FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The failed experiment
The failed experiment
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has the electric car bubble burst ?" I think that the motor vehicle industry has adapted fantastically to changing regulations over the last couple of decades. We are seeing incredible technology at work and this technology has been developed using mostly existing and/or sustainable resources. My concern about electric vehicles is the sustainability of current energy storage systems which I understand to be lithium based battery systems. I am no expert in geology, but I understand that like oil, there is not a finite supply of lithium in the world. It is not just about batteries for new cars though, we know that batteries of all types start to degrade from day one and so within three to four years the theoretical range will have likely significantly reduced. The push therefore for all electric in my opinion, is a bit too premature because the development of mass produced batteries (or other storage methods) is not something that is in the hands of vehicle manufacturers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has the electric car bubble burst ?" Why has it burst? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has the electric car bubble burst ? Why has it burst?" Used prices are in freefall | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From Cardealer Mini Cooper Electric – down 11.5%, -£2,917 Tesla Model Y – down 11.1%, -£5,500 Hyundai Ioniq – down 10.6%, -£2,375 Nissan Leaf – down 10.6%, -£2,407 Tesla Model 3 – down 10.5%, -£3,825 Jaguar I-Pace – down 10.3%, -£5,020 BMW i3 – down 9.3%, -£2,489 Renault Zoe – down 8.7%, -£1,640 Polestar 2 – down 8.7%, -£3,595 Audi e-tron – down 8.4%, -£4,060" I have always considered EV's over priced, I understand a battery might cost between 10K and 18K to replace, petrol and diesel engines are expensive too, I think. Why are they so expensive to start with, if they have been overpriced from new, wouldn't this create this problem in the second hand market by default? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has the electric car bubble burst ? Why has it burst? Used prices are in freefall" This just means there's over supply both in the used and new car sector. It's a product of the times, people are spending less, companies have backlogs and can't clear them, there's discounts to incentivise buying. It doesn't mean electric cars have suddenly become a no go. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has the electric car bubble burst ? Why has it burst? Used prices are in freefall This just means there's over supply both in the used and new car sector. It's a product of the times, people are spending less, companies have backlogs and can't clear them, there's discounts to incentivise buying. It doesn't mean electric cars have suddenly become a no go. " According to the motor trade, people are trading in electric cars for petrol and diesel cars. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has the electric car bubble burst ?" Fikin hope so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has the electric car bubble burst ? Why has it burst? Used prices are in freefall" That's because Tesla chose to cut it's new car prices by about £7k. That's not a typo. They have significantly higher margins than the rest of the industry and are trying to retain market share whilst bleeding the rest of the industry of funds to invest in the transition and extending their own advantage. So no, it wasn't a bubble and it hasn't burst. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Had to happen. There is the new car cost element, the lack of charging stations, the distance that one charge will take you and the length of time it takes to charge them, which make them totally impractical for me. The cost of electricity is now affecting matters as is higher supply. People also see that producing them is not as green as is being spun. They can and will drop like a stone as far as I am concerned. It's a limited market and will be in the short to medium term, it's not motoring for the masses right now and may not ever be. Forget the 2030 deadline, it's not going to happen. " Increased renewables production will reduce power costs which are currently billed at the highest rate, which is that of gas. Overnight home charging will be more than adequate for most users. Fast charging will work for everyone else as the infrastructure rollout speeds up. Price falls with economies of scale. More cars, lower costs. 2035 will happen to correspond with the EU. Trying to go early in 2035 to try to decouple from our much bigger neighbour won't work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Had to happen. There is the new car cost element, the lack of charging stations, the distance that one charge will take you and the length of time it takes to charge them, which make them totally impractical for me. The cost of electricity is now affecting matters as is higher supply. People also see that producing them is not as green as is being spun. They can and will drop like a stone as far as I am concerned. It's a limited market and will be in the short to medium term, it's not motoring for the masses right now and may not ever be. Forget the 2030 deadline, it's not going to happen. Increased renewables production will reduce power costs which are currently billed at the highest rate, which is that of gas. Overnight home charging will be more than adequate for most users. Fast charging will work for everyone else as the infrastructure rollout speeds up. Price falls with economies of scale. More cars, lower costs. 2035 will happen to correspond with the EU. Trying to go early in 2035 to try to decouple from our much bigger neighbour won't work." Can you clarify the above dates? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wouldn’t say the bubble has burst, not by a long shot. But it’s going through a price correction, I was looking at BMW IX and the Audi E-Tron, but right now the prices are absolutely crazy, I could get an X5 or Q8 for considerably less money and still save money on fuel. It’s been due a correction for a while, maybe that’s what is happening right now. " I like this “price correction”  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When they can have real range of around 600 miles they will sell a lot quicker. Downside lack of car charging facilities. Running costs creating up to diesel and petrol so hard to justify the initial purchase price for an average earner. " Why 600 miles? I hear this number all the time, what’s the reason? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Had to happen. There is the new car cost element, the lack of charging stations, the distance that one charge will take you and the length of time it takes to charge them, which make them totally impractical for me. The cost of electricity is now affecting matters as is higher supply. People also see that producing them is not as green as is being spun. They can and will drop like a stone as far as I am concerned. It's a limited market and will be in the short to medium term, it's not motoring for the masses right now and may not ever be. Forget the 2030 deadline, it's not going to happen. Increased renewables production will reduce power costs which are currently billed at the highest rate, which is that of gas. Overnight home charging will be more than adequate for most users. Fast charging will work for everyone else as the infrastructure rollout speeds up. Price falls with economies of scale. More cars, lower costs. 2035 will happen to correspond with the EU. Trying to go early in 2035 to try to decouple from our much bigger neighbour won't work. Can you clarify the above dates? " It's as I stated. The EU is banning new ICE cars sales in 2035. The UK is banning them in 2030. The UK decision is arbitrary. EU manufacturing will focus on the EU date with the scale of change necessary, not that of the much smaller UK market. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When they can have real range of around 600 miles they will sell a lot quicker. Downside lack of car charging facilities. Running costs creating up to diesel and petrol so hard to justify the initial purchase price for an average earner. Why 600 miles? I hear this number all the time, what’s the reason?" It is arbitrary. The average internal combustion engine car has a range of about 450 miles. You can't fill it up at home though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When they can have real range of around 600 miles they will sell a lot quicker. Downside lack of car charging facilities. Running costs creating up to diesel and petrol so hard to justify the initial purchase price for an average earner. Why 600 miles? I hear this number all the time, what’s the reason? It is arbitrary. The average internal combustion engine car has a range of about 450 miles. You can't fill it up at home though." From my point of view I see it as arbitrary too, without a doubt. What gets my mind whirring is the consistency of the 600 mile quote, where did it come from, who is travelling those miles in a day that need to be charged up and ready to go in less than 1 hour? I’m also assuming the importance or distance would push them to high wattage chargers. If the issue is business, why is it a personal problem, if it is personal travel, how often do these trips happen? Blows my mind…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When they can have real range of around 600 miles they will sell a lot quicker." "Why 600 miles? I hear this number all the time, what’s the reason?" "It is arbitrary. The average internal combustion engine car has a range of about 450 miles. You can't fill it up at home though." Not sure where you get that range figure from. The UK's most popular cars have an average range of around 800 miles: https://inews.co.uk/essentials/lifestyle/cars/car-news/how-far-will-the-uks-most-popular-cars-get-on-a-single-tank-of-fuel-291377 I agree with you that the 600 mile figure is just arbitrary. It's the sort of range that no one thinks is restrictive, where 250 miles feels rather more limiting. I also agree with you that you can't refuel an ICE while you're sleeping overnight, but then that's also true of an electric car if you don't have a driveway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What gets my mind whirring is the consistency of the 600 mile quote, where did it come from, who is travelling those miles in a day that need to be charged up and ready to go in less than 1 hour?" I regularly have to travel 300 miles to a work site and then return a couple of days later. Using an electric car I'd have to stop for an hour on the way down, and again on the way back up. I'd also have to find somewhere to charge it whilst I'm at the site, which means sitting in the Tesco car park for an hour while it fills up. That's 3 wasted hours for every trip there and back. My current vehicle has a 1000 mile tank, which can be filled in 5 minutes. That's a very compelling advantage. I realise that I'm an unusual case, but there are enough people like me to see ICE vehicles continuing for a good while yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When they can have real range of around 600 miles they will sell a lot quicker. Why 600 miles? I hear this number all the time, what’s the reason? It is arbitrary. The average internal combustion engine car has a range of about 450 miles. You can't fill it up at home though. Not sure where you get that range figure from. The UK's most popular cars have an average range of around 800 miles: https://inews.co.uk/essentials/lifestyle/cars/car-news/how-far-will-the-uks-most-popular-cars-get-on-a-single-tank-of-fuel-291377 I agree with you that the 600 mile figure is just arbitrary. It's the sort of range that no one thinks is restrictive, where 250 miles feels rather more limiting. I also agree with you that you can't refuel an ICE while you're sleeping overnight, but then that's also true of an electric car if you don't have a driveway." I can’t let this slip! The numbers quoted are never achievable in real life situations. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you know this, as it is something that has been ignored for decades, manufacturer’s claimed…. Example, Ford Focus 1112 miles on a full tank BMW 3 series 1 014, what’s missing real life data. What Ford Focus, what 3 series? Do they only exist in the ford and bmw test centre  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What gets my mind whirring is the consistency of the 600 mile quote, where did it come from, who is travelling those miles in a day that need to be charged up and ready to go in less than 1 hour? I regularly have to travel 300 miles to a work site and then return a couple of days later. Using an electric car I'd have to stop for an hour on the way down, and again on the way back up. I'd also have to find somewhere to charge it whilst I'm at the site, which means sitting in the Tesco car park for an hour while it fills up. That's 3 wasted hours for every trip there and back. My current vehicle has a 1000 mile tank, which can be filled in 5 minutes. That's a very compelling advantage. I realise that I'm an unusual case, but there are enough people like me to see ICE vehicles continuing for a good while yet. " Business miles V personal miles V getting used to a different way of travelling. If you travel 300 miles in both directions, I would suggest a break is needed in your working day, pull in, charge the car and take break. I’m not in your shoes, so what’s missing with my suggestion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Had to happen. There is the new car cost element, the lack of charging stations, the distance that one charge will take you and the length of time it takes to charge them, which make them totally impractical for me. The cost of electricity is now affecting matters as is higher supply. People also see that producing them is not as green as is being spun. They can and will drop like a stone as far as I am concerned. It's a limited market and will be in the short to medium term, it's not motoring for the masses right now and may not ever be. Forget the 2030 deadline, it's not going to happen. Increased renewables production will reduce power costs which are currently billed at the highest rate, which is that of gas. Overnight home charging will be more than adequate for most users. Fast charging will work for everyone else as the infrastructure rollout speeds up. Price falls with economies of scale. More cars, lower costs. 2035 will happen to correspond with the EU. Trying to go early in 2035 to try to decouple from our much bigger neighbour won't work. Can you clarify the above dates? It's as I stated. The EU is banning new ICE cars sales in 2035. The UK is banning them in 2030. The UK decision is arbitrary. EU manufacturing will focus on the EU date with the scale of change necessary, not that of the much smaller UK market." It's not actually as you stated. I didn't know the EU is banning new ICE cars sales in 2035 but I did know the UK is banning them in 2030. You wrote 2035 twice thus making no sense by describing the UK as 'trying to go early'. A simple correction and apology would have sufficed, but your need to always be right somehow prevented you doing that. Seems rude. But that's just you I guess. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's true to say there are many factors which would preclude the possibility of meeting these high range numbers Wind resistance, road surface, temperature, weather conditions, all reduce the maximum efficiency of any vehicle. Most experts agree that lower speeds and more efficient driving technique can improve ranges. However, it doesn't account for such a disparity between the manufacturers range numbers and the true range figures. This can be applied to both ICE and EPE's. It is not a question about superiority, it's more a question about what we leave behind to those who come after us. Are we responsible or irresponsible?" Responsible in my opinion is taking the human driver out of the equation as soon as possible. The tech is getting there and as soon as it is the better. Cars should be seen as means to an end not a advertisement wet dream. Personally owned cars can spend over 80% of their usage parked, business perk cars too. That’s a lot of cars doing nothing for long periods of time. Cut the addiction to owning a car and using them like buses or taxis. Fully autonomous is where my tick goes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When they can have real range of around 600 miles they will sell a lot quicker. Downside lack of car charging facilities. Running costs creating up to diesel and petrol so hard to justify the initial purchase price for an average earner. Why 600 miles? I hear this number all the time, what’s the reason?" It’s the most extreme a sales person would be expected to cover in a day. It’s knowing a worker who relies on a car is not restricted by stopping to charge his car. It’s royghly ten hours at an average of 60. It’s that simple. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When they can have real range of around 600 miles they will sell a lot quicker. Downside lack of car charging facilities. Running costs creating up to diesel and petrol so hard to justify the initial purchase price for an average earner. Why 600 miles? I hear this number all the time, what’s the reason? It’s the most extreme a sales person would be expected to cover in a day. It’s knowing a worker who relies on a car is not restricted by stopping to charge his car. It’s roughly ten hours at an average of 60. It’s that simple. " 600 miles at an average speed of 60 miles an hour, you can see where I'm going with this? Would you expect sales to be done on this journey too, meaning stops that will bring the average miles per hour down. 3 sales pitches in 600 miles is very liberal, but in one day? 10 hours travelling, 3 jobs at lets call it 1 hour = 13 hours. Toilet breaks, food and a rest shall we call it a ball breaking 2 hours, which now brings us up to a 15 hour working day. Or are the sales reps travelling 600 miles to start their jobs the following day? Maybe it isn't the capabilities of the car? I'm lost with this one, help me out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's true to say there are many factors which would preclude the possibility of meeting these high range numbers Wind resistance, road surface, temperature, weather conditions, all reduce the maximum efficiency of any vehicle. Most experts agree that lower speeds and more efficient driving technique can improve ranges. However, it doesn't account for such a disparity between the manufacturers range numbers and the true range figures. This can be applied to both ICE and EPE's. It is not a question about superiority, it's more a question about what we leave behind to those who come after us. Are we responsible or irresponsible? Responsible in my opinion is taking the human driver out of the equation as soon as possible. The tech is getting there and as soon as it is the better. Cars should be seen as means to an end not an advertisement wet dream. Personally owned cars can spend over 80% of their usage parked, business perk cars too. That’s a lot of cars doing nothing for long periods of time. Cut the addiction to owning a car and using them like buses or taxis. Fully autonomous is where my tick goes" It's true automation is good, taking people out of the equation will improve road safety. But there is something about owning your own vehicle and the freedom it brings, even though it's only used in a limited capacity. It may be more a city thing, because there is a high availability of alternative travel methods, greater network coverage to provide upto date traffic and travel information for these systems to work with. In rural areas though, vehicles are used more frequently due to lack of public transport and distances to certain amenities. The difficulty with rural roads could pose greater challenges to automated travel we need to consider coverage, as most automation relies on upto date knowledge of the areas the vehicles are travelling in, which requires some form of connection to the internet, and considering the poor mobile phone coverage these areas, it would not make it a viable tech at the moment in these areas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's true to say there are many factors which would preclude the possibility of meeting these high range numbers Wind resistance, road surface, temperature, weather conditions, all reduce the maximum efficiency of any vehicle. Most experts agree that lower speeds and more efficient driving technique can improve ranges. However, it doesn't account for such a disparity between the manufacturers range numbers and the true range figures. This can be applied to both ICE and EPE's. It is not a question about superiority, it's more a question about what we leave behind to those who come after us. Are we responsible or irresponsible? Responsible in my opinion is taking the human driver out of the equation as soon as possible. The tech is getting there and as soon as it is the better. Cars should be seen as means to an end not an advertisement wet dream. Personally owned cars can spend over 80% of their usage parked, business perk cars too. That’s a lot of cars doing nothing for long periods of time. Cut the addiction to owning a car and using them like buses or taxis. Fully autonomous is where my tick goes It's true automation is good, taking people out of the equation will improve road safety. But there is something about owning your own vehicle and the freedom it brings, even though it's only used in a limited capacity. It may be more a city thing, because there is a high availability of alternative travel methods, greater network coverage to provide upto date traffic and travel information for these systems to work with. In rural areas though, vehicles are used more frequently due to lack of public transport and distances to certain amenities. The difficulty with rural roads could pose greater challenges to automated travel we need to consider coverage, as most automation relies on upto date knowledge of the areas the vehicles are travelling in, which requires some form of connection to the internet, and considering the poor mobile phone coverage these areas, it would not make it a viable tech at the moment in these areas. " Waze is providing up to date info now. The more vehicles that are not sat on the drive or side of the road the more up to date the roads conditions and availability will be.Plus the added benefit of not having to make so many vehicles to satisfy consumption. A side note to removing the human driver will be the potential increase in speed. Once all human control is removed, cars can communicate as a whole network, allowing them to move amongst each other without collision. Roads no longer need to be right or left sided. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Had to happen. There is the new car cost element, the lack of charging stations, the distance that one charge will take you and the length of time it takes to charge them, which make them totally impractical for me. The cost of electricity is now affecting matters as is higher supply. People also see that producing them is not as green as is being spun. They can and will drop like a stone as far as I am concerned. It's a limited market and will be in the short to medium term, it's not motoring for the masses right now and may not ever be. Forget the 2030 deadline, it's not going to happen. Increased renewables production will reduce power costs which are currently billed at the highest rate, which is that of gas. Overnight home charging will be more than adequate for most users. Fast charging will work for everyone else as the infrastructure rollout speeds up. Price falls with economies of scale. More cars, lower costs. 