<C was not on track to meet its target and shut down the initiative. The two of us, who worked as engineers on the internal RE<C projects, were then forced to reexamine our assumptions.'
There is a big difference between not on track, and simply won't work.
The assumptions turned out to be inaccurate, so they were looked at again.

'Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.'
So they did not say it simply won't work at all, just that it won't work with 2011 technology.

'Our study’s best-case scenario modeled our most optimistic assumptions about cost reductions in solar power, wind power, energy storage, and electric vehicles. In this scenario, the United States would cut greenhouse gas emissions dramatically: Emissions could be 55 percent below the business-as-usual projection for 2050.'
So they were still able to predict that, with 2011 technology, emissions could potentially be 55 per cent below that of doing nothing.

'What’s needed, are reliable zero-carbon energy sources so cheap that the operators of power plants and industrial facilities alike have an economic rationale for switching over soon—say, within the next 40 years. Let’s face it, businesses won’t make sacrifices and pay more for clean energy based on altruism alone.'
Their conclusion was that a development in technology could deliver the aims of RE<C, they just didn't exist at the time.

The final IEEE conclusion, that we need to look at the problem with a view to future technology, not current era - 'Now, R&D dollars must go to inventors who are tackling the daunting energy challenge so they can boldly try out their crazy ideas. We can’t yet imagine which of these technologies will ultimately work and usher in a new era of prosperity—but the people of this prosperous future won’t be able to imagine how we lived without them.'


NB: is being green biased a bad thing?

[grantp]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

Max, I do see what you're saying (and commend the fd electrical pun you've managed to slip in there too) but I have no faith in the Government (any Govenment) making the best decision, they are just relying on advisers, advisers who mostly have a vested interest. Let's face it, it's not that long ago that they decided that lovely diesel was better than horrible petrol, (because they emitted less CO2) so changed rules and things to entice people to buy them. More recently they've decided that diesels are dirty (because of the particulates), so currently Diesel is demonised. What they will do when or if they realise that the new generation of Direct Injection petrol engines emit even more particulates that the equivalent Diesel engines, meaning even more costly & complicated Petrol Particulate Filters in their exhausts remains to be seen!

I see a bit of a pattern here.

They will, of course, immediately demonise petrol as well as diesel and claim that "clean and green" electric powered only by wind and solar is the only way forward.

Those vehicle manufacturers that have made arrangements with other companies developing electric vehicle technology will be in good shape and should make huge profits in the short term (economy permitting) from the earlier adopter countries as they write off vast investments in energy consumption for their exist vehicle fleets in a rush to take any old EV tech they can lay their hands on. Most of it, probably, re-badged from China and full of rebranded Huawei comms kit to enable people tracking and road use charging.

The other manufacturers will simply disappear from the UK market and one by one from the other markets as their own rules and regulations reach their target dates.

They have this wonderful excuse about things being "set in law" as if handed down in Tablets of Stone and fixed in perpetuity - which of course it simply not the case. Ask the courts.

Boris will continue to make stuff up for as long as he is allowed to get away with it.

The others?

Who knows.

Who knows who will be around?

Greta for President of the UK?

The Rest of the World may also have some opinions of course ...

And the corporations who would be quite enthusiastic about some policy led subsidy opportunities that would see the lower regions of society paying twice for everything.

Better still there would be relative certainty for the conglomerates and their product development - based on "legal" requirements.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by grantp

Charging at home is presently somewhat limited in capability. Probably OK for commuting or local journeys. Even if battery capacity and longevity management both massively improve with faster and faster charge rate potential, home charging is not likely to be able to take advantage of optimal charge rates (or even higher capacities) unless all homes are equipped with 3 phase supplies - and then some.

Now that would be an interesting infrastructure challenge.

Interesting article on the use of EVs for long(er) range travel here.

It shows how a 700 mile journey is a practical option in parts of the UK today.

[Peter Mallett]

Yes although it seems there was no real rush so a relaxed trip. I know someone with a Tesla 3 or whatever it is, who regularly goes to the West country. Also because there's no real rush he and his wife arrive relaxed.

Interestingly the Author has similar alternatives to us, we have a Fiesta ST and a V6 3l Grand Cherokee.

I do agree with the comments.concerning battery life and indeed manufacture but ultimately there will be little choice in the next few years.

[S griffin]

Certainly a battery power car can be used quite economically. I admire those who have given these cars a go, I'm sure once you've driven them a few times, you know how best to use them. I think these types of cars will be worth considering

Of course we still need conventional cars just in case things go wrong. The electric cars still have quite a way to go before they a fully developed. There's no real hurry at the moment, we have plenty of other greener technology that's proved to work

[Lancsbreaker]

With respect to the EV debate, I note from the Times today that there are concerns that some suppliers of charging points have fee structures that make a mockery of the economy claims:


"An investigation into public charging networks across the UK shows that motorists are required to pay an average of almost £10 for 100 miles worth of “fuel”. The study found that one operator, Ionity, charged as much as £23 for the power needed to travel 100 miles.


This was nine times the comparable cost of charging a vehicle at home overnight — £2.67 — when the price of electricity is lowest. It was about double the cost of fuel for a similar-sized petrol or diesel car going the same distance."

There is an interesting clip on youtube of Yamaha testing an electric powerpack in an Alfa 4C, though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfehJ2rkYKI


These calculations were based on a 40Kw Nissan Leaf. It does show how important being able to charge at home is, which of course isn't an option if you are going more than say 80-90 miles one-way (even with the more frugal electric cars). Even on the £10 for 100 miles cost, my 10 year old Alfa diesel can nearly match that, driven gently - admittedly driven in my normal fashion it probably costs about £15 per 100 miles. It would need a lot to persuade me to lash out the inflated price for an EV just now.

[S griffin]

Speaking of which, I realised the other day we don’t seem to hear much about biofuels anymore. I was expecting not long after they first became a thing, that by now they would have taken over, but it doesn’t seem to be so. Then again I didn’t expect Electric power to take over so quickly. Have they just simply gone out of fashion or is their not a need for them so much now?

[Peter Mallett]

We have biofuels. The latest fuels you buy at the pumps includes methanol which is a biofuel. Hence it goes stale very quickly.