Black Hole
May contain traces of nut
I do it in a 15-year old non-EV no trouble at all, no need to waste time stopping en route.
Media mistakes
- Thread starter RobH1
- Start date
MikeSh
Well-Known Member
That's why the planet is doomed
Black Hole
May contain traces of nut
So we need solutions which work, not band-wagons. It isn't relevant that hydrogen is only 30% efficient (or whatever) if it releases no carbon in the overall cycle and provides the necessary range.
Suppose you could somehow "hydrogen enrich" existing transport fuels and retain compatibility with existing engines - that would provide a stop-gap.
...but we're doomed anyway, it matters not a jot what you or I might do personally.
Suppose you could somehow "hydrogen enrich" existing transport fuels and retain compatibility with existing engines - that would provide a stop-gap.
...but we're doomed anyway, it matters not a jot what you or I might do personally.
Last edited:
MikeSh
Well-Known Member
Quite so. But we are years away, decades probably, from having sufficient clean power to produce that hydrogen.
You also need to account the energy and material required to build all that generation - at present you'll need about 2.5 times more generation capacity for hydrogen than battery. So for example you'd need a windfarm that's 2.5 times larger, and they aren't exactly small or cheap now.
In the meantime batteries are the only solution that is here now, regardless of how imperfect they might be.
There is talk of mixing hydrogen into the gas supply grid to 'decarbonise' it, but as with bio fuels there are limits to how much can be done before you have to start modifying the transportation and consuming equipment to handle it.
But that's all gas - I imagine trying to mix gas and liquid fuels would be even more challenging.
Black Hole
May contain traces of nut
[Devil's Advocate = ON] Are you sure there are sufficient resources to make and replace the batteries required? And what to do with the exhausted ones - can they be recycled indefinitely? It seems to me EV has not just "electricity" on its consumables list. Are we heading for a future where there is a de-democratisation of personal transport and it will only be available to the few highest bidders (Tesla - I mean you!)?
D
Deleted member 473
Range isn't the only consideration with EVs. Many of the houses round here have no way to home charge their vehicles, and those vehicles are parked on the road some distance from home anyway, in the first available space.
You can say that there might be public charging points they can use, but at what cost? If you don't have enough range, you arw stuck with extremely expensive motorway garages, charging petrol prices for electricity.
Then there may be road tolls around the corner.
PS My hybrid, with a small petrol tank, has a range of 400 miles. I rarely top it up away from home. I could install a charging point, but that just makes me lucky.
You can say that there might be public charging points they can use, but at what cost? If you don't have enough range, you arw stuck with extremely expensive motorway garages, charging petrol prices for electricity.
Then there may be road tolls around the corner.
PS My hybrid, with a small petrol tank, has a range of 400 miles. I rarely top it up away from home. I could install a charging point, but that just makes me lucky.
D
Deleted member 473
What, both of it? Italia and Italy are also desperate.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 473
This paper is a gift!
c
c
Last edited by a moderator:
Black Hole
May contain traces of nut
Has there been a take-over by the Grauniad?
MikeSh
Well-Known Member
Only naysayers have said there aren't sufficient resources - usually lithium and cobalt get the mention. Cobalt currently has ethical issues in the way it's mined, but isn't that rare. Lithium is abundant.
The materials can be recycled, but in fact the expectation is that old EV batteries will go for a second life in power storage systems and wouldn't actually be recycled for 20-30 years. (It's to do with the demands of traction vs static power.)
Definitely true. It takes a lot more energy to build an EV with a big battery and there is a fairly high mileage needs to be covered (obviously varies with the cars) before there is a break even between the energy/CO2 used in construction and that used in propulsion.
Opinion is that self-driving cars will be the big thing that changes personal transport. Possibly more democratic?
D
Deleted member 473
In what way? Will they not be even more expensive to make and maintain?
I only see a bleak future, with no more planes, far fewer cars, and holidays a thing of the past. Think back 150 years, how abundant we thought coal to be, the enabler of growth, but now seen as the polluter of our planet. Oil is still abundant, but growth based on that is unsustainable, too.
I am not an uninformed naysayer, just an informed one.