2035 will happen to correspond with the EU. Trying to go early in 2035 to try to decouple from our much bigger neighbour won't work. Can you clarify the above dates? It's as I stated. The EU is banning new ICE cars sales in 2035. The UK is banning them in 2030. The UK decision is arbitrary. EU manufacturing will focus on the EU date with the scale of change necessary, not that of the much smaller UK market. It's not actually as you stated. I didn't know the EU is banning new ICE cars sales in 2035 but I did know the UK is banning them in 2030. You wrote 2035 twice thus making no sense by describing the UK as 'trying to go early'. A simple correction and apology would have sufficed, but your need to always be right somehow prevented you doing that. Seems rude. But that's just you I guess. " I'm happy enough to apologise for the typo if this makes you feel like you've won something. It was easy enough to work out based on your original comment and the point still stands about the UK trying to go early. You're welcome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's true to say there are many factors which would preclude the possibility of meeting these high range numbers Wind resistance, road surface, temperature, weather conditions, all reduce the maximum efficiency of any vehicle. Most experts agree that lower speeds and more efficient driving technique can improve ranges. However, it doesn't account for such a disparity between the manufacturers range numbers and the true range figures. This can be applied to both ICE and EPE's. It is not a question about superiority, it's more a question about what we leave behind to those who come after us. Are we responsible or irresponsible? Responsible in my opinion is taking the human driver out of the equation as soon as possible. The tech is getting there and as soon as it is the better. Cars should be seen as means to an end not an advertisement wet dream. Personally owned cars can spend over 80% of their usage parked, business perk cars too. That’s a lot of cars doing nothing for long periods of time. Cut the addiction to owning a car and using them like buses or taxis. Fully autonomous is where my tick goes It's true automation is good, taking people out of the equation will improve road safety. But there is something about owning your own vehicle and the freedom it brings, even though it's only used in a limited capacity. It may be more a city thing, because there is a high availability of alternative travel methods, greater network coverage to provide upto date traffic and travel information for these systems to work with. In rural areas though, vehicles are used more frequently due to lack of public transport and distances to certain amenities. The difficulty with rural roads could pose greater challenges to automated travel we need to consider coverage, as most automation relies on upto date knowledge of the areas the vehicles are travelling in, which requires some form of connection to the internet, and considering the poor mobile phone coverage these areas, it would not make it a viable tech at the moment in these areas. Waze is providing up to date info now. The more vehicles that are not sat on the drive or side of the road the more up to date the roads conditions and availability will be.Plus the added benefit of not having to make so many vehicles to satisfy consumption. A side note to removing the human driver will be the potential increase in speed. Once all human control is removed, cars can communicate as a whole network, allowing them to move amongst each other without collision. Roads no longer need to be right or left sided." Having worked in automation until I retired. I would not trust any fully automated vehicle. Simple reason. There are so many faults that could cause a crash. Eg , a soldered joint on pcb, loose connection and programming faults. I am not sure but when I was programming automation. It was then said about for every GB there was five percent errors. This in certain circumstances a problem would happen. Yes I admit this could be buttons being pressed at wrong time. If a car then the amount of sensors that have to be used is tremendous. Think F1 . Drivers report fault . Message back to driver , no fault sensor ignored , asked to reset. In autonomous vehicles this only could be done if in contact with main computer etc. But no driver to do manual reset . So in my opinion automatous vehicles will not happen in main , motorway roads for many years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's true to say there are many factors which would preclude the possibility of meeting these high range numbers Wind resistance, road surface, temperature, weather conditions, all reduce the maximum efficiency of any vehicle. Most experts agree that lower speeds and more efficient driving technique can improve ranges. However, it doesn't account for such a disparity between the manufacturers range numbers and the true range figures. This can be applied to both ICE and EPE's. It is not a question about superiority, it's more a question about what we leave behind to those who come after us. Are we responsible or irresponsible? Responsible in my opinion is taking the human driver out of the equation as soon as possible. The tech is getting there and as soon as it is the better. Cars should be seen as means to an end not an advertisement wet dream. Personally owned cars can spend over 80% of their usage parked, business perk cars too. That’s a lot of cars doing nothing for long periods of time. Cut the addiction to owning a car and using them like buses or taxis. Fully autonomous is where my tick goes It's true automation is good, taking people out of the equation will improve road safety. But there is something about owning your own vehicle and the freedom it brings, even though it's only used in a limited capacity. It may be more a city thing, because there is a high availability of alternative travel methods, greater network coverage to provide upto date traffic and travel information for these systems to work with. In rural areas though, vehicles are used more frequently due to lack of public transport and distances to certain amenities. The difficulty with rural roads could pose greater challenges to automated travel we need to consider coverage, as most automation relies on upto date knowledge of the areas the vehicles are travelling in, which requires some form of connection to the internet, and considering the poor mobile phone coverage these areas, it would not make it a viable tech at the moment in these areas. Waze is providing up to date info now. The more vehicles that are not sat on the drive or side of the road the more up to date the roads conditions and availability will be.Plus the added benefit of not having to make so many vehicles to satisfy consumption. A side note to removing the human driver will be the potential increase in speed. Once all human control is removed, cars can communicate as a whole network, allowing them to move amongst each other without collision. Roads no longer need to be right or left sided. Having worked in automation until I retired. I would not trust any fully automated vehicle. Simple reason. There are so many faults that could cause a crash. Eg , a soldered joint on pcb, loose connection and programming faults. I am not sure but when I was programming automation. It was then said about for every GB there was five percent errors. This in certain circumstances a problem would happen. Yes I admit this could be buttons being pressed at wrong time. If a car then the amount of sensors that have to be used is tremendous. Think F1 . Drivers report fault . Message back to driver , no fault sensor ignored , asked to reset. In autonomous vehicles this only could be done if in contact with main computer etc. But no driver to do manual reset . So in my opinion automatous vehicles will not happen in main , motorway roads for many years. " This assumption relies on the premise that no failsafe has been added to cover issue of failures. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's true to say there are many factors which would preclude the possibility of meeting these high range numbers Wind resistance, road surface, temperature, weather conditions, all reduce the maximum efficiency of any vehicle. Most experts agree that lower speeds and more efficient driving technique can improve ranges. However, it doesn't account for such a disparity between the manufacturers range numbers and the true range figures. This can be applied to both ICE and EPE's. It is not a question about superiority, it's more a question about what we leave behind to those who come after us. Are we responsible or irresponsible? Responsible in my opinion is taking the human driver out of the equation as soon as possible. The tech is getting there and as soon as it is the better. Cars should be seen as means to an end not an advertisement wet dream. Personally owned cars can spend over 80% of their usage parked, business perk cars too. That’s a lot of cars doing nothing for long periods of time. Cut the addiction to owning a car and using them like buses or taxis. Fully autonomous is where my tick goes It's true automation is good, taking people out of the equation will improve road safety. But there is something about owning your own vehicle and the freedom it brings, even though it's only used in a limited capacity. It may be more a city thing, because there is a high availability of alternative travel methods, greater network coverage to provide upto date traffic and travel information for these systems to work with. In rural areas though, vehicles are used more frequently due to lack of public transport and distances to certain amenities. The difficulty with rural roads could pose greater challenges to automated travel we need to consider coverage, as most automation relies on upto date knowledge of the areas the vehicles are travelling in, which requires some form of connection to the internet, and considering the poor mobile phone coverage these areas, it would not make it a viable tech at the moment in these areas. Waze is providing up to date info now. The more vehicles that are not sat on the drive or side of the road the more up to date the roads conditions and availability will be.Plus the added benefit of not having to make so many vehicles to satisfy consumption. A side note to removing the human driver will be the potential increase in speed. Once all human control is removed, cars can communicate as a whole network, allowing them to move amongst each other without collision. Roads no longer need to be right or left sided. Having worked in automation until I retired. I would not trust any fully automated vehicle. Simple reason. There are so many faults that could cause a crash. Eg , a soldered joint on pcb, loose connection and programming faults. I am not sure but when I was programming automation. It was then said about for every GB there was five percent errors. This in certain circumstances a problem would happen. Yes I admit this could be buttons being pressed at wrong time. If a car then the amount of sensors that have to be used is tremendous. Think F1 . Drivers report fault . Message back to driver , no fault sensor ignored , asked to reset. In autonomous vehicles this only could be done if in contact with main computer etc. But no driver to do manual reset . So in my opinion automatous vehicles will not happen in main , motorway roads for many years. This assumption relies on the premise that no failsafe has been added to cover issue of failures. " The point I was making. Failsafes are put in-for errors . It is the ones not known. I follow F1 . So when watching race , see commentary, driver saying problem . Then radio saying press d2 , c5 for example. Driver is overriding a fault , The people who are saying this are possible most time not in same country . How to do in automatous car ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When they can have real range of around 600 miles they will sell a lot quicker. Why 600 miles? I hear this number all the time, what’s the reason? It is arbitrary. The average internal combustion engine car has a range of about 450 miles. You can't fill it up at home though. Not sure where you get that range figure from. The UK's most popular cars have an average range of around 800 miles: https://inews.co.uk/essentials/lifestyle/cars/car-news/how-far-will-the-uks-most-popular-cars-get-on-a-single-tank-of-fuel-291377 I agree with you that the 600 mile figure is just arbitrary. It's the sort of range that no one thinks is restrictive, where 250 miles feels rather more limiting. I also agree with you that you can't refuel an ICE while you're sleeping overnight, but then that's also true of an electric car if you don't have a driveway." The figures quoted in the article are for the most fuel efficient speed (a constant 52mph) in laboratory conditions and a fully draining the tank. Nowhere near realistic. https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/16256740/make-petrol-last-longer-fuel-crisis 'According to the AA, a full tank will give a car between 300 to 400 miles of driving - which it said will last most drivers a fortnight...' More technical data varies around the 400 mile figure. The car companies don't like to quote the ranges of diesel and petrol cars because there are so many variables, but they are the measure used for electric cars even though they face the same ones. Of course, home charging is only an option for those with a drive. That is not uncommon in the UK. Home fuelling is not an option at all for petrol or diesel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's true to say there are many factors which would preclude the possibility of meeting these high range numbers Wind resistance, road surface, temperature, weather conditions, all reduce the maximum efficiency of any vehicle. Most experts agree that lower speeds and more efficient driving technique can improve ranges. However, it doesn't account for such a disparity between the manufacturers range numbers and the true range figures. This can be applied to both ICE and EPE's. It is not a question about superiority, it's more a question about what we leave behind to those who come after us. Are we responsible or irresponsible? Responsible in my opinion is taking the human driver out of the equation as soon as possible. The tech is getting there and as soon as it is the better. Cars should be seen as means to an end not an advertisement wet dream. Personally owned cars can spend over 80% of their usage parked, business perk cars too. That’s a lot of cars doing nothing for long periods of time. Cut the addiction to owning a car and using them like buses or taxis. Fully autonomous is where my tick goes It's true automation is good, taking people out of the equation will improve road safety. But there is something about owning your own vehicle and the freedom it brings, even though it's only used in a limited capacity. It may be more a city thing, because there is a high availability of alternative travel methods, greater network coverage to provide upto date traffic and travel information for these systems to work with. In rural areas though, vehicles are used more frequently due to lack of public transport and distances to certain amenities. The difficulty with rural roads could pose greater challenges to automated travel we need to consider coverage, as most automation relies on upto date knowledge of the areas the vehicles are travelling in, which requires some form of connection to the internet, and considering the poor mobile phone coverage these areas, it would not make it a viable tech at the moment in these areas. Waze is providing up to date info now. The more vehicles that are not sat on the drive or side of the road the more up to date the roads conditions and availability will be.Plus the added benefit of not having to make so many vehicles to satisfy consumption. A side note to removing the human driver will be the potential increase in speed. Once all human control is removed, cars can communicate as a whole network, allowing them to move amongst each other without collision. Roads no longer need to be right or left sided. Having worked in automation until I retired. I would not trust any fully automated vehicle. Simple reason. There are so many faults that could cause a crash. Eg , a soldered joint on pcb, loose connection and programming faults. I am not sure but when I was programming automation. It was then said about for every GB there was five percent errors. This in certain circumstances a problem would happen. Yes I admit this could be buttons being pressed at wrong time. If a car then the amount of sensors that have to be used is tremendous. Think F1 . Drivers report fault . Message back to driver , no fault sensor ignored , asked to reset. In autonomous vehicles this only could be done if in contact with main computer etc. But no driver to do manual reset . So in my opinion automatous vehicles will not happen in main , motorway roads for many years. This assumption relies on the premise that no failsafe has been added to cover issue of failures. The point I was making. Failsafes are put in-for errors . It is the ones not known. I follow F1 . So when watching race , see commentary, driver saying problem . Then radio saying press d2 , c5 for example. Driver is overriding a fault , The people who are saying this are possible most time not in same country . How to do in automatous car ? " You are watching individuals and not everything connected to a network all working together. Example a car stops in a lane, all other cars know to avoid that part of the lane, no need to close the lane as the parameters are set already to give X amount of space. This tech is already on the roads, look out for the Google cars on youtube to watch how they perform. You will see them breakdown, however the problem is human drivers, to be honest the humans and autonomous do not mix. Also read up on the trials of full autonomous lorries that have been travelling on the UK networks and test tracks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I regularly have to travel 300 miles to a work site and then return a couple of days later. Using an electric car I'd have to stop for an hour on the way down, and again on the way back up. I'd also have to find somewhere to charge it whilst I'm at the site, which means sitting in the Tesco car park for an hour while it fills up. That's 3 wasted hours for every trip there and back. My current vehicle has a 1000 mile tank, which can be filled in 5 minutes. That's a very compelling advantage. I realise that I'm an unusual case, but there are enough people like me to see ICE vehicles continuing for a good while yet." "Business miles V personal miles V getting used to a different way of travelling. If you travel 300 miles in both directions, I would suggest a break is needed in your working day, pull in, charge the car and take break. I’m not in your shoes, so what’s missing with my suggestion " What you are missing is that I don't want a break. My routine is to finish work on a Monday at 5, get in the car, and arrive at the hotel at 10, just in time for bed. Then on Thursday I finish work at 5, travel, arrive home at 10, ready for bed. With an electric car I would have to stop for an hour in the middle of the journey. That means stopping work earlier, or getting less sleep. Plus, one evening that I'm on site, I'd have to drive 15 miles to the big town, then sit in the supermarket car park for an hour while the car charges. That's 90 minutes that I could be spending doing something more interesting. I'd love to see autonomous cars arrive. Even if they are electric, I could just swap vehicles when the battery gets low, arriving at the same time I normally would. Sadly, there will be a lot of resistance to them, despite that fact that it's obvious that humans are really bad at driving. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I follow F1 . So when watching race , see commentary, driver saying problem . Then radio saying press d2 , c5 for example. Driver is overriding a fault , The people who are saying this are possible most time not in same country . How to do in automatous car ? " F1 has complex rules on what settings can be changed remotely, and what has to be done by the driver. The team can reset a sensor, or switch to a backup, but they are not allowed to change anything that affects the performance of the car. They have to get the driver to do it. This limitation won't be present in future autonomous vehicles. F1 also has drivers that occasionally forget to switch to the correct mode. The teams are not allowed to tell them that they are in the wrong mode, but they can 'see a fault' and then suggest changing mode 'to clear it'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Not sure where you get that range figure from. The UK's most popular cars have an average range of around 800 miles: https://inews.co.uk/essentials/lifestyle/cars/car-news/how-far-will-the-uks-most-popular-cars-get-on-a-single-tank-of-fuel-291377 " You don't seriously believe that garbage | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I regularly have to travel 300 miles to a work site and then return a couple of days later. Using an electric car I'd have to stop for an hour on the way down, and again on the way back up. I'd also have to find somewhere to charge it whilst I'm at the site, which means sitting in the Tesco car park for an hour while it fills up. That's 3 wasted hours for every trip there and back. My current vehicle has a 1000 mile tank, which can be filled in 5 minutes. That's a very compelling advantage. I realise that I'm an unusual case, but there are enough people like me to see ICE vehicles continuing for a good while yet. Business miles V personal miles V getting used to a different way of travelling. If you travel 300 miles in both directions, I would suggest a break is needed in your working day, pull in, charge the car and take break. I’m not in your shoes, so what’s missing with my suggestion What you are missing is that I don't want a break. My routine is to finish work on a Monday at 5, get in the car, and arrive at the hotel at 10, just in time for bed. Then on Thursday I finish work at 5, travel, arrive home at 10, ready for bed. With an electric car I would have to stop for an hour in the middle of the journey. That means stopping work earlier, or getting less sleep. Plus, one evening that I'm on site, I'd have to drive 15 miles to the big town, then sit in the supermarket car park for an hour while the car charges. That's 90 minutes that I could be spending doing something more interesting. I'd love to see autonomous cars arrive. Even if they are electric, I could just swap vehicles when the battery gets low, arriving at the same time I normally would. Sadly, there will be a lot of resistance to them, despite that fact that it's obvious that humans are really bad at driving." Why do you believe that over the next 10-20 years the technology of EV cars will stay the same? Why do you believe that battery and charging technology and costs will not change dramatically as it has over the last ten years? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When they can have real range of around 600 miles they will sell a lot quicker. Downside lack of car charging facilities. Running costs creating up to diesel and petrol so hard to justify the initial purchase price for an average earner. Why 600 miles? I hear this number all the time, what’s the reason? It’s the most extreme a sales person would be expected to cover in a day. It’s knowing a worker who relies on a car is not restricted by stopping to charge his car. It’s roughly ten hours at an average of 60. It’s that simple. 600 miles at an average speed of 60 miles an hour, you can see where I'm going with this? Would you expect sales to be done on this journey too, meaning stops that will bring the average miles per hour down. 3 sales pitches in 600 miles is very liberal, but in one day? 10 hours travelling, 3 jobs at lets call it 1 hour = 13 hours. Toilet breaks, food and a rest shall we call it a ball breaking 2 hours, which now brings us up to a 15 hour working day. Or are the sales reps travelling 600 miles to start their jobs the following day? Maybe it isn't the capabilities of the car? I'm lost with this one, help me out" If you work in sales or other roles that need travel such as a service guy you would understand the point. . That’s not a daily miles target as they travel and work only a few hours a sone days depending on the work load or plans. The point is if they want to put in a long day but also get home easily without extra worry they can. It’s not about doing the miles it’s knowing it’s possible. The last thing they need is after a long day running low on charge and having to divert or worse ending up in a hotel . It’s perception of flexibility which electric cars don’t quite have yet but I’m sure they will. Btw truck drivers regularly do 15 hour days No not every day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When they can have real range of around 600 miles they will sell a lot quicker. Downside lack of car charging facilities. Running costs creating up to diesel and petrol so hard to justify the initial purchase price for an average earner. Why 600 miles? I hear this number all the time, what’s the reason? It’s the most extreme a sales person would be expected to cover in a day. It’s knowing a worker who relies on a car is not restricted by stopping to charge his car. It’s roughly ten hours at an average of 60. It’s that simple. 600 miles at an average speed of 60 miles an hour, you can see where I'm going with this? Would you expect sales to be done on this journey too, meaning stops that will bring the average miles per hour down. 3 sales pitches in 600 miles is very liberal, but in one day? 10 hours travelling, 3 jobs at lets call it 1 hour = 13 hours. Toilet breaks, food and a rest shall we call it a ball breaking 2 hours, which now brings us up to a 15 hour working day. Or are the sales reps travelling 600 miles to start their jobs the following day? Maybe it isn't the capabilities of the car? I'm lost with this one, help me out If you work in sales or other roles that need travel such as a service guy you would understand the point. . That’s not a daily miles target as they travel and work only a few hours a sone days depending on the work load or plans. The point is if they want to put in a long day but also get home easily without extra worry they can. It’s not about doing the miles it’s knowing it’s possible. The last thing they need is after a long day running low on charge and having to divert or worse ending up in a hotel . It’s perception of flexibility which electric cars don’t quite have yet but I’m sure they will. Btw truck drivers regularly do 15 hour days No not every day. "Truck drivers have to take breaks, and nobody is saying that these have be electric or that is sensible for them to be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I regularly have to travel 300 miles to a work site and then return a couple of days later. Using an electric car I'd have to stop for an hour on the way down, and again on the way back up. I'd also have to find somewhere to charge it whilst I'm at the site, which means sitting in the Tesco car park for an hour while it fills up. That's 3 wasted hours for every trip there and back. My current vehicle has a 1000 mile tank, which can be filled in 5 minutes. That's a very compelling advantage. I realise that I'm an unusual case, but there are enough people like me to see ICE vehicles continuing for a good while yet. Business miles V personal miles V getting used to a different way of travelling. If you travel 300 miles in both directions, I would suggest a break is needed in your working day, pull in, charge the car and take break. I’m not in your shoes, so what’s missing with my suggestion What you are missing is that I don't want a break. My routine is to finish work on a Monday at 5, get in the car, and arrive at the hotel at 10, just in time for bed. Then on Thursday I finish work at 5, travel, arrive home at 10, ready for bed. With an electric car I would have to stop for an hour in the middle of the journey. That means stopping work earlier, or getting less sleep. Plus, one evening that I'm on site, I'd have to drive 15 miles to the big town, then sit in the supermarket car park for an hour while the car charges. That's 90 minutes that I could be spending doing something more interesting. I'd love to see autonomous cars arrive. Even if they are electric, I could just swap vehicles when the battery gets low, arriving at the same time I normally would. Sadly, there will be a lot of resistance to them, despite that fact that it's obvious that humans are really bad at driving." I agree autonomous is coming but it has one big hurdle and that’s moral dilemmas AI can't handle moral choice and until it does or we have total segregation of humans and vehicles then it’s going to be an issue. For example you’re travelling at 30mph and the AI is in control. You approach a zebra crossing with an island so the crossing us in two halves. The car is connected to the traffic light system so it knows they aren’t going to change so continues at 30mph. At the last moment a child steps out onto the crossing and the car is too close to stop so needs to take avoiding action. The car can swerve to the other side of the crossing but an elderly couple have taken advantage of no traffic coming the other way and have walked halfway into the road. The only other option is to crash into the island risking the death of the cars passenger. So who does the car chose to kill? It can’t be programmed to kill others over the driver as that’s immoral but it also can’t be allowed to kill others to protect the driver. This is an extreme example but it shows the difficulty of machine and human interaction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When they can have real range of around 600 miles they will sell a lot quicker. Downside lack of car charging facilities. Running costs creating up to diesel and petrol so hard to justify the initial purchase price for an average earner. Why 600 miles? I hear this number all the time, what’s the reason? It’s the most extreme a sales person would be expected to cover in a day. It’s knowing a worker who relies on a car is not restricted by stopping to charge his car. It’s roughly ten hours at an average of 60. It’s that simple. 600 miles at an average speed of 60 miles an hour, you can see where I'm going with this? Would you expect sales to be done on this journey too, meaning stops that will bring the average miles per hour down. 3 sales pitches in 600 miles is very liberal, but in one day? 10 hours travelling, 3 jobs at lets call it 1 hour = 13 hours. Toilet breaks, food and a rest shall we call it a ball breaking 2 hours, which now brings us up to a 15 hour working day. Or are the sales reps travelling 600 miles to start their jobs the following day? Maybe it isn't the capabilities of the car? I'm lost with this one, help me out If you work in sales or other roles that need travel such as a service guy you would understand the point. . That’s not a daily miles target as they travel and work only a few hours a sone days depending on the work load or plans. The point is if they want to put in a long day but also get home easily without extra worry they can. It’s not about doing the miles it’s knowing it’s possible. The last thing they need is after a long day running low on charge and having to divert or worse ending up in a hotel . It’s perception of flexibility which electric cars don’t quite have yet but I’m sure they will. Btw truck drivers regularly do 15 hour days No not every day. "Salesmen can often do over 1500 miles per week, staying in hotels. How many hotels have the infrastructure to manage all these electric vehicles that need charging overnight? The guys I know will often work for 12-15 hours, that's from leaving a hotel in the morning to arriving at a different hotel in the evening. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When they can have real range of around 600 miles they will sell a lot quicker. Downside lack of car charging facilities. Running costs creating up to diesel and petrol so hard to justify the initial purchase price for an average earner. Why 600 miles? I hear this number all the time, what’s the reason? It’s the most extreme a sales person would be expected to cover in a day. It’s knowing a worker who relies on a car is not restricted by stopping to charge his car. It’s roughly ten hours at an average of 60. It’s that simple. 600 miles at an average speed of 60 miles an hour, you can see where I'm going with this? Would you expect sales to be done on this journey too, meaning stops that will bring the average miles per hour down. 3 sales pitches in 600 miles is very liberal, but in one day? 10 hours travelling, 3 jobs at lets call it 1 hour = 13 hours. Toilet breaks, food and a rest shall we call it a ball breaking 2 hours, which now brings us up to a 15 hour working day. Or are the sales reps travelling 600 miles to start their jobs the following day? Maybe it isn't the capabilities of the car? I'm lost with this one, help me out If you work in sales or other roles that need travel such as a service guy you would understand the point. . That’s not a daily miles target as they travel and work only a few hours a sone days depending on the work load or plans. The point is if they want to put in a long day but also get home easily without extra worry they can. It’s not about doing the miles it’s knowing it’s possible. The last thing they need is after a long day running low on charge and having to divert or worse ending up in a hotel . It’s perception of flexibility which electric cars don’t quite have yet but I’m sure they will. Btw truck drivers regularly do 15 hour days No not every day.
Truck drivers have to take breaks, and nobody is saying that these have be electric or that is sensible for them to be."Yes and in theory general workers are expected to. But he wants to be home for parents evening or the football . The length of the day was the point and ask a truck driver how easy it is to find a parking space for a break never mind a charging point for a couple of hours. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When they can have real range of around 600 miles they will sell a lot quicker. Downside lack of car charging facilities. Running costs creating up to diesel and petrol so hard to justify the initial purchase price for an average earner. Why 600 miles? I hear this number all the time, what’s the reason? It’s the most extreme a sales person would be expected to cover in a day. It’s knowing a worker who relies on a car is not restricted by stopping to charge his car. It’s roughly ten hours at an average of 60. It’s that simple. 600 miles at an average speed of 60 miles an hour, you can see where I'm going with this? Would you expect sales to be done on this journey too, meaning stops that will bring the average miles per hour down. 3 sales pitches in 600 miles is very liberal, but in one day? 10 hours travelling, 3 jobs at lets call it 1 hour = 13 hours. Toilet breaks, food and a rest shall we call it a ball breaking 2 hours, which now brings us up to a 15 hour working day. Or are the sales reps travelling 600 miles to start their jobs the following day? Maybe it isn't the capabilities of the car? I'm lost with this one, help me out If you work in sales or other roles that need travel such as a service guy you would understand the point. . That’s not a daily miles target as they travel and work only a few hours a sone days depending on the work load or plans. The point is if they want to put in a long day but also get home easily without extra worry they can. It’s not about doing the miles it’s knowing it’s possible. The last thing they need is after a long day running low on charge and having to divert or worse ending up in a hotel . It’s perception of flexibility which electric cars don’t quite have yet but I’m sure they will. Btw truck drivers regularly do 15 hour days No not every day. "I see The guys working want to get on and work and not need to think about scheduling in a charge. I can see this being a problem, habits of letting the fuel tank run down to the last 50 miles, knowing you will find a fuel station and fill up in 5 mins.
There are solutions to this but it would mean changes in working practices for both the business and workforce, which are maybe a step to far right now.
One point though, I'm still not sure the 600 mile range is the solution to accepting EV's, it still needs charging. It seems to me the charging time is the actual issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When they can have real range of around 600 miles they will sell a lot quicker. Downside lack of car charging facilities. Running costs creating up to diesel and petrol so hard to justify the initial purchase price for an average earner. Why 600 miles? I hear this number all the time, what’s the reason? It’s the most extreme a sales person would be expected to cover in a day. It’s knowing a worker who relies on a car is not restricted by stopping to charge his car. It’s roughly ten hours at an average of 60. It’s that simple. 600 miles at an average speed of 60 miles an hour, you can see where I'm going with this? Would you expect sales to be done on this journey too, meaning stops that will bring the average miles per hour down. 3 sales pitches in 600 miles is very liberal, but in one day? 10 hours travelling, 3 jobs at lets call it 1 hour = 13 hours. Toilet breaks, food and a rest shall we call it a ball breaking 2 hours, which now brings us up to a 15 hour working day. Or are the sales reps travelling 600 miles to start their jobs the following day? Maybe it isn't the capabilities of the car? I'm lost with this one, help me out If you work in sales or other roles that need travel such as a service guy you would understand the point. . That’s not a daily miles target as they travel and work only a few hours a sone days depending on the work load or plans. The point is if they want to put in a long day but also get home easily without extra worry they can. It’s not about doing the miles it’s knowing it’s possible. The last thing they need is after a long day running low on charge and having to divert or worse ending up in a hotel . It’s perception of flexibility which electric cars don’t quite have yet but I’m sure they will. Btw truck drivers regularly do 15 hour days No not every day.
I see The guys working want to get on and work and not need to think about scheduling in a charge. I can see this being a problem, habits of letting the fuel tank run down to the last 50 miles, knowing you will find a fuel station and fill up in 5 mins.
There are solutions to this but it would mean changes in working practices for both the business and workforce, which are maybe a step to far right now.
One point though, I'm still not sure the 600 mile range is the solution to accepting EV's, it still needs charging. It seems to me the charging time is the actual issue."You can charge it at home or at your destination if it had range so ending your day as the car charges. You don’t wait for the car . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I regularly have to travel 300 miles to a work site and then return a couple of days later. Using an electric car I'd have to stop for an hour on the way down, and again on the way back up. I'd also have to find somewhere to charge it whilst I'm at the site, which means sitting in the Tesco car park for an hour while it fills up. That's 3 wasted hours for every trip there and back. My current vehicle has a 1000 mile tank, which can be filled in 5 minutes. That's a very compelling advantage. I realise that I'm an unusual case, but there are enough people like me to see ICE vehicles continuing for a good while yet." "Business miles V personal miles V getting used to a different way of travelling. If you travel 300 miles in both directions, I would suggest a break is needed in your working day, pull in, charge the car and take break. I’m not in your shoes, so what’s missing with my suggestion" "What you are missing is that I don't want a break. My routine is to finish work on a Monday at 5, get in the car, and arrive at the hotel at 10, just in time for bed. Then on Thursday I finish work at 5, travel, arrive home at 10, ready for bed. With an electric car I would have to stop for an hour in the middle of the journey. That means stopping work earlier, or getting less sleep. Plus, one evening that I'm on site, I'd have to drive 15 miles to the big town, then sit in the supermarket car park for an hour while the car charges. That's 90 minutes that I could be spending doing something more interesting. I'd love to see autonomous cars arrive. Even if they are electric, I could just swap vehicles when the battery gets low, arriving at the same time I normally would. Sadly, there will be a lot of resistance to them, despite that fact that it's obvious that humans are really bad at driving." "Why do you believe that over the next 10-20 years the technology of EV cars will stay the same?" I don't. And there's nothing in my post that evens suggests that I do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I regularly have to travel 300 miles to a work site and then return a couple of days later. Using an electric car I'd have to stop for an hour on the way down, and again on the way back up. I'd also have to find somewhere to charge it whilst I'm at the site, which means sitting in the Tesco car park for an hour while it fills up. That's 3 wasted hours for every trip there and back. My current vehicle has a 1000 mile tank, which can be filled in 5 minutes. That's a very compelling advantage. I realise that I'm an unusual case, but there are enough people like me to see ICE vehicles continuing for a good while yet. Business miles V personal miles V getting used to a different way of travelling. If you travel 300 miles in both directions, I would suggest a break is needed in your working day, pull in, charge the car and take break. I’m not in your shoes, so what’s missing with my suggestion What you are missing is that I don't want a break. My routine is to finish work on a Monday at 5, get in the car, and arrive at the hotel at 10, just in time for bed. Then on Thursday I finish work at 5, travel, arrive home at 10, ready for bed. With an electric car I would have to stop for an hour in the middle of the journey. That means stopping work earlier, or getting less sleep. Plus, one evening that I'm on site, I'd have to drive 15 miles to the big town, then sit in the supermarket car park for an hour while the car charges. That's 90 minutes that I could be spending doing something more interesting. I'd love to see autonomous cars arrive. Even if they are electric, I could just swap vehicles when the battery gets low, arriving at the same time I normally would. Sadly, there will be a lot of resistance to them, despite that fact that it's obvious that humans are really bad at driving. Why do you believe that over the next 10-20 years the technology of EV cars will stay the same? Why do you believe that battery and charging technology and costs will not change dramatically as it has over the last ten years?" Battery technology has essentially been static since the development of the LiPo 30 years ago, so yes, it needs something completely different to be successful | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree autonomous is coming but it has one big hurdle and that’s moral dilemmas ..." I'm going to disagree. The moral dilemma will not arise because the machine is incapable of recognising whether an obstruction is human, let alone differentiating between a child and an elderly couple. The vehicle will be programmed to stop as quickly as it is able to. It won't swerve to choose another 'target', it'll just stop. These sort of moral dilemmas come up often in discussions about automation, but no one ever looks at how human drivers solve these issues. In reality, the human driver has a split second to react, and they almost always do so by freezing, and continuing at full speed into what ever is in front of them. Automated vehicles will at least attempt to slow down, which is all that can be done in those situations. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One point though, I'm still not sure the 600 mile range is the solution to accepting EV's, it still needs charging. It seems to me the charging time is the actual issue." I'd not thought of it that way. It would still be a niggle to have to charge in the middle of a journey, but if I could do it in 5 minutes, it wouldn't be too irritating. String Cell batteries look like an interesting idea (lots of ball-shaped batteries that you pump into a tank), but it doesn't look like they'll be available soon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One point though, I'm still not sure the 600 mile range is the solution to accepting EV's, it still needs charging. It seems to me the charging time is the actual issue. I'd not thought of it that way. It would still be a niggle to have to charge in the middle of a journey, but if I could do it in 5 minutes, it wouldn't be too irritating. String Cell batteries look like an interesting idea (lots of ball-shaped batteries that you pump into a tank), but it doesn't look like they'll be available soon." Basically just a swappable battery, it's been talked about for years but whose going to invest in hundreds of thousands of "spare" batteries to swop? Manufacturing enough batteries to meet the demand of new vehicles is problematic enough without making one or even two spares for every vehicle. Faster charging really needs new battery technology and nothing is close yet, and even if it does, no country has the infrastructure to rapid charge hundreds of thousands of cars even daily | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I regularly have to travel 300 miles to a work site and then return a couple of days later. Using an electric car I'd have to stop for an hour on the way down, and again on the way back up. I'd also have to find somewhere to charge it whilst I'm at the site, which means sitting in the Tesco car park for an hour while it fills up. That's 3 wasted hours for every trip there and back. My current vehicle has a 1000 mile tank, which can be filled in 5 minutes. That's a very compelling advantage. I realise that I'm an unusual case, but there are enough people like me to see ICE vehicles continuing for a good while yet. Business miles V personal miles V getting used to a different way of travelling. If you travel 300 miles in both directions, I would suggest a break is needed in your working day, pull in, charge the car and take break. I’m not in your shoes, so what’s missing with my suggestion What you are missing is that I don't want a break. My routine is to finish work on a Monday at 5, get in the car, and arrive at the hotel at 10, just in time for bed. Then on Thursday I finish work at 5, travel, arrive home at 10, ready for bed. With an electric car I would have to stop for an hour in the middle of the journey. That means stopping work earlier, or getting less sleep. Plus, one evening that I'm on site, I'd have to drive 15 miles to the big town, then sit in the supermarket car park for an hour while the car charges. That's 90 minutes that I could be spending doing something more interesting. I'd love to see autonomous cars arrive. Even if they are electric, I could just swap vehicles when the battery gets low, arriving at the same time I normally would. Sadly, there will be a lot of resistance to them, despite that fact that it's obvious that humans are really bad at driving. I agree autonomous is coming but it has one big hurdle and that’s moral dilemmas AI can't handle moral choice and until it does or we have total segregation of humans and vehicles then it’s going to be an issue. For example you’re travelling at 30mph and the AI is in control. You approach a zebra crossing with an island so the crossing us in two halves. The car is connected to the traffic light system so it knows they aren’t going to change so continues at 30mph. At the last moment a child steps out onto the crossing and the car is too close to stop so needs to take avoiding action. The car can swerve to the other side of the crossing but an elderly couple have taken advantage of no traffic coming the other way and have walked halfway into the road. The only other option is to crash into the island risking the death of the cars passenger. So who does the car chose to kill? It can’t be programmed to kill others over the driver as that’s immoral but it also can’t be allowed to kill others to protect the driver. This is an extreme example but it shows the difficulty of machine and human interaction. " As per the other poster who replied to this, I too disagree. The scenario is always the vehicle needs to make a choice, that is moral scare tactic in terms of the car is choosing to kill who it wants, and the car is thinking for itself. The reality in this situation is the car would not approach a crossing of any kind at 30mph, it will slow to an appropriate speed, the lidar scanner will be constantly building a picture of what is all around, people will be detected and if they step or move to the road the car will stop. Humans drive very differently to autonomous vehicles, the road safety measures are always being adhered to, that is why humans and autonomous vehicles don't play well on the same roads, the humans get frustrated that the car in front wont speed and will slow for junctions. If you want to see more of this google Waymo and you will see what is on the roads today | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When they can have real range of around 600 miles they will sell a lot quicker. Downside lack of car charging facilities. Running costs creating up to diesel and petrol so hard to justify the initial purchase price for an average earner. Why 600 miles? I hear this number all the time, what’s the reason? It’s the most extreme a sales person would be expected to cover in a day. It’s knowing a worker who relies on a car is not restricted by stopping to charge his car. It’s roughly ten hours at an average of 60. It’s that simple. 600 miles at an average speed of 60 miles an hour, you can see where I'm going with this? Would you expect sales to be done on this journey too, meaning stops that will bring the average miles per hour down. 3 sales pitches in 600 miles is very liberal, but in one day? 10 hours travelling, 3 jobs at lets call it 1 hour = 13 hours. Toilet breaks, food and a rest shall we call it a ball breaking 2 hours, which now brings us up to a 15 hour working day. Or are the sales reps travelling 600 miles to start their jobs the following day? Maybe it isn't the capabilities of the car? I'm lost with this one, help me out If you work in sales or other roles that need travel such as a service guy you would understand the point. . That’s not a daily miles target as they travel and work only a few hours a sone days depending on the work load or plans. The point is if they want to put in a long day but also get home easily without extra worry they can. It’s not about doing the miles it’s knowing it’s possible. The last thing they need is after a long day running low on charge and having to divert or worse ending up in a hotel . It’s perception of flexibility which electric cars don’t quite have yet but I’m sure they will. Btw truck drivers regularly do 15 hour days No not every day.