MikeSh
Well-Known Member
Why? Most new higher spec cars already have significant self-driving capabilities. It's mainly a case of a bit more computing power and 'better' software. The extra cost from now is trivial.
Once you remove the need for a driver the cost of a taxi over car ownership becomes very different.
Removing the driver also removes the "What kind of experience will it be?" factor - you know you won't get the budding Lewis Hamilton or incessant chatterer. I for one would be happier summoning a 'robot' taxi than a human operated one - once they have been proven safe of course.
Black Hole
May contain traces of nut
Not really. Far more sensors are needed, and vastly more computing power complete with redundancy. I am also concerned about systems which use active rather than passive (receive only) sensors (including data networks) - it's all very well when there are relatively few such vehicles on the roads, but what happens when there is (say) a radar on every vehicle, where the possibility of interfering with each other multiplies exponentially?
The user experience of an "on demand" rather than "domestic" ownership model is vastly different. My car is a mobile cupboard - it has things in it I don't need in the house, but will be needed out and about or at destinations. The thought of having to drag all that in and out of the house every time completely changes the outlook.
You would also have to allow much more time for journeys. One fundamental aspect of car ownership is instant availability. Having to hail on-demand transport would be subject to random delays.
I'm not saying its not going to happen, I just hope it won't happen in my active lifetime.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 473
D
Deleted member 473
The site that keeps on giving. Use that seed sparingly.
D
Deleted member 473
I am not a betting man, but...
D
Deleted member 473
MikeSh
Well-Known Member
Not really. Front and rear cameras are already common. Most phones seem to have 3 or 4 these days. GPS is almost standard.
There are a lot of cars around now with forward radar for emergency braking and/or smart cruise control. I've never heard of interference being a problem (I imagine they all use coded signals).
Obviously any tradesmen will need their own transport which is basically what you are doing. But you are not most people I suspect. Aside from a few shopping bags the only stuff in our cars (and there is quite a lot) is what's needed at times to run the car - ice scrapers, cash for parking, spare spectacles.
If we weren't driving we'd only need the shopping bags.
Oh yes, that pesky time problem. Those extra few minutes a week that everyone has to destroy the environment in order to save.
Seriously, I have driven out of our road, gone 200 yards and then had to wait or turn round due to a random delay.
The only extra for a self driving taxi is the time for it to arrive. Initially that could be quite variable but once they are plentiful then it's likely to be quite short, certainly no worse than current taxis/ubers.
And of course you'll save time too as you won't have to park, and potentially walk some distance from/to the car park.
I doubt it will happen in mine, though I'd like it to. Once I have to stop driving I'd rather not be entirely dependent on buses and taxi drivers.
MikeSh
Well-Known Member
Wow. I hope the car battery manufacturers read that article. Shocking stuff.
Hang on, one owner did 67,000 miles over about 18 months (so lots of rapid charges), which equates to about 260 full cycles (0-100%), though of course it was likely 500 half cycles on average. His battery was checked by the manufacturer (because an update had done something odd to the charging system) and they were quite surprised to find it had no significant degradation - capacity was 98% or something.
AFAIA the only EVs in the real world that have suffered significant battery degradation have been older Nissan Leafs, mainly used in hot climates. They rely on fan blown air for cooling and suffer with rapid charging, exacerbated by having small batteries needing frequent recharging. (PHEV batteries tend to be somewhat shortlived too as they are small and get cycled a lot.)
Almost every modern EV uses liquid cooling with refrigeration (usually shares the aircon) to keep the battery cool when rapid charging.
But such articles are commonplace. People tend to nail their flag of belief to their mast and then go to extraordinary lengths to defend it, dragging others along ... Like claiming widespread voter fraud. And of course threatened industries sometimes commission 'scientific research' to try and maintain their positions.
So,
Can you damage batteries by aggressive charging? Hell yeah.
Is it a problem with modern EVs? No.
Black Hole
May contain traces of nut
Not that many! I think you must circulate in afluent circles.
Err, no. According to your projections, demand will exceed supply. Provision will not be made for peak demand.
Aren't I? Who says you are? Everyone looks at things from their own perspective, I'm simply trying to widen your view of what might be "normal".