Truck drivers have to take breaks, and nobody is saying that these have be electric or that is sensible for them to be.
Yes and in theory general workers are expected to. But he wants to be home for parents evening or the football .
The length of the day was the point and ask a truck driver how easy it is to find a parking space for a break never mind a charging point for a couple of hours. "You perhaps missed the point about if long distance trucks are likely to be pure electric. The consensus is that they are most likely to be hydrogen fuel cell or possibly even hydrogen internal combustion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I regularly have to travel 300 miles to a work site and then return a couple of days later. Using an electric car I'd have to stop for an hour on the way down, and again on the way back up. I'd also have to find somewhere to charge it whilst I'm at the site, which means sitting in the Tesco car park for an hour while it fills up. That's 3 wasted hours for every trip there and back. My current vehicle has a 1000 mile tank, which can be filled in 5 minutes. That's a very compelling advantage. I realise that I'm an unusual case, but there are enough people like me to see ICE vehicles continuing for a good while yet. Business miles V personal miles V getting used to a different way of travelling. If you travel 300 miles in both directions, I would suggest a break is needed in your working day, pull in, charge the car and take break. I’m not in your shoes, so what’s missing with my suggestion What you are missing is that I don't want a break. My routine is to finish work on a Monday at 5, get in the car, and arrive at the hotel at 10, just in time for bed. Then on Thursday I finish work at 5, travel, arrive home at 10, ready for bed. With an electric car I would have to stop for an hour in the middle of the journey. That means stopping work earlier, or getting less sleep. Plus, one evening that I'm on site, I'd have to drive 15 miles to the big town, then sit in the supermarket car park for an hour while the car charges. That's 90 minutes that I could be spending doing something more interesting. I'd love to see autonomous cars arrive. Even if they are electric, I could just swap vehicles when the battery gets low, arriving at the same time I normally would. Sadly, there will be a lot of resistance to them, despite that fact that it's obvious that humans are really bad at driving. Why do you believe that over the next 10-20 years the technology of EV cars will stay the same? I don't. And there's nothing in my post that evens suggests that I do." All of your post is based on EV technology as it stands today and the behaviour associated with working around its current limitations. Combustion vehicles couldn't travel very far and had few locations to refuel for many years. That all changed and with EVs the industry intent and wider scale planning around the transition is on another scale altogether. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I regularly have to travel 300 miles to a work site and then return a couple of days later. Using an electric car I'd have to stop for an hour on the way down, and again on the way back up. I'd also have to find somewhere to charge it whilst I'm at the site, which means sitting in the Tesco car park for an hour while it fills up. That's 3 wasted hours for every trip there and back. My current vehicle has a 1000 mile tank, which can be filled in 5 minutes. That's a very compelling advantage. I realise that I'm an unusual case, but there are enough people like me to see ICE vehicles continuing for a good while yet. Business miles V personal miles V getting used to a different way of travelling. If you travel 300 miles in both directions, I would suggest a break is needed in your working day, pull in, charge the car and take break. I’m not in your shoes, so what’s missing with my suggestion What you are missing is that I don't want a break. My routine is to finish work on a Monday at 5, get in the car, and arrive at the hotel at 10, just in time for bed. Then on Thursday I finish work at 5, travel, arrive home at 10, ready for bed. With an electric car I would have to stop for an hour in the middle of the journey. That means stopping work earlier, or getting less sleep. Plus, one evening that I'm on site, I'd have to drive 15 miles to the big town, then sit in the supermarket car park for an hour while the car charges. That's 90 minutes that I could be spending doing something more interesting. I'd love to see autonomous cars arrive. Even if they are electric, I could just swap vehicles when the battery gets low, arriving at the same time I normally would. Sadly, there will be a lot of resistance to them, despite that fact that it's obvious that humans are really bad at driving. Why do you believe that over the next 10-20 years the technology of EV cars will stay the same? Why do you believe that battery and charging technology and costs will not change dramatically as it has over the last ten years? Battery technology has essentially been static since the development of the LiPo 30 years ago, so yes, it needs something completely different to be successful " That's not true at all. Battery performance is on another level, as are the fall in prices. There are also multiple new chemistries in development that will move the game on again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do you believe that over the next 10-20 years the technology of EV cars will stay the same?" "I don't. And there's nothing in my post that evens suggests that I do." "All of your post is based on EV technology as it stands today and the behaviour associated with working around its current limitations." Of course it is. This thread is about where EVs are today, and whether they are attractive to purchasers or not. We're not speculating on what might happen in the future. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The days of 10 year old cars rusting away and ending up on the scrap yard are pretty much long gone. Many modern cars are still going strong at 20 years and 10 year old ones still retain a decent value. So I buy a new EV for let's say £20,000. Battery life is reckoned to be around 10 years, and the replacement cost would be more than the car could ever be worth. There was a video doing the rounds a year or two ago of a guy in Finland who literally blew up his Tesla after being told it would cost almost 20 grand to replace the battery(s). So the question is what will that 20 grand car be worth at 10 years old? Or you could even ask what would it be worth at say 7 years old with the knowledge that the car realistically has only 3 years left before it becomes, to all intents and purposes, a write off? There are many other issues regarding range, infrastructure Etc. And it is easy to say that technology and investment will solve some (not all) of them. However, in Britain at least, the clock is ticking. That technological breakthrough has 6 years and 10 months to turn up and at the moment there is no sign of it. I certainly won't be putting any of my hard earned into something that will be worth frumpence in 7-10 years." Modern cars are not, in general, running for 20 or even 10 years. The average age of a vehicle in the UK is 8.5 There is a man on Finland who blew up his Tesla because the battery failed and there is a guy in the USA who has run his Tesla for one million miles. The extremes do not prove anything, nor does what current designs and technology compared to the pace of change. No has swappable batteries. Not to my mind a sensible idea for "fast charging" as they intend but certainly a cheaper option to replace failed battery packs or for hire when you plan a long road trip. What took the existing car industry decades to improve on are being compressed to a year or two due to the huge levels of investment that the car companies, supplier base, energy companies, Governments and myriad small businesses and large investment companies are pushing into the sector. Nobody is working to the 2030 UK timetable, except for China which is ahead of the curve but are not officially enforcing a transition. The Western auto industry is aiming at 2035. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has the electric car bubble burst ? Why has it burst? Used prices are in freefall" I would not use that to correlate with electric cars. Used car price inflation was due to the limited supply of Chips used in new cars, and if I remember, covid effects. The used car market is now resettling. Electric cars, going by the waiting lists, is on the up.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do you believe that over the next 10-20 years the technology of EV cars will stay the same? I don't. And there's nothing in my post that evens suggests that I do. All of your post is based on EV technology as it stands today and the behaviour associated with working around its current limitations. Of course it is. This thread is about where EVs are today, and whether they are attractive to purchasers or not. We're not speculating on what might happen in the future." The requirement to shift to EVs is not now. So nobody has to swap yet if it doesn't suit them. The "experiment" hasn't finished yet, so what has made it "burst"? The complaining is about the edge cases like regularly driving 800 miles non-stop for 10 hours that most people very rarely encounter, if ever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has the electric car bubble burst ? Why has it burst? Used prices are in freefall I would not use that to correlate with electric cars. Used car price inflation was due to the limited supply of Chips used in new cars, and if I remember, covid effects. The used car market is now resettling. Electric cars, going by the waiting lists, is on the up. "True. There is a huge waiting list for both EVs and regular combustion cars. There is no drop in demand. Used EV prices have fallen due to huge Tesla price cuts, as already noted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Battery technology has essentially been static since the development of the LiPo 30 years ago, so yes, it needs something completely different to be successful" "That's not true at all. Battery performance is on another level ..." It has improved a bit since the original LiPos, but it's not 'on another level'. "... as are the fall in prices." True, but not relevant to the technology. "There are also multiple new chemistries in development that will move the game on again." Then everything will be lovely when they arrive, but they're not here now, so that doesn't help. You seem to be arguing that EVs might be great at some point in the future. I'll agree that could indeed be true. But this thread is about how they are today, and the consensus seems to be 'not as good as we want them to be'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The complaining is about the edge cases like regularly driving 800 miles non-stop for 10 hours that most people very rarely encounter, if ever." Some of the complaining is about decidedly non-edge cases, like not having a driveway, so being unable to charge the car at home. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree autonomous is coming but it has one big hurdle and that’s moral dilemmas ... I'm going to disagree. The moral dilemma will not arise because the machine is incapable of recognising whether an obstruction is human, let alone differentiating between a child and an elderly couple. The vehicle will be programmed to stop as quickly as it is able to. It won't swerve to choose another 'target', it'll just stop. These sort of moral dilemmas come up often in discussions about automation, but no one ever looks at how human drivers solve these issues. In reality, the human driver has a split second to react, and they almost always do so by freezing, and continuing at full speed into what ever is in front of them. Automated vehicles will at least attempt to slow down, which is all that can be done in those situations." I agree to with you a point and yes we do freeze. My own car did an emergency stop when someone stepped out into the road to get past someone. The car behind me nearly crashed into me as I had no reason to stop or slow down. I as a human could see what they were doing. The car just saw an obstacle. If a swerve is needed to avoid an accident it will at some point be programmed to swerve away after instantly calculating it will hit something. I agree for the moment as far as I know ( I don’t know much) they cannot tell the difference between a human and an object. They will change. Btw I didn’t realise my car could do that as due to being a man I hadn’t read all the manual. So it shocked me too.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Battery technology has essentially been static since the development of the LiPo 30 years ago, so yes, it needs something completely different to be successful That's not true at all. Battery performance is on another level ... It has improved a bit since the original LiPos, but it's not 'on another level'. ... as are the fall in prices. True, but not relevant to the technology. There are also multiple new chemistries in development that will move the game on again. Then everything will be lovely when they arrive, but they're not here now, so that doesn't help. You seem to be arguing that EVs might be great at some point in the future. I'll agree that could indeed be true. But this thread is about how they are today, and the consensus seems to be 'not as good as we want them to be'." You think so? Have a look at energy density (how much is contained within a given mass and volume), battery longevity, safety and cost. They are on another level. Cost is fundamental. EVs are better than existing cars for a lot of people in most normal circumstances. Sales demand and customer feedback demonstrate that. For those it is not suitable for, they do not need to buy an EV yet. You keep saying that this thread is about EVs today. That is not what the OP has written, it's just how you have chosen to interpret it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"EVs are better than existing cars for a lot of people in most normal circumstances. Sales demand and customer feedback demonstrate that." If that were true, we would be seeing a whole host of people posting in here to tell us that their EV is great. Are they all very shy? "You keep saying that this thread is about EVs today. That is not what the OP has written, it's just how you have chosen to interpret it." Well let's wait till the OP comes back in, and he can tell us what he meant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"EVs are better than existing cars for a lot of people in most normal circumstances. Sales demand and customer feedback demonstrate that. If that were true, we would be seeing a whole host of people posting in here to tell us that their EV is great. Are they all very shy? You keep saying that this thread is about EVs today. That is not what the OP has written, it's just how you have chosen to interpret it. Well let's wait till the OP comes back in, and he can tell us what he meant." My EV is great | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My EV is great" Even though it's far too expensive? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"EVs are better than existing cars for a lot of people in most normal circumstances. Sales demand and customer feedback demonstrate that. If that were true, we would be seeing a whole host of people posting in here to tell us that their EV is great. Are they all very shy? You keep saying that this thread is about EVs today. That is not what the OP has written, it's just how you have chosen to interpret it. Well let's wait till the OP comes back in, and he can tell us what he meant." I'm not saying anything, I'm asking, I read a lot of articles about the numbers of people switching back to IC engines and the huge depreciation of electric vehicles. This combined with friends with EV saying their next car will likely be petrol if electricity prices stay high and if road fund licence is the same. It's been well documented of the issues of range and charging difficulties for several years now something else is driving change and there is talk of many people being worried about the longevity of batteries and the potential replacement cost. I love my EV but it's got two wheels and pedals | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"EVs are better than existing cars for a lot of people in most normal circumstances. Sales demand and customer feedback demonstrate that. If that were true, we would be seeing a whole host of people posting in here to tell us that their EV is great. Are they all very shy? You keep saying that this thread is about EVs today. That is not what the OP has written, it's just how you have chosen to interpret it. Well let's wait till the OP comes back in, and he can tell us what he meant. I'm not saying anything, I'm asking, I read a lot of articles about the numbers of people switching back to IC engines and the huge depreciation of electric vehicles. This combined with friends with EV saying their next car will likely be petrol if electricity prices stay high and if road fund licence is the same. It's been well documented of the issues of range and charging difficulties for several years now something else is driving change and there is talk of many people being worried about the longevity of batteries and the potential replacement cost. I love my EV but it's got two wheels and pedals "There has been a coordinated and concerted push since the start of this year to question the viability of the transition to EVs in certain sectors of the press and through online channels. It's very similar to what happened with climate change several years ago. Seeding doubt and reducing confidence in the general public. The vehicle manufacturers are fully committed though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There has been a coordinated and concerted push since the start of this year to question the viability of the transition to EVs in certain sectors of the press and through online channels. It's very similar to what happened with climate change several years ago. Seeding doubt and reducing confidence in the general public. The vehicle manufacturers are fully committed though." It's not unreasonable doubt though. Nobody's asking enough questions about how the general electric infrastructure of many advanced countries in the West are going to cope with so many EVs plugging in to charge up 24/7 or worse. Then there's the afterlife processing for expended EV batteries. Don't even get started on the EV battery manufacturing process and how dependent it is on rare earths (guess which country holds a near-monopoly on rare earths production and processing?). Questioning stuff doesn't necessarily mean it has to have some sort of malign, anti-science, anti-common good interest backing it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"EVs are better than existing cars for a lot of people in most normal circumstances. Sales demand and customer feedback demonstrate that. If that were true, we would be seeing a whole host of people posting in here to tell us that their EV is great. Are they all very shy? You keep saying that this thread is about EVs today. That is not what the OP has written, it's just how you have chosen to interpret it. Well let's wait till the OP comes back in, and he can tell us what he meant. I'm not saying anything, I'm asking, I read a lot of articles about the numbers of people switching back to IC engines and the huge depreciation of electric vehicles. This combined with friends with EV saying their next car will likely be petrol if electricity prices stay high and if road fund licence is the same. It's been well documented of the issues of range and charging difficulties for several years now something else is driving change and there is talk of many people being worried about the longevity of batteries and the potential replacement cost. I love my EV but it's got two wheels and pedals
There has been a coordinated and concerted push since the start of this year to question the viability of the transition to EVs in certain sectors of the press and through online channels.
It's very similar to what happened with climate change several years ago. Seeding doubt and reducing confidence in the general public.
The vehicle manufacturers are fully committed though."The manufacturers have to be committed and that's applaudable but they aren't responsible for the strategic planning which has to align with the production and they're not going to have to foot the bill for the consequences. The world has changed dramatically in the last few years and what seemed possible 5 years ago isn't now but also things that seemed impossible 5 years ago now have to be possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There has been a coordinated and concerted push since the start of this year to question the viability of the transition to EVs in certain sectors of the press and through online channels. It's very similar to what happened with climate change several years ago. Seeding doubt and reducing confidence in the general public. The vehicle manufacturers are fully committed though. It's not unreasonable doubt though. Nobody's asking enough questions about how the general electric infrastructure of many advanced countries in the West are going to cope with so many EVs plugging in to charge up 24/7 or worse. Then there's the afterlife processing for expended EV batteries. Don't even get started on the EV battery manufacturing process and how dependent it is on rare earths (guess which country holds a near-monopoly on rare earths production and processing?). Questioning stuff doesn't necessarily mean it has to have some sort of malign, anti-science, anti-common good interest backing it. " There are a lot of questions being asked, a lot of work being done and a lot of money being spent on all of the topics that you have mentioned. Did you/we feel to ask the same questions about mobile phones? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There has been a coordinated and concerted push since the start of this year to question the viability of the transition to EVs in certain sectors of the press and through online channels. It's very similar to what happened with climate change several years ago. Seeding doubt and reducing confidence in the general public. The vehicle manufacturers are fully committed though. It's not unreasonable doubt though. Nobody's asking enough questions about how the general electric infrastructure of many advanced countries in the West are going to cope with so many EVs plugging in to charge up 24/7 or worse. Then there's the afterlife processing for expended EV batteries. Don't even get started on the EV battery manufacturing process and how dependent it is on rare earths (guess which country holds a near-monopoly on rare earths production and processing?). Questioning stuff doesn't necessarily mean it has to have some sort of malign, anti-science, anti-common good interest backing it. There are a lot of questions being asked, a lot of work being done and a lot of money being spent on all of the topics that you have mentioned. Did you/we feel to ask the same questions about mobile phones?" Please tell me in what way a mobile phone battery is comparable to an EV one. If that's the best you can give, I'm out. No wonder people say this sub forum is an excellent block list generator.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There has been a coordinated and concerted push since the start of this year to question the viability of the transition to EVs in certain sectors of the press and through online channels. It's very similar to what happened with climate change several years ago. Seeding doubt and reducing confidence in the general public. The vehicle manufacturers are fully committed though. It's not unreasonable doubt though. Nobody's asking enough questions about how the general electric infrastructure of many advanced countries in the West are going to cope with so many EVs plugging in to charge up 24/7 or worse. Then there's the afterlife processing for expended EV batteries. Don't even get started on the EV battery manufacturing process and how dependent it is on rare earths (guess which country holds a near-monopoly on rare earths production and processing?). Questioning stuff doesn't necessarily mean it has to have some sort of malign, anti-science, anti-common good interest backing it. " China does not have anything like a monopoly on rare earth resources. They do on the processing because the world allowed them to, because nobody cared. Now the increased urgency of the transition, due to legislation in the West and has led to massive subsidies in the US and EU to shift processing and production. I agree that questioning doesn't have to be malign, but why is society questioning this change (which comes from positive intent with respect to the environment) but not bothered to question so much that has come before or is happening now? How much do we have to in a society where the financial consequences of screwing up are huge? Isn't it more the trustworthiness of our politicians, civil service and legal system to police and prosecute corruption that is important. Is that loss of trust that is really causing these concerns? Apologies for splitting the reply. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There has been a coordinated and concerted push since the start of this year to question the viability of the transition to EVs in certain sectors of the press and through online channels. It's very similar to what happened with climate change several years ago. Seeding doubt and reducing confidence in the general public. The vehicle manufacturers are fully committed though. It's not unreasonable doubt though. Nobody's asking enough questions about how the general electric infrastructure of many advanced countries in the West are going to cope with so many EVs plugging in to charge up 24/7 or worse. Then there's the afterlife processing for expended EV batteries. Don't even get started on the EV battery manufacturing process and how dependent it is on rare earths (guess which country holds a near-monopoly on rare earths production and processing?). Questioning stuff doesn't necessarily mean it has to have some sort of malign, anti-science, anti-common good interest backing it. There are a lot of questions being asked, a lot of work being done and a lot of money being spent on all of the topics that you have mentioned. Did you/we feel to ask the same questions about mobile phones? Please tell me in what way a mobile phone battery is comparable to an EV one. If that's the best you can give, I'm out. No wonder people say this sub forum is an excellent block list generator. "Scale. There are more mobile phones than people on the planet. Their production and distribution and disposal are on the same scale as the automotive industry. Combine that with laptops and other consumer equipment and the questions are exactly the same. That is "all that I've got" and that really is enough to make a point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There has been a coordinated and concerted push since the start of this year to question the viability of the transition to EVs in certain sectors of the press and through online channels. It's very similar to what happened with climate change several years ago. Seeding doubt and reducing confidence in the general public. The vehicle manufacturers are fully committed though. It's not unreasonable doubt though. Nobody's asking enough questions about how the general electric infrastructure of many advanced countries in the West are going to cope with so many EVs plugging in to charge up 24/7 or worse. Then there's the afterlife processing for expended EV batteries. Don't even get started on the EV battery manufacturing process and how dependent it is on rare earths (guess which country holds a near-monopoly on rare earths production and processing?). Questioning stuff doesn't necessarily mean it has to have some sort of malign, anti-science, anti-common good interest backing it. There are a lot of questions being asked, a lot of work being done and a lot of money being spent on all of the topics that you have mentioned. Did you/we feel to ask the same questions about mobile phones? Please tell me in what way a mobile phone battery is comparable to an EV one. If that's the best you can give, I'm out. No wonder people say this sub forum is an excellent block list generator. "You're obviously new round these parts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree that questioning doesn't have to be malign, but why is society questioning this change (which comes from positive intent with respect to the environment) but not bothered to question so much that has come before or is happening now?" When mobile phones came along, they were a new and useful gadget. People could go and buy one if they wanted to. EVs however are not a new and exciting thing, they are a different type of a thing that we already have. They are not any more useful than the ones we already have (some would say they are less useful). And we are being told that we will soon not be allowed to buy the old type any more. That's why no one questioned things with mobile phones, but lots of people are questioning EVs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree that questioning doesn't have to be malign, but why is society questioning this change (which comes from positive intent with respect to the environment) but not bothered to question so much that has come before or is happening now? When mobile phones came along, they were a new and useful gadget. People could go and buy one if they wanted to. EVs however are not a new and exciting thing, they are a different type of a thing that we already have. They are not any more useful than the ones we already have (some would say they are less useful). And we are being told that we will soon not be allowed to buy the old type any more. That's why no one questioned things with mobile phones, but lots of people are questioning EVs." Those were not the questions being raised by the original poster. He was asking about infrastructure, charging, manufacture and recycling. All equally pertinent to mobile phones at the scale that they are in use. All these questions are being addressed for EVs, with urgency. Engineering and production companies are not stupid. They do not want to invest billions on a compete new industry that is going to fail having shut the old one down. I'm confident that nobody fretted about how the complexity of the fossil fuel extraction industry came into being, but this new one is under intense scrutiny and criticism. I understand that people are wary of change. They were also wary of the motorcar when it was introduced. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree that questioning doesn't have to be malign, but why is society questioning this change (which comes from positive intent with respect to the environment) but not bothered to question so much that has come before or is happening now?" "When mobile phones came along, they were a new and useful gadget. People could go and buy one if they wanted to. EVs however are not a new and exciting thing, they are a different type of a thing that we already have. They are not any more useful than the ones we already have (some would say they are less useful). And we are being told that we will soon not be allowed to buy the old type any more. That's why no one questioned things with mobile phones, but lots of people are questioning EVs." "Those were not the questions being raised by the original poster. He was asking about infrastructure, charging, manufacture and recycling. All equally pertinent to mobile phones at the scale that they are in use." Well let's talk about those then. I seem to remember lots of moaning and griping about the lack of coverage, and signal drop-outs, and poor voice quality. The difference is that the only people that had mobile phones were those that wanted one. The government didn't tell everyone that land lines would be phased out in 10 years time, so we should adopt mobiles straight away. If EVs really are better than ICE vehicles, then we should just let the market run, and eventually we'll all have moved over. People don't like being told what to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree that questioning doesn't have to be malign, but why is society questioning this change (which comes from positive intent with respect to the environment) but not bothered to question so much that has come before or is happening now? When mobile phones came along, they were a new and useful gadget. People could go and buy one if they wanted to. EVs however are not a new and exciting thing, they are a different type of a thing that we already have. They are not any more useful than the ones we already have (some would say they are less useful). And we are being told that we will soon not be allowed to buy the old type any more. That's why no one questioned things with mobile phones, but lots of people are questioning EVs. Those were not the questions being raised by the original poster. He was asking about infrastructure, charging, manufacture and recycling. All equally pertinent to mobile phones at the scale that they are in use. Well let's talk about those then. I seem to remember lots of moaning and griping about the lack of coverage, and signal drop-outs, and poor voice quality. The difference is that the only people that had mobile phones were those that wanted one. The government didn't tell everyone that land lines would be phased out in 10 years time, so we should adopt mobiles straight away. If EVs really are better than ICE vehicles, then we should just let the market run, and eventually we'll all have moved over. People don't like being told what to do." As you are moaning about all sorts of things now. In about twenty years, landlines have become more or less redundant with very high (although imperfect) national coverage. This happened with next to no coordinated financial support. EV rollout is being massively funded and coordinated across multiple industries. The market would have run and combustion engines vehicles would have been replaced by EVs over an extended period of time. They are, ultimately, superior both for users and manufacturers. Context. Mobile phones were not required to reduce the global geopolitical and social and environmental consequences of climate change. The transition is happening faster than it had to because it was put off for so long. That's our fault and those of our politicians and asset owners. It's not now happening for fun. It's happening because there is no viable alternative. EVs do not have to be adopted "straight away". It's not one day when suddenly nothing else can be driven. You can choose to buy one or not until 2030 in the UK and 2035 in the EU and several US states. After that there will still be many millions on the roads for those requiring special use cases to be catered for. It is clear that "People don't like being told what to do". That's not a great reason for not doing something. People didn't like being told to stop keeping sl@ves... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just to diverge The mobile phone was made possible by lithium batteries, basically the same tech that now drives cars but it's 30+ year old technology made from a non renewable finite source. " Also, not the same technology. Some of the same base elements. Not renewable, but recyclable. However, not a perceived problem with mobile phones, but suddenly a problem for EVs... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just to diverge The mobile phone was made possible by lithium batteries, basically the same tech that now drives cars but it's 30+ year old technology made from a non renewable finite source. Also, not the same technology. Some of the same base elements. Not renewable, but recyclable. However, not a perceived problem with mobile phones, but suddenly a problem for EVs..." I tend to agree with most of your posts but seriously the amount of lithium required to keep (and maintain) EV’s on the road is colossal compared to mobile phone battery demands. A means of storing energy efficiently is becoming ever more acutely important and I am not sure that lithium based batteries are going to be sustainable in the mid to long term. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just to diverge The mobile phone was made possible by lithium batteries, basically the same tech that now drives cars but it's 30+ year old technology made from a non renewable finite source. Also, not the same technology. Some of the same base elements. Not renewable, but recyclable. However, not a perceived problem with mobile phones, but suddenly a problem for EVs..." Sorry, it's the same technology, it's been tweaked a little especially the packaging and charging has been helped with minor tweaks to the chemistry but the tech is old. A bit like the change from NiCd to NiMh, it was development and improvement but essentially the same tech Energy density increased rapidly from the 80s to the 00s but only marginally since I think around 500% then only 25% but admittedly battery management has increased dramatically and lifespan is no longer 3-4 years, more like 7-10 I'm not rubbishing it, I'd buy one at the right price, I don't do many miles nowadays but being realistic it's not the future yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just to diverge The mobile phone was made possible by lithium batteries, basically the same tech that now drives cars but it's 30+ year old technology made from a non renewable finite source. Also, not the same technology. Some of the same base elements. Not renewable, but recyclable. However, not a perceived problem with mobile phones, but suddenly a problem for EVs... Sorry, it's the same technology, it's been tweaked a little especially the packaging and charging has been helped with minor tweaks to the chemistry but the tech is old. A bit like the change from NiCd to NiMh, it was development and improvement but essentially the same tech Energy density increased rapidly from the 80s to the 00s but only marginally since I think around 500% then only 25% but admittedly battery management has increased dramatically and lifespan is no longer 3-4 years, more like 7-10 I'm not rubbishing it, I'd buy one at the right price, I don't do many miles nowadays but being realistic it's not the future yet." Car manufacturers will have the pedal to the metal to drive and overtake their competitors, in a race to produce the EV people want. They are fuelling innovation, not slamming on the breaks, there is no emergency stop to the final destination. They know cracking that nut will put them in the driving seat (sorry )
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just to diverge The mobile phone was made possible by lithium batteries, basically the same tech that now drives cars but it's 30+ year old technology made from a non renewable finite source. Also, not the same technology. Some of the same base elements. Not renewable, but recyclable. However, not a perceived problem with mobile phones, but suddenly a problem for EVs... Sorry, it's the same technology, it's been tweaked a little especially the packaging and charging has been helped with minor tweaks to the chemistry but the tech is old. A bit like the change from NiCd to NiMh, it was development and improvement but essentially the same tech Energy density increased rapidly from the 80s to the 00s but only marginally since I think around 500% then only 25% but admittedly battery management has increased dramatically and lifespan is no longer 3-4 years, more like 7-10 I'm not rubbishing it, I'd buy one at the right price, I don't do many miles nowadays but being realistic it's not the future yet. Car manufacturers will have the pedal to the metal to drive and overtake their competitors, in a race to produce the EV people want. They are fuelling innovation, not slamming on the breaks, there is no emergency stop to the final destination. They know cracking that nut will put them in the driving seat (sorry )
"Terrible | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think hydrogen fuel cell should be the way to go but nobody seems to be investing in the infrastructure needed, which incidentally is a lot less than whats needed to support the move to EV." Heavy industry is massively investing as is heavy logistics . It’s difficult to move into small use infrastructure | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just to diverge The mobile phone was made possible by lithium batteries, basically the same tech that now drives cars but it's 30+ year old technology made from a non renewable finite source. Also, not the same technology. Some of the same base elements. Not renewable, but recyclable. However, not a perceived problem with mobile phones, but suddenly a problem for EVs... Sorry, it's the same technology, it's been tweaked a little especially the packaging and charging has been helped with minor tweaks to the chemistry but the tech is old. A bit like the change from NiCd to NiMh, it was development and improvement but essentially the same tech Energy density increased rapidly from the 80s to the 00s but only marginally since I think around 500% then only 25% but admittedly battery management has increased dramatically and lifespan is no longer 3-4 years, more like 7-10 I'm not rubbishing it, I'd buy one at the right price, I don't do many miles nowadays but being realistic it's not the future yet." That's like saying the engine in a Morris Marina is the same as in a current Range Rover. "It's essentially same technology", right? Between 2008 and 2020 volumetric battery energy density has gone from 55 to 450 Wh/l. Battery chemistry changes really are very substantial, even if the basic elements used are the same for Lithium ion batteries. I'm not sure where you are getting your information from on this, but it seems way off. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think hydrogen fuel cell should be the way to go but nobody seems to be investing in the infrastructure needed, which incidentally is a lot less than whats needed to support the move to EV." It's harder to introduce Hydrogen. You still have to generate electricity to convert it cleanly through electrolysis. Energy is wasted in converting it is to Hydrogen. Even more energy then needed to compress it to a useful size to use in vehicles. Hydrogen does have a lot of uses, particularly in heavy industry and large HGVs, shipping and aircraft, but not cars. There is a lot of money being invested in Hydrogen in the EU and the USA, but not here. We just do not have the scale to invest at the necessary levels on our own... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To take off electric cars need to be affordable and practical. Part of being practical means the infrastructure needs to be in place, and it isn't. Nobody can honestly say right now that electric cars are affordable, and when it comes to replacing or disposing of large batteries....well....good luck there. Still not as bad as nuclear waste. Also, all of the cars on the road suddenly needing electric means more electricity needs to be produced using what? Coal, gas, wishful thinking?" Battery recycling is not an unsolvable problem. The investment has now scaled up because there is now a financially viable recycling industry because there are enough electric cars to make a profit. It wasn't going to happen earlier. That'show capitalism works unless Governments do their jobs and prime early investment. There are many electricity storage solutions for renewables that are now being trialled and scaled up. You can look them up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think hydrogen fuel cell should be the way to go but nobody seems to be investing in the infrastructure needed, which incidentally is a lot less than whats needed to support the move to EV. It's harder to introduce Hydrogen. You still have to generate electricity to convert it cleanly through electrolysis. Energy is wasted in converting it is to Hydrogen. Even more energy then needed to compress it to a useful size to use in vehicles. Hydrogen does have a lot of uses, particularly in heavy industry and large HGVs, shipping and aircraft, but not cars. There is a lot of money being invested in Hydrogen in the EU and the USA, but not here. We just do not have the scale to invest at the necessary levels on our own..." There is money being spent in the UK on hydrogen. I'm currently involved in a project that is producing small amounts, scaling up at the end of this year and does not require vast amounts of electricity input. Early days but it's progressing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think hydrogen fuel cell should be the way to go but nobody seems to be investing in the infrastructure needed, which incidentally is a lot less than whats needed to support the move to EV. It's harder to introduce Hydrogen. You still have to generate electricity to convert it cleanly through electrolysis. Energy is wasted in converting it is to Hydrogen. Even more energy then needed to compress it to a useful size to use in vehicles. Hydrogen does have a lot of uses, particularly in heavy industry and large HGVs, shipping and aircraft, but not cars. There is a lot of money being invested in Hydrogen in the EU and the USA, but not here. We just do not have the scale to invest at the necessary levels on our own... There is money being spent in the UK on hydrogen. I'm currently involved in a project that is producing small amounts, scaling up at the end of this year and does not require vast amounts of electricity input. Early days but it's progressing." The state of California has been supporting hydrogen cars for sometime, have the got their infrastructure wrong, or has tech moved on? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Between 2008 and 2020 volumetric battery energy density has gone from 55 to 450 Wh/l. Battery chemistry changes really are very substantial, even if the basic elements used are the same for Lithium ion batteries." Ah! That where your 'another level' come from. Volumetric battery density describes how much energy you can pack into a given amount of space. You can improve your volumetric density by making your battery smaller. The invention of 'pouch' batteries is what has really driven volumetric density levels up, because it means you can do away with the battery casing. If you look at gravimetric density (how much energy you can store in a given mass of material), the improvements are much less impressive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think hydrogen fuel cell should be the way to go but nobody seems to be investing in the infrastructure needed, which incidentally is a lot less than whats needed to support the move to EV. It's harder to introduce Hydrogen. You still have to generate electricity to convert it cleanly through electrolysis. Energy is wasted in converting it is to Hydrogen. Even more energy then needed to compress it to a useful size to use in vehicles. Hydrogen does have a lot of uses, particularly in heavy industry and large HGVs, shipping and aircraft, but not cars. There is a lot of money being invested in Hydrogen in the EU and the USA, but not here. We just do not have the scale to invest at the necessary levels on our own... There is money being spent in the UK on hydrogen. I'm currently involved in a project that is producing small amounts, scaling up at the end of this year and does not require vast amounts of electricity input. Early days but it's progressing." I didn't say that there was no investment, just not at scale. We can seed development, but to make it viable it will require multiples of the funding that the UK can bring to bear. Good luck though, there is a lot of interesting stuff going on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Between 2008 and 2020 volumetric battery energy density has gone from 55 to 450 Wh/l. Battery chemistry changes really are very substantial, even if the basic elements used are the same for Lithium ion batteries. Ah! That where your 'another level' come from. Volumetric battery density describes how much energy you can pack into a given amount of space. You can improve your volumetric density by making your battery smaller. The invention of 'pouch' batteries is what has really driven volumetric density levels up, because it means you can do away with the battery casing. If you look at gravimetric density (how much energy you can store in a given mass of material), the improvements are much less impressive." That would be the difference between information and understanding. For you information, the gravimetric energy density of pouch cells has increased from 100 to 200 kWh/kg between 2010 and 2020. Cylindrical cells have improved from about 125 to 250 kWh/kg in the same period. That is a huge change in itself even if it is "much less impressive" than volumetric efficiency in your opinion. Why do you imagine that gravimetric energy density is more important than volumetric energy density on vehicle engineering and packaging? Why do you think that volumetric energy density is, in fact, the quoted figure in the automotive industry? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Between 2008 and 2020 volumetric battery energy density has gone from 55 to 450 Wh/l. Battery chemistry changes really are very substantial, even if the basic elements used are the same for Lithium ion batteries." "Ah! That where your 'another level' comes from. Volumetric battery density describes how much energy you can pack into a given amount of space. You can improve your volumetric density by making your battery smaller. The invention of 'pouch' batteries is what has really driven volumetric density levels up, because it means you can do away with the battery casing. If you look at gravimetric density (how much energy you can store in a given mass of material), the improvements are much less impressive." "For you information, the gravimetric energy density of pouch cells has increased from 100 to 200 kWh/kg between 2010 and 2020. Cylindrical cells have improved from about 125 to 250 kWh/kg in the same period." Would you like to share your source for that information? "Why do you imagine that gravimetric energy density is more important than volumetric energy density on vehicle engineering and packaging?" I don't. What I do think is that you claimed that volumetric density has increased as a result of battery chemistry changes (see the quote at the top of this post). That's untrue. The volumetric density gains are almost entirely down to the form factor. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Between 2008 and 2020 volumetric battery energy density has gone from 55 to 450 Wh/l. Battery chemistry changes really are very substantial, even if the basic elements used are the same for Lithium ion batteries. Ah! That where your 'another level' comes from. Volumetric battery density describes how much energy you can pack into a given amount of space. You can improve your volumetric density by making your battery smaller. The invention of 'pouch' batteries is what has really driven volumetric density levels up, because it means you can do away with the battery casing. If you look at gravimetric density (how much energy you can store in a given mass of material), the improvements are much less impressive. For you information, the gravimetric energy density of pouch cells has increased from 100 to 200 kWh/kg between 2010 and 2020. Cylindrical cells have improved from about 125 to 250 kWh/kg in the same period. Would you like to share your source for that information? Why do you imagine that gravimetric energy density is more important than volumetric energy density on vehicle engineering and packaging? I don't. What I do think is that you claimed that volumetric density has increased as a result of battery chemistry changes (see the quote at the top of this post). That's untrue. The volumetric density gains are almost entirely down to the form factor." World Electric Vehicle Journal "From Cell to Battery System in BEVs: Analysis of System Packing Efficiency and Cell Types" The volumetric and gravimetric energy densities of both prismatic and cylindrical cells have increased by huge amounts when compared like for like. You are regurgitating data and words rather than understanding and knowledge. However, you do like your pedantry so do carry on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Between 2008 and 2020 volumetric battery energy density has gone from 55 to 450 Wh/l. Battery chemistry changes really are very substantial, even if the basic elements used are the same for Lithium ion batteries." "Ah! That's where your 'another level' comes from. Volumetric battery density describes how much energy you can pack into a given amount of space. You can improve your volumetric density by making your battery smaller. The invention of 'pouch' batteries is what has really driven volumetric density levels up, because it means you can do away with the battery casing. If you look at gravimetric density (how much energy you can store in a given mass of material), the improvements are much less impressive." "For you information, the gravimetric energy density of pouch cells has increased from 100 to 200 kWh/kg between 2010 and 2020. Cylindrical cells have improved from about 125 to 250 kWh/kg in the same period." "Would you like to share your source for that information?" "Why do you imagine that gravimetric energy density is more important than volumetric energy density on vehicle engineering and packaging?" "I don't. What I do think is that you claimed that volumetric density has increased as a result of battery chemistry changes (see the quote at the top of this post). That's untrue. The volumetric density gains are almost entirely down to the form factor." "World Electric Vehicle Journal "From Cell to Battery System in BEVs: Analysis of System Packing Efficiency and Cell Types" The volumetric and gravimetric energy densities of both prismatic and cylindrical cells have increased by huge amounts when compared like for like." It's an interesting paper, and it does indeed say that gravimetric density has roughly doubled over a period of about 10 years. This is an impressive rate of progress, but I don't think it warrants your statement that "battery performance is on another level". However that paper says nothing about gravimetric density, or battery chemistry. It's about cell packing efficiency, as the title makes clear. If anyone is interested, it's here: https://www.mdpi.com/2032-6653/11/4/77 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Between 2008 and 2020 volumetric battery energy density has gone from 55 to 450 Wh/l. Battery chemistry changes really are very substantial, even if the basic elements used are the same for Lithium ion batteries. Ah! That's where your 'another level' comes from. Volumetric battery density describes how much energy you can pack into a given amount of space. You can improve your volumetric density by making your battery smaller. The invention of 'pouch' batteries is what has really driven volumetric density levels up, because it means you can do away with the battery casing. If you look at gravimetric density (how much energy you can store in a given mass of material), the improvements are much less impressive. For you information, the gravimetric energy density of pouch cells has increased from 100 to 200 kWh/kg between 2010 and 2020. Cylindrical cells have improved from about 125 to 250 kWh/kg in the same period. Would you like to share your source for that information? Why do you imagine that gravimetric energy density is more important than volumetric energy density on vehicle engineering and packaging? I don't. What I do think is that you claimed that volumetric density has increased as a result of battery chemistry changes (see the quote at the top of this post). That's untrue. The volumetric density gains are almost entirely down to the form factor. World Electric Vehicle Journal "From Cell to Battery System in BEVs: Analysis of System Packing Efficiency and Cell Types" The volumetric and gravimetric energy densities of both prismatic and cylindrical cells have increased by huge amounts when compared like for like. It's an interesting paper, and it does indeed say that gravimetric density has roughly doubled over a period of about 10 years. This is an impressive rate of progress, but I don't think it warrants your statement that "battery performance is on another level". However that paper says nothing about gravimetric density, or battery chemistry. It's about cell packing efficiency, as the title makes clear. If anyone is interested, it's here: https://www.mdpi.com/2032-6653/11/4/77" Not being able to acknowledge that doubling performance in a decade is not "next level" delivery demonstrates a lack of understanding of science and engineering. That is very common, but it remains disappointing how much is taken for granted. "Cell packing efficiency" is relevant to the module or the system. The cell efficiency improvement is not to do with that. You are repeating words and terms that you do not really understand to prove a point which you don't get. The summary of a, once again, drift into pointless detail is that the performance improvements of EV batteries over the last 10 years have been remarkable. Both incremental and brand new developments are continuing at a very high rate, so the experiment has evidently not failed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not being able to acknowledge that doubling performance in a decade is not "next level" delivery demonstrates a lack of understanding of science and engineering." It does come in the context of your original claim that improvements in battery chemistry have resulted in a 10x improvement in energy density. Then you changed that to include packing density. Then you changed it again to a simple doubling in energy density. I'm going to stick by saying that a doubling is not 'next level'. Let's see who turns up to agree with your interpretation. ""Cell packing efficiency" is relevant to the module or the system. The cell efficiency improvement is not to do with that." I'm aware of this. In fact that's what I was explaining in an earlier post. That's why we have the measures of volumetric density (for cell packing), and gravimetric density (for cell power capacity). "You are repeating words and terms that you do not really understand to prove a point which you don't get." You do seem to enjoy belittling me. Have you never heard the phrase 'the lady doth protest too much'? "The summary of a, once again, drift into pointless detail is that the performance improvements of EV batteries over the last 10 years have been remarkable." We're in agreement there. Through a combination of design, form factor, and chemistry, EV batteries have improved significantly. "Both incremental and brand new developments are continuing at a very high rate, so the experiment has evidently not failed. " And we're at loggerheads again. If 'the experiment' were whether EV range will increase, then yes, it has, and will continue to. But the 'experiment' referred to in this thread was whether EVs were a good idea or not, and not enough people have come forth to applaud them so far. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not being able to acknowledge that doubling performance in a decade is not "next level" delivery demonstrates a lack of understanding of science and engineering. It does come in the context of your original claim that improvements in battery chemistry have resulted in a 10x improvement in energy density. Then you changed that to include packing density. Then you changed it again to a simple doubling in energy density. I'm going to stick by saying that a doubling is not 'next level'. Let's see who turns up to agree with your interpretation. "Cell packing efficiency" is relevant to the module or the system. The cell efficiency improvement is not to do with that. I'm aware of this. In fact that's what I was explaining in an earlier post. That's why we have the measures of volumetric density (for cell packing), and gravimetric density (for cell power capacity). You are repeating words and terms that you do not really understand to prove a point which you don't get. You do seem to enjoy belittling me. Have you never heard the phrase 'the lady doth protest too much'? The summary of a, once again, drift into pointless detail is that the performance improvements of EV batteries over the last 10 years have been remarkable. We're in agreement there. Through a combination of design, form factor, and chemistry, EV batteries have improved significantly. Both incremental and brand new developments are continuing at a very high rate, so the experiment has evidently not failed. And we're at loggerheads again. If 'the experiment' were whether EV range will increase, then yes, it has, and will continue to. But the 'experiment' referred to in this thread was whether EVs were a good idea or not, and not enough people have come forth to applaud them so far." Whatever obscure point you are choosing to argue, I am very happy to tell you that you have won because it is utterly irrelevant to the point that I don't even know what it is. I certainly don't care and neither does anyone else. I do not "enjoy" belittling you. That is all your own work. We are not "at loggerheads". You are in your own world of belief and, it seems, deciding what the terms of the OP are. Again. Enjoy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not being able to acknowledge that doubling performance in a decade is not "next level" delivery demonstrates a lack of understanding of science and engineering. It does come in the context of your original claim that improvements in battery chemistry have resulted in a 10x improvement in energy density. Then you changed that to include packing density. Then you changed it again to a simple doubling in energy density. I'm going to stick by saying that a doubling is not 'next level'. Let's see who turns up to agree with your interpretation. "Cell packing efficiency" is relevant to the module or the system. The cell efficiency improvement is not to do with that. I'm aware of this. In fact that's what I was explaining in an earlier post. That's why we have the measures of volumetric density (for cell packing), and gravimetric density (for cell power capacity). You are repeating words and terms that you do not really understand to prove a point which you don't get. You do seem to enjoy belittling me. Have you never heard the phrase 'the lady doth protest too much'? The summary of a, once again, drift into pointless detail is that the performance improvements of EV batteries over the last 10 years have been remarkable. We're in agreement there. Through a combination of design, form factor, and chemistry, EV batteries have improved significantly. Both incremental and brand new developments are continuing at a very high rate, so the experiment has evidently not failed. And we're at loggerheads again. If 'the experiment' were whether EV range will increase, then yes, it has, and will continue to. But the 'experiment' referred to in this thread was whether EVs were a good idea or not, and not enough people have come forth to applaud them so far." He tries to belittle everyone who doesn’t agree with him | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not being able to acknowledge that doubling performance in a decade is not "next level" delivery demonstrates a lack of understanding of science and engineering. It does come in the context of your original claim that improvements in battery chemistry have resulted in a 10x improvement in energy density. Then you changed that to include packing density. Then you changed it again to a simple doubling in energy density. I'm going to stick by saying that a doubling is not 'next level'. Let's see who turns up to agree with your interpretation. "Cell packing efficiency" is relevant to the module or the system. The cell efficiency improvement is not to do with that. I'm aware of this. In fact that's what I was explaining in an earlier post. That's why we have the measures of volumetric density (for cell packing), and gravimetric density (for cell power capacity). You are repeating words and terms that you do not really understand to prove a point which you don't get. You do seem to enjoy belittling me. Have you never heard the phrase 'the lady doth protest too much'? The summary of a, once again, drift into pointless detail is that the performance improvements of EV batteries over the last 10 years have been remarkable. We're in agreement there. Through a combination of design, form factor, and chemistry, EV batteries have improved significantly. Both incremental and brand new developments are continuing at a very high rate, so the experiment has evidently not failed. And we're at loggerheads again. If 'the experiment' were whether EV range will increase, then yes, it has, and will continue to. But the 'experiment' referred to in this thread was whether EVs were a good idea or not, and not enough people have come forth to applaud them so far." Yes the debate seems to have morphed into "are lithium batteries a failure" They certainly aren't but they are not the future we need to put the IC age to bed in 2030. The main thing the press are referring to in the "has the bubble burst" is the loss of confidence signified in the recent price drops compared to similar IC models, the lack of infrastructure with the realisation of what millions of electric vehicles would do to streets and cities and how they could be charged on the roads. The reality is they are probably here for many years or decades but they are far from the ideal replacement for personal transport that we long for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not being able to acknowledge that doubling performance in a decade is not "next level" delivery demonstrates a lack of understanding of science and engineering. It does come in the context of your original claim that improvements in battery chemistry have resulted in a 10x improvement in energy density. Then you changed that to include packing density. Then you changed it again to a simple doubling in energy density. I'm going to stick by saying that a doubling is not 'next level'. Let's see who turns up to agree with your interpretation. "Cell packing efficiency" is relevant to the module or the system. The cell efficiency improvement is not to do with that. I'm aware of this. In fact that's what I was explaining in an earlier post. That's why we have the measures of volumetric density (for cell packing), and gravimetric density (for cell power capacity). You are repeating words and terms that you do not really understand to prove a point which you don't get. You do seem to enjoy belittling me. Have you never heard the phrase 'the lady doth protest too much'? The summary of a, once again, drift into pointless detail is that the performance improvements of EV batteries over the last 10 years have been remarkable. We're in agreement there. Through a combination of design, form factor, and chemistry, EV batteries have improved significantly. Both incremental and brand new developments are continuing at a very high rate, so the experiment has evidently not failed. And we're at loggerheads again. If 'the experiment' were whether EV range will increase, then yes, it has, and will continue to. But the 'experiment' referred to in this thread was whether EVs were a good idea or not, and not enough people have come forth to applaud them so far. He tries to belittle everyone who doesn’t agree with him " ...and you add no information with any post that you make. Scroll back and see where you have provided anything except an insult  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not being able to acknowledge that doubling performance in a decade is not "next level" delivery demonstrates a lack of understanding of science and engineering. It does come in the context of your original claim that improvements in battery chemistry have resulted in a 10x improvement in energy density. Then you changed that to include packing density. Then you changed it again to a simple doubling in energy density. I'm going to stick by saying that a doubling is not 'next level'. Let's see who turns up to agree with your interpretation. "Cell packing efficiency" is relevant to the module or the system. The cell efficiency improvement is not to do with that. I'm aware of this. In fact that's what I was explaining in an earlier post. That's why we have the measures of volumetric density (for cell packing), and gravimetric density (for cell power capacity). You are repeating words and terms that you do not really understand to prove a point which you don't get. You do seem to enjoy belittling me. Have you never heard the phrase 'the lady doth protest too much'? The summary of a, once again, drift into pointless detail is that the performance improvements of EV batteries over the last 10 years have been remarkable. We're in agreement there. Through a combination of design, form factor, and chemistry, EV batteries have improved significantly. Both incremental and brand new developments are continuing at a very high rate, so the experiment has evidently not failed. And we're at loggerheads again. If 'the experiment' were whether EV range will increase, then yes, it has, and will continue to. But the 'experiment' referred to in this thread was whether EVs were a good idea or not, and not enough people have come forth to applaud them so far. Yes the debate seems to have morphed into "are lithium batteries a failure" They certainly aren't but they are not the future we need to put the IC age to bed in 2030. The main thing the press are referring to in the "has the bubble burst" is the loss of confidence signified in the recent price drops compared to similar IC models, the lack of infrastructure with the realisation of what millions of electric vehicles would do to streets and cities and how they could be charged on the roads. The reality is they are probably here for many years or decades but they are far from the ideal replacement for personal transport that we long for." There has been a very clear and coordinated range of articles in certain sectors of the press that started at the beginning of the year. It very closely follows the pattern of climate change denial. It creates doubt and slows the process down rather than confidence to gather investment and momentum. How can you judge massive global increase in EV use in a decade a failure after a reduction in prices? Isn't a price fall a good thing? There has not been any reduction in demand. As discussed, the price fall had actually been from Tesla dropping its price to maintain market share in face of growing competition. That has obviously had a knock-on effect to the second hand market. With changes in charging speeds and battery chemistry there is no reason that they can't be a long term solution. I'm sure the same discussion happened about the motor car. How are you going to get petrol out into the countryside? If you have a horse it can just eat grass. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The days of 10 year old cars rusting away and ending up on the scrap yard are pretty much long gone. Many modern cars are still going strong at 20 years and 10 year old ones still retain a decent value. So I buy a new EV for let's say £20,000. Battery life is reckoned to be around 10 years, and the replacement cost would be more than the car could ever be worth. There was a video doing the rounds a year or two ago of a guy in Finland who literally blew up his Tesla after being told it would cost almost 20 grand to replace the battery(s). So the question is what will that 20 grand car be worth at 10 years old? Or you could even ask what would it be worth at say 7 years old with the knowledge that the car realistically has only 3 years left before it becomes, to all intents and purposes, a write off? There are many other issues regarding range, infrastructure Etc. And it is easy to say that technology and investment will solve some (not all) of them. However, in Britain at least, the clock is ticking. That technological breakthrough has 6 years and 10 months to turn up and at the moment there is no sign of it. I certainly won't be putting any of my hard earned into something that will be worth frumpence in 7-10 years. Modern cars are not, in general, running for 20 or even 10 years. The average age of a vehicle in the UK is 8.5 ." If ever lies, damn lies and statistics could be summed up in a single paragraph then that is the one. The average may well be 8.5 years but to be an "average" it has to include every new car as well as every older one. Which will always give a lower number. Of course the number of older cars will diminish over time due to accidents/write offs Etc. But to try and use the "average" to say that modern cars are not lasting 10 years is just plain dishonest. Just the fact that the "average" or middle ground is 8.5 years should tell you that. For every brand new one at 0 there (in theory at least) would have to be a 17 year old one to balance it. There are millions of cars from the mid/late 2000's (and many older than that) still on the road and still going strong. But that wouldn't suit your narrative so you try to rubbish it by coming up with the "average". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another article in the press https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-11722057/Has-electric-car-bubble-BURST-drivers-returning-buying-petrol-vehicles.html" This is misleading in itself. "Has the electric car bubble BURST? How drivers are returning to buying petrol vehicles in droves due to lack of charging stations - as interactive map shows where YOUR nearest EV point is?" Standard Mail, sensationalism. Yet in the main body: "electric car growth was higher at 19.8 per cent, compared to a 14.6 per cent rise in petrol car registrations." However, as far more petrol cars are sold in total this has been interpreted as not wanting EVs. Not true. EV supply is restricted and there are long waiting lists. Yes, of course charging infrastructure needs huge investment and improvement. There were no petrol stations not that long ago, just coaching inns with hay... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The days of 10 year old cars rusting away and ending up on the scrap yard are pretty much long gone. Many modern cars are still going strong at 20 years and 10 year old ones still retain a decent value. So I buy a new EV for let's say £20,000. Battery life is reckoned to be around 10 years, and the replacement cost would be more than the car could ever be worth. There was a video doing the rounds a year or two ago of a guy in Finland who literally blew up his Tesla after being told it would cost almost 20 grand to replace the battery(s). So the question is what will that 20 grand car be worth at 10 years old? Or you could even ask what would it be worth at say 7 years old with the knowledge that the car realistically has only 3 years left before it becomes, to all intents and purposes, a write off? There are many other issues regarding range, infrastructure Etc. And it is easy to say that technology and investment will solve some (not all) of them. However, in Britain at least, the clock is ticking. That technological breakthrough has 6 years and 10 months to turn up and at the moment there is no sign of it. I certainly won't be putting any of my hard earned into something that will be worth frumpence in 7-10 years. Modern cars are not, in general, running for 20 or even 10 years. The average age of a vehicle in the UK is 8.5 . If ever lies, damn lies and statistics could be summed up in a single paragraph then that is the one. The average may well be 8.5 years but to be an "average" it has to include every new car as well as every older one. Which will always give a lower number. Of course the number of older cars will diminish over time due to accidents/write offs Etc. But to try and use the "average" to say that modern cars are not lasting 10 years is just plain dishonest. Just the fact that the "average" or middle ground is 8.5 years should tell you that. For every brand new one at 0 there (in theory at least) would have to be a 17 year old one to balance it. There are millions of cars from the mid/late 2000's (and many older than that) still on the road and still going strong. But that wouldn't suit your narrative so you try to rubbish it by coming up with the "average". " That's quite a thing to get so excited about at misses the point in its own way and hostile wording about "narratives" is not very open to discussion. You are correct to point out the distribution around the average. However, averages in a population like this are skewed by higher numbers (older cars) of which some are far older than the point which most are scrapped. For context, the average lifespan of a car in the UK is about 13 years. You can make the same point about the distribution of this, but it means that the majority of cars are not that old when they reach the end of their lives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The days of 10 year old cars rusting away and ending up on the scrap yard are pretty much long gone. Many modern cars are still going strong at 20 years and 10 year old ones still retain a decent value. So I buy a new EV for let's say £20,000. Battery life is reckoned to be around 10 years, and the replacement cost would be more than the car could ever be worth. There was a video doing the rounds a year or two ago of a guy in Finland who literally blew up his Tesla after being told it would cost almost 20 grand to replace the battery(s). So the question is what will that 20 grand car be worth at 10 years old? Or you could even ask what would it be worth at say 7 years old with the knowledge that the car realistically has only 3 years left before it becomes, to all intents and purposes, a write off? There are many other issues regarding range, infrastructure Etc. And it is easy to say that technology and investment will solve some (not all) of them. However, in Britain at least, the clock is ticking. That technological breakthrough has 6 years and 10 months to turn up and at the moment there is no sign of it. I certainly won't be putting any of my hard earned into something that will be worth frumpence in 7-10 years. Modern cars are not, in general, running for 20 or even 10 years. The average age of a vehicle in the UK is 8.5 . If ever lies, damn lies and statistics could be summed up in a single paragraph then that is the one. The average may well be 8.5 years but to be an "average" it has to include every new car as well as every older one. Which will always give a lower number. Of course the number of older cars will diminish over time due to accidents/write offs Etc. But to try and use the "average" to say that modern cars are not lasting 10 years is just plain dishonest. Just the fact that the "average" or middle ground is 8.5 years should tell you that. For every brand new one at 0 there (in theory at least) would have to be a 17 year old one to balance it. There are millions of cars from the mid/late 2000's (and many older than that) still on the road and still going strong. But that wouldn't suit your narrative so you try to rubbish it by coming up with the "average". That's quite a thing to get so excited about at misses the point in its own way and hostile wording about "narratives" is not very open to discussion. You are correct to point out the distribution around the average. However, averages in a population like this are skewed by higher numbers (older cars) of which some are far older than the point which most are scrapped. For context, the average lifespan of a car in the UK is about 13 years. You can make the same point about the distribution of this, but it means that the majority of cars are not that old when they reach the end of their lives." Again that word "average" but that means that millions of cars last longer than 13 years. An EV won't. In 10 years (or less) it will be dead, gone, history. Because no-one in their right mind will shell out thousands to replace the battery(s) on a car that will be worth less than the cost of those battery(s). So for every EV that dies after 10 or so years another car will be built to replace it. Go figure the carbon footprint of that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The days of 10 year old cars rusting away and ending up on the scrap yard are pretty much long gone. Many modern cars are still going strong at 20 years and 10 year old ones still retain a decent value. So I buy a new EV for let's say £20,000. Battery life is reckoned to be around 10 years, and the replacement cost would be more than the car could ever be worth. There was a video doing the rounds a year or two ago of a guy in Finland who literally blew up his Tesla after being told it would cost almost 20 grand to replace the battery(s). So the question is what will that 20 grand car be worth at 10 years old? Or you could even ask what would it be worth at say 7 years old with the knowledge that the car realistically has only 3 years left before it becomes, to all intents and purposes, a write off? There are many other issues regarding range, infrastructure Etc. And it is easy to say that technology and investment will solve some (not all) of them. However, in Britain at least, the clock is ticking. That technological breakthrough has 6 years and 10 months to turn up and at the moment there is no sign of it. I certainly won't be putting any of my hard earned into something that will be worth frumpence in 7-10 years. Modern cars are not, in general, running for 20 or even 10 years. The average age of a vehicle in the UK is 8.5 . If ever lies, damn lies and statistics could be summed up in a single paragraph then that is the one. The average may well be 8.5 years but to be an "average" it has to include every new car as well as every older one. Which will always give a lower number. Of course the number of older cars will diminish over time due to accidents/write offs Etc. But to try and use the "average" to say that modern cars are not lasting 10 years is just plain dishonest. Just the fact that the "average" or middle ground is 8.5 years should tell you that. For every brand new one at 0 there (in theory at least) would have to be a 17 year old one to balance it. There are millions of cars from the mid/late 2000's (and many older than that) still on the road and still going strong. But that wouldn't suit your narrative so you try to rubbish it by coming up with the "average". That's quite a thing to get so excited about at misses the point in its own way and hostile wording about "narratives" is not very open to discussion. You are correct to point out the distribution around the average. However, averages in a population like this are skewed by higher numbers (older cars) of which some are far older than the point which most are scrapped. For context, the average lifespan of a car in the UK is about 13 years. You can make the same point about the distribution of this, but it means that the majority of cars are not that old when they reach the end of their lives. Again that word "average" but that means that millions of cars last longer than 13 years. An EV won't. In 10 years (or less) it will be dead, gone, history. Because no-one in their right mind will shell out thousands to replace the battery(s) on a car that will be worth less than the cost of those battery(s). So for every EV that dies after 10 or so years another car will be built to replace it. Go figure the carbon footprint of that." As I said, a relatively small number of older cars skew the average up. There are no cars less than zero years old. Also, as you have been at pains to point out, many will also be far under 13 years when scrapped. That is a cul-de-sac about statistics. I'm rather lost. Why do you feel that EVs will not function after ten years? Why can they not run for longer? Just because battery packs are expensive to replace now, it doesn't mean that they will continue to be in the future. With long waiting lists and a currently scarce resource it is more profitable to put a new battery in a new car than sell it to an existing customer. Price is supply constrained. There are limited parts to build new cars, let alone for existing ones. That will not be the case in the future. It seems like you are viewing the future based on the situation right now, but what would the motor car have looked like in the age of the horse and cart? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The days of 10 year old cars rusting away and ending up on the scrap yard are pretty much long gone. Many modern cars are still going strong at 20 years and 10 year old ones still retain a decent value. So I buy a new EV for let's say £20,000. Battery life is reckoned to be around 10 years, and the replacement cost would be more than the car could ever be worth. There was a video doing the rounds a year or two ago of a guy in Finland who literally blew up his Tesla after being told it would cost almost 20 grand to replace the battery(s). So the question is what will that 20 grand car be worth at 10 years old? Or you could even ask what would it be worth at say 7 years old with the knowledge that the car realistically has only 3 years left before it becomes, to all intents and purposes, a write off? There are many other issues regarding range, infrastructure Etc. And it is easy to say that technology and investment will solve some (not all) of them. However, in Britain at least, the clock is ticking. That technological breakthrough has 6 years and 10 months to turn up and at the moment there is no sign of it. I certainly won't be putting any of my hard earned into something that will be worth frumpence in 7-10 years. Modern cars are not, in general, running for 20 or even 10 years. The average age of a vehicle in the UK is 8.5 . If ever lies, damn lies and statistics could be summed up in a single paragraph then that is the one. The average may well be 8.5 years but to be an "average" it has to include every new car as well as every older one. Which will always give a lower number. Of course the number of older cars will diminish over time due to accidents/write offs Etc. But to try and use the "average" to say that modern cars are not lasting 10 years is just plain dishonest. Just the fact that the "average" or middle ground is 8.5 years should tell you that. For every brand new one at 0 there (in theory at least) would have to be a 17 year old one to balance it. There are millions of cars from the mid/late 2000's (and many older than that) still on the road and still going strong. But that wouldn't suit your narrative so you try to rubbish it by coming up with the "average". That's quite a thing to get so excited about at misses the point in its own way and hostile wording about "narratives" is not very open to discussion. You are correct to point out the distribution around the average. However, averages in a population like this are skewed by higher numbers (older cars) of which some are far older than the point which most are scrapped. For context, the average lifespan of a car in the UK is about 13 years. You can make the same point about the distribution of this, but it means that the majority of cars are not that old when they reach the end of their lives. Again that word "average" but that means that millions of cars last longer than 13 years. An EV won't. In 10 years (or less) it will be dead, gone, history. Because no-one in their right mind will shell out thousands to replace the battery(s) on a car that will be worth less than the cost of those battery(s). So for every EV that dies after 10 or so years another car will be built to replace it. Go figure the carbon footprint of that. As I said, a relatively small number of older cars skew the average up. There are no cars less than zero years old. Also, as you have been at pains to point out, many will also be far under 13 years when scrapped. That is a cul-de-sac about statistics. I'm rather lost. Why do you feel that EVs will not function after ten years? Why can they not run for longer? Just because battery packs are expensive to replace now, it doesn't mean that they will continue to be in the future. With long waiting lists and a currently scarce resource it is more profitable to put a new battery in a new car than sell it to an existing customer. Price is supply constrained. There are limited parts to build new cars, let alone for existing ones. That will not be the case in the future. It seems like you are viewing the future based on the situation right now, but what would the motor car have looked like in the age of the horse and cart?" I've certainly not been at "pains to point out" that some cars are scrapped before 13 or 8.5 or whatever. Yes of course through accident damage some will be, but at that age it will only be a small percentage. Your words "Modern cars are not, in general, running for 20 or even 10 years". That is wrong and, at best, disingenuous. Why do I feel that EV's will be dead in 10 years? Simple, because that is roughly the life expectancy of the batteries they are producing now and fitted to the cars they are selling now. Maybe something will turn up in the future, maybe not. But I certainly wouldn't splash out my hard earned on some Micawberish hope that it will. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The days of 10 year old cars rusting away and ending up on the scrap yard are pretty much long gone. Many modern cars are still going strong at 20 years and 10 year old ones still retain a decent value. So I buy a new EV for let's say £20,000. Battery life is reckoned to be around 10 years, and the replacement cost would be more than the car could ever be worth. There was a video doing the rounds a year or two ago of a guy in Finland who literally blew up his Tesla after being told it would cost almost 20 grand to replace the battery(s). So the question is what will that 20 grand car be worth at 10 years old? Or you could even ask what would it be worth at say 7 years old with the knowledge that the car realistically has only 3 years left before it becomes, to all intents and purposes, a write off? There are many other issues regarding range, infrastructure Etc. And it is easy to say that technology and investment will solve some (not all) of them. However, in Britain at least, the clock is ticking. That technological breakthrough has 6 years and 10 months to turn up and at the moment there is no sign of it. I certainly won't be putting any of my hard earned into something that will be worth frumpence in 7-10 years. Modern cars are not, in general, running for 20 or even 10 years. The average age of a vehicle in the UK is 8.5 . If ever lies, damn lies and statistics could be summed up in a single paragraph then that is the one. The average may well be 8.5 years but to be an "average" it has to include every new car as well as every older one. Which will always give a lower number. Of course the number of older cars will diminish over time due to accidents/write offs Etc. But to try and use the "average" to say that modern cars are not lasting 10 years is just plain dishonest. Just the fact that the "average" or middle ground is 8.5 years should tell you that. For every brand new one at 0 there (in theory at least) would have to be a 17 year old one to balance it. There are millions of cars from the mid/late 2000's (and many older than that) still on the road and still going strong. But that wouldn't suit your narrative so you try to rubbish it by coming up with the "average". That's quite a thing to get so excited about at misses the point in its own way and hostile wording about "narratives" is not very open to discussion. You are correct to point out the distribution around the average. However, averages in a population like this are skewed by higher numbers (older cars) of which some are far older than the point which most are scrapped. For context, the average lifespan of a car in the UK is about 13 years. You can make the same point about the distribution of this, but it means that the majority of cars are not that old when they reach the end of their lives. Again that word "average" but that means that millions of cars last longer than 13 years. An EV won't. In 10 years (or less) it will be dead, gone, history. Because no-one in their right mind will shell out thousands to replace the battery(s) on a car that will be worth less than the cost of those battery(s). So for every EV that dies after 10 or so years another car will be built to replace it. Go figure the carbon footprint of that. As I said, a relatively small number of older cars skew the average up. There are no cars less than zero years old. Also, as you have been at pains to point out, many will also be far under 13 years when scrapped. That is a cul-de-sac about statistics. I'm rather lost. Why do you feel that EVs will not function after ten years? Why can they not run for longer? Just because battery packs are expensive to replace now, it doesn't mean that they will continue to be in the future. With long waiting lists and a currently scarce resource it is more profitable to put a new battery in a new car than sell it to an existing customer. Price is supply constrained. There are limited parts to build new cars, let alone for existing ones. That will not be the case in the future. It seems like you are viewing the future based on the situation right now, but what would the motor car have looked like in the age of the horse and cart? I've certainly not been at "pains to point out" that some cars are scrapped before 13 or 8.5 or whatever. Yes of course through accident damage some will be, but at that age it will only be a small percentage. Your words "Modern cars are not, in general, running for 20 or even 10 years". That is wrong and, at best, disingenuous. Why do I feel that EV's will be dead in 10 years? Simple, because that is roughly the life expectancy of the batteries they are producing now and fitted to the cars they are selling now. Maybe something will turn up in the future, maybe not. But I certainly wouldn't splash out my hard earned on some Micawberish hope that it will. " You just explained that if the "average" age is 13.5 then there must be as many scrapped at 1 year as at 27 and at 3 as at 24 etc. etc. If you have a normal distribution. Otherwise, relatively few older cars skew the average. Fair to say that modern cars not running for ten years is a mischaracterisation. In general they run for 13.5 Still a statistical cul-de-sac. The current expectation is that most batteries will last between 150000 and 200000 miles, but they do not have the data to confirm that because there aren't yet enough cars of that age. I can't comment on the last phrase because phone keyboards do what they do and occasionally throw up an unexpected combination of letters | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So there are no problems with the charging infrastructure ? Its made up ?" I didn't say that there was no problem with it. There is £1.3bn of funding and it takes a bit of time to build. It's very likely to be out of synch with EV sales as well so there are definitely going to be a few tricky years as infrastructure and demand are not matched. It's a big change though. It still doesn't mean that anything has failed. It also not an "experiment". Do you really think that the car manufacturers are going to just change direction after investing billions? Do you also think that they just got it wrong with EVs because they are that dumb? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It still doesn't mean that anything has failed. It also not an "experiment". Do you really think that the car manufacturers are going to just change direction after investing billions? Do you also think that they just got it wrong with EVs because they are that dumb?" It's not MY opinion, it's that of the motoring press and more than one. I doubt they'll stop making them but they don't appear to be the magic bullet we need. You do seem to wear rose tinted glasses but whatever ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It still doesn't mean that anything has failed. It also not an "experiment". Do you really think that the car manufacturers are going to just change direction after investing billions? Do you also think that they just got it wrong with EVs because they are that dumb? It's not MY opinion, it's that of the motoring press and more than one. I doubt they'll stop making them but they don't appear to be the magic bullet we need. You do seem to wear rose tinted glasses but whatever ..." The motoring press simultaneously think that electric cars are excellent and that the solutions are in place to be rolled out. It's the opinion that you are choosing to accept. Who said "silver bullet"? Were petrol cars the "silver bullet" for internal combustion engines? Why did we have diesel then? LPG? You haven't, actually, addressed the point about all of these automotive companies that have got it so wrong. I guess they are also seem to wear rose tinted glasses, but whatever... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"EV supply is restricted and there are long waiting lists." And yet prices are falling. How does that work? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"EV supply is restricted and there are long waiting lists. And yet prices are falling. How does that work?" For, perhaps, the third or fourth time; Tesla chose to cut it's new car prices by about £7k. That's not a typo. They have significantly higher margins than the rest of the industry and are trying to retain market share whilst bleeding the rest of the industry of funds to invest in the transition and extending their own advantage. This has had a big knock-on effect on used car prices as it undercut the market overnight. At the same time a much larger number of second hand EVs are coming onto the market. Add the concerted anti-EV press reports over Christmas and in to the new year and people waiting to see if prices drop further and the situation is hardly a mystery. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has the electric car bubble burst ? Why has it burst?" The top selling cars in December 2022 would indicate that it certainly hasn’t burst | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So there are no problems with the charging infrastructure ? Its made up ?" As a Tesla owner and one of the main reason for buying said car was the Tesla charging network. The Non Tesla charging network is a shambles at best | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fair to say that modern cars not running for ten years is a mischaracterisation. In general they run for 13.5 Still a statistical cul-de-sac. The current expectation is that most batteries will last between 150000 and 200000 miles, but they do not have the data to confirm that because there aren't yet enough cars of that age. I can't comment on the last phrase because phone keyboards do what they do and occasionally throw up an unexpected combination of letters ""Micawberish" Copy and paste it if you like.
Is that "expectation" prediction or assumption?
Besides, battery's don't just go from 100% capacity to zero overnight, they decline progressively.
There seems to be a lot of expectations predictions and assumptions about battery life but there must be a reason that most manufacturers only guarantee them for between 5 and 8 years.
So even if your 150-200k lifespan is correct (which I doubt) a battery with only say 10% capacity (range) left will still be theoretically alive. But in reality totally useless. I wonder how that would fare under warranty.
Like I said at the beginning. Lies, damn lies and statistics. Whether they be up a cul de sac or hurtling down the motorway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From UK Cycling News: "UK bike sales drop to lowest levels in two decades, says industry report" Is cycling a failed experiment?" Dunno, maybe ask a Dutchman. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fair to say that modern cars not running for ten years is a mischaracterisation. In general they run for 13.5 Still a statistical cul-de-sac. The current expectation is that most batteries will last between 150000 and 200000 miles, but they do not have the data to confirm that because there aren't yet enough cars of that age. I can't comment on the last phrase because phone keyboards do what they do and occasionally throw up an unexpected combination of letters
"Micawberish" Copy and paste it if you like.
Is that "expectation" prediction or assumption?
Besides, battery's don't just go from 100% capacity to zero overnight, they decline progressively.
There seems to be a lot of expectations predictions and assumptions about battery life but there must be a reason that most manufacturers only guarantee them for between 5 and 8 years.
So even if your 150-200k lifespan is correct (which I doubt) a battery with only say 10% capacity (range) left will still be theoretically alive. But in reality totally useless. I wonder how that would fare under warranty.
Like I said at the beginning. Lies, damn lies and statistics. Whether they be up a cul de sac or hurtling down the motorway."New word for me. Never seen it used as an adjective. I explained why they haven't guaranteed batteries for longer than they have. It's because they haven't been running in vehicles for very long yet, so they do not have the road data yet at scale, only simulation. The life being defined will be to 70-80% of original capacity, but some manufacturers have over sized the packs and may be able to software unlock additional capacity. Internal combustion engines are only guaranteed for three years by most manufacturers. A very small number offer five or seven. You don't like EVs for whatever reason. People didn't like the internal combustion engine either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering we are a consumer driven society, with incentives by government to push us into a certain buying choice, I don’t think the bubble has really burst. Of course you will have ‘hold outs’. However, economic necessity will prevail (i.e. will it be cheaper to run an electric vehicle as opposed to a internal combustion vehicle) It’s like computers, you don’t see many people still using PC’s from the 1990’s unless from a nostalgia standpoint. Change is coming, whether we like it or not. " I agree that change is coming, whether we like it or not. The only thing is, Electric cars are the present, they are no longer the future. Their time will be short, as the future is hydrogen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"EV supply is restricted and there are long waiting lists." "And yet prices are falling. How does that work?" "For, perhaps, the third or fourth time; Tesla chose to cut it's new car prices by about £7k. That's not a typo. They have significantly higher margins than the rest of the industry and are trying to retain market share whilst bleeding the rest of the industry of funds to invest in the transition and extending their own advantage. This has had a big knock-on effect on used car prices as it undercut the market overnight." We heard you the first time. You're saying that new car prices haven't fallen, it's just Tesla trying to squeeze out competitors. You're also saying that Tesla's move has pushed used car prices down, significantly. The question is, why would used car prices fall if there was still the same level of demand for them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I explained why they haven't guaranteed batteries for longer than they have. It's because they haven't been running in vehicles for very long yet, so they do not have the road data yet at scale, only simulation." I agree with your logic, and it's a sensible position for them to take. It's also a sensible position for a potential used car buyer to be wary of EVs because there is no long term data on battery life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"EV supply is restricted and there are long waiting lists. And yet prices are falling. How does that work? For, perhaps, the third or fourth time; Tesla chose to cut it's new car prices by about £7k. That's not a typo. They have significantly higher margins than the rest of the industry and are trying to retain market share whilst bleeding the rest of the industry of funds to invest in the transition and extending their own advantage. This has had a big knock-on effect on used car prices as it undercut the market overnight. We heard you the first time. You're saying that new car prices haven't fallen, it's just Tesla trying to squeeze out competitors. You're also saying that Tesla's move has pushed used car prices down, significantly. The question is, why would used car prices fall if there was still the same level of demand for them?" You heard, but you're still asking? If you drop the new car price of a given model it should be pretty obvious that the second hand price also drops. Otherwise you have used cars costing more than new ones. As Tesla is still the market leader and has the majority of second hand cars by quite a margin this deflates the entire market as it is also pitched as a premium product. There are also more second hand EVs available. There was a period when they were more expensive used than new because they were not available new. Supply and demand. The negative press blitz, much repeated here, has also had a negative effect on prices as it has created uncertainty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not an expert on cars, be it petrol, diesel or electric, so does anyone know what the approximate range limits are for electric vehicles? Reason being is that we don't do many miles per year (around 4 to 5K) and most of that is long distance motoring, up to Scotland, mainly to the far north, so anyone who is familiar with the area or who lives up there, will know full well that you won't come across a charging station on a single track road through the wilderness? We have a Ford Galaxy that can easily do 500+ miles on one tank of diesel (yes dirty diesel) and without the worry of 'will there be a charging point anywhere' if we had an ev? Personally, for something the size of our car, the batteries would have to be huge and have the staying power to do the long distances that we do, so as good an idea as all this ev stuff is, the technology for it still has a long way to go to be honest? Yes you're fine in towns, motorways, urban areas, etc, but we go out into the wilds and wilderness for days on end when we're hiking, so correct me if i'm wrong, but there aren't any charging points on Rannoch Moor or Altnaharra for example? Any info/facts/figures would be appreciated? " It doesn't sound like an EV makes sense for you yet. It may well do in time. Get what you need for long distance driving if that is your priority. It may make more sense for you to buy a small electric car for your everyday driving, particularly if you can charge at home. You could hire a car for your long trips of they are not that frequent. It's a different way of thinking about things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering we are a consumer driven society, with incentives by government to push us into a certain buying choice, I don’t think the bubble has really burst. Of course you will have ‘hold outs’. However, economic necessity will prevail (i.e. will it be cheaper to run an electric vehicle as opposed to a internal combustion vehicle) It’s like computers, you don’t see many people still using PC’s from the 1990’s unless from a nostalgia standpoint. Change is coming, whether we like it or not. I agree that change is coming, whether we like it or not. The only thing is, Electric cars are the present, they are no longer the future. Their time will be short, as the future is hydrogen." I think like today there will be a combination of types. Heavy vehicles will move towards hydrogen whereas I think family vehicles will be electric once infrastructure or perhaps battery exchanges are in place. Lack of infrastructure for cars is a major issue as is range but that will change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has the electric car bubble burst ?" Hopefully | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
") I agree that change is coming, whether we like it or not. The only thing is, Electric cars are the present, they are no longer the future. Their time will be short, as the future is hydrogen. I think like today there will be a combination of types. Heavy vehicles will move towards hydrogen whereas I think family vehicles will be electric once infrastructure or perhaps battery exchanges are in place. Lack of infrastructure for cars is a major issue as is range but that will change. " Yes, some hauliers in the UK already moving to Hydrogen, but supply still an issue. I think in time, Hydrogen will take over completely. It will probably require the commercial use of Fusion energy to come online, but when it does it will change everything. Two 100% fully renewable forms of energy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you drop the new car price of a given model it should be pretty obvious that the second hand price also drops. Otherwise you have used cars costing more than new ones." Ah! Finally I understand. I'm pretty much allergic to buying new cars, so I didn't even consider the "nearly new" market, where prices can be close to retail price of a new model. Thanks for putting up with my lack of vision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
") I agree that change is coming, whether we like it or not. The only thing is, Electric cars are the present, they are no longer the future. Their time will be short, as the future is hydrogen. I think like today there will be a combination of types. Heavy vehicles will move towards hydrogen whereas I think family vehicles will be electric once infrastructure or perhaps battery exchanges are in place. Lack of infrastructure for cars is a major issue as is range but that will change. Yes, some hauliers in the UK already moving to Hydrogen, but supply still an issue. I think in time, Hydrogen will take over completely. It will probably require the commercial use of Fusion energy to come online, but when it does it will change everything. Two 100% fully renewable forms of energy." Why do you believe that Hydrogen will take over? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
") I agree that change is coming, whether we like it or not. The only thing is, Electric cars are the present, they are no longer the future. Their time will be short, as the future is hydrogen. I think like today there will be a combination of types. Heavy vehicles will move towards hydrogen whereas I think family vehicles will be electric once infrastructure or perhaps battery exchanges are in place. Lack of infrastructure for cars is a major issue as is range but that will change. Yes, some hauliers in the UK already moving to Hydrogen, but supply still an issue. I think in time, Hydrogen will take over completely. It will probably require the commercial use of Fusion energy to come online, but when it does it will change everything. Two 100% fully renewable forms of energy. Why do you believe that Hydrogen will take over?" Why is your answer I variably a question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has the electric car bubble burst ? Hopefully "Why do you think that would that be a good thing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
") I agree that change is coming, whether we like it or not. The only thing is, Electric cars are the present, they are no longer the future. Their time will be short, as the future is hydrogen. I think like today there will be a combination of types. Heavy vehicles will move towards hydrogen whereas I think family vehicles will be electric once infrastructure or perhaps battery exchanges are in place. Lack of infrastructure for cars is a major issue as is range but that will change. Yes, some hauliers in the UK already moving to Hydrogen, but supply still an issue. I think in time, Hydrogen will take over completely. It will probably require the commercial use of Fusion energy to come online, but when it does it will change everything. Two 100% fully renewable forms of energy. Why do you believe that Hydrogen will take over?" Because apart from being green and renewable, it can be produced by every country. If the recent war has taught us anything, its that you cannot allow other nations around the world to have such a large influence on your energy requirements. EVs have been well marketed as being green in the western world. With scant regard given for the countries in South America, Africa and Asia where the raw material is mined. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has the electric car bubble burst ? Hopefully
Why do you think that would that be a good thing?"I don't know maybe it's the tornados and hurricanes and blizzards. How you going to charge vehicles when the power is out for days and the whole grid in your area is down? Electric not a good idea here. I know plenty of Tesla owners that went back to ICE vehicles because of those climate calamities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
") I agree that change is coming, whether we like it or not. The only thing is, Electric cars are the present, they are no longer the future. Their time will be short, as the future is hydrogen. I think like today there will be a combination of types. Heavy vehicles will move towards hydrogen whereas I think family vehicles will be electric once infrastructure or perhaps battery exchanges are in place. Lack of infrastructure for cars is a major issue as is range but that will change. Yes, some hauliers in the UK already moving to Hydrogen, but supply still an issue. I think in time, Hydrogen will take over completely. It will probably require the commercial use of Fusion energy to come online, but when it does it will change everything. Two 100% fully renewable forms of energy. Why do you believe that Hydrogen will take over? Why is your answer I variably a question " So that people explain why they have made an assertion or stated a belief. Statements rarely explain anything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
") I agree that change is coming, whether we like it or not. The only thing is, Electric cars are the present, they are no longer the future. Their time will be short, as the future is hydrogen. I think like today there will be a combination of types. Heavy vehicles will move towards hydrogen whereas I think family vehicles will be electric once infrastructure or perhaps battery exchanges are in place. Lack of infrastructure for cars is a major issue as is range but that will change. Yes, some hauliers in the UK already moving to Hydrogen, but supply still an issue. I think in time, Hydrogen will take over completely. It will probably require the commercial use of Fusion energy to come online, but when it does it will change everything. Two 100% fully renewable forms of energy. Why do you believe that Hydrogen will take over? Why is your answer I variably a question So that people explain why they have made an assertion or stated a belief. Statements rarely explain anything." And questions answer nothing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
") I agree that change is coming, whether we like it or not. The only thing is, Electric cars are the present, they are no longer the future. Their time will be short, as the future is hydrogen. I think like today there will be a combination of types. Heavy vehicles will move towards hydrogen whereas I think family vehicles will be electric once infrastructure or perhaps battery exchanges are in place. Lack of infrastructure for cars is a major issue as is range but that will change. Yes, some hauliers in the UK already moving to Hydrogen, but supply still an issue. I think in time, Hydrogen will take over completely. It will probably require the commercial use of Fusion energy to come online, but when it does it will change everything. Two 100% fully renewable forms of energy. Why do you believe that Hydrogen will take over? Why is your answer I variably a question So that people explain why they have made an assertion or stated a belief. Statements rarely explain anything. And questions answer nothing " Just to be clear, I wasn't answering a question with a question just now. I simply asked a question in response to a statement. I do usually answer questions directly before asking my own question. That is how a conversation works. Asking a question in response to an question should make the questioner think about what they were asking and why. Hopefully, they might go and find out some more before returning. Some people just don't like being questioned because they have to justify their position having only believed they were 100% correct before. What is your view on if EVs are a failed idea after a decade? That's a question though, and on topic, so you probably will not want to respond other than with an insult of some description... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
") I agree that change is coming, whether we like it or not. The only thing is, Electric cars are the present, they are no longer the future. Their time will be short, as the future is hydrogen. I think like today there will be a combination of types. Heavy vehicles will move towards hydrogen whereas I think family vehicles will be electric once infrastructure or perhaps battery exchanges are in place. Lack of infrastructure for cars is a major issue as is range but that will change. Yes, some hauliers in the UK already moving to Hydrogen, but supply still an issue. I think in time, Hydrogen will take over completely. It will probably require the commercial use of Fusion energy to come online, but when it does it will change everything. Two 100% fully renewable forms of energy. Why do you believe that Hydrogen will take over? Why is your answer I variably a question So that people explain why they have made an assertion or stated a belief. Statements rarely explain anything. And questions answer nothing Just to be clear, I wasn't answering a question with a question just now. I simply asked a question in response to a statement. I do usually answer questions directly before asking my own question. That is how a conversation works. Asking a question in response to an question should make the questioner think about what they were asking and why. Hopefully, they might go and find out some more before returning. Some people just don't like being questioned because they have to justify their position having only believed they were 100% correct before. What is your view on if EVs are a failed idea after a decade? That's a question though, and on topic, so you probably will not want to respond other than with an insult of some description..." you're laughable | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
") I agree that change is coming, whether we like it or not. The only thing is, Electric cars are the present, they are no longer the future. Their time will be short, as the future is hydrogen. I think like today there will be a combination of types. Heavy vehicles will move towards hydrogen whereas I think family vehicles will be electric once infrastructure or perhaps battery exchanges are in place. Lack of infrastructure for cars is a major issue as is range but that will change. Yes, some hauliers in the UK already moving to Hydrogen, but supply still an issue. I think in time, Hydrogen will take over completely. It will probably require the commercial use of Fusion energy to come online, but when it does it will change everything. Two 100% fully renewable forms of energy. Why do you believe that Hydrogen will take over? Why is your answer I variably a question So that people explain why they have made an assertion or stated a belief. Statements rarely explain anything. And questions answer nothing Just to be clear, I wasn't answering a question with a question just now. I simply asked a question in response to a statement. I do usually answer questions directly before asking my own question. That is how a conversation works. Asking a question in response to an question should make the questioner think about what they were asking and why. Hopefully, they might go and find out some more before returning. Some people just don't like being questioned because they have to justify their position having only believed they were 100% correct before. What is your view on if EVs are a failed idea after a decade? That's a question though, and on topic, so you probably will not want to respond other than with an insult of some description... you're laughable "Although you are completely predictable. No opinion on the topic of the thread, just a personal insult. Well done you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
") I agree that change is coming, whether we like it or not. The only thing is, Electric cars are the present, they are no longer the future. Their time will be short, as the future is hydrogen. I think like today there will be a combination of types. Heavy vehicles will move towards hydrogen whereas I think family vehicles will be electric once infrastructure or perhaps battery exchanges are in place. Lack of infrastructure for cars is a major issue as is range but that will change. Yes, some hauliers in the UK already moving to Hydrogen, but supply still an issue. I think in time, Hydrogen will take over completely. It will probably require the commercial use of Fusion energy to come online, but when it does it will change everything. Two 100% fully renewable forms of energy. Why do you believe that Hydrogen will take over? Why is your answer I variably a question So that people explain why they have made an assertion or stated a belief. Statements rarely explain anything. And questions answer nothing Just to be clear, I wasn't answering a question with a question just now. I simply asked a question in response to a statement. I do usually answer questions directly before asking my own question. That is how a conversation works. Asking a question in response to an question should make the questioner think about what they were asking and why. Hopefully, they might go and find out some more before returning. Some people just don't like being questioned because they have to justify their position having only believed they were 100% correct before. What is your view on if EVs are a failed idea after a decade? That's a question though, and on topic, so you probably will not want to respond other than with an insult of some description... you're laughable
Although you are completely predictable.
No opinion on the topic of the thread, just a personal insult.
Well done you "I love you too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
") I agree that change is coming, whether we like it or not. The only thing is, Electric cars are the present, they are no longer the future. Their time will be short, as the future is hydrogen. I think like today there will be a combination of types. Heavy vehicles will move towards hydrogen whereas I think family vehicles will be electric once infrastructure or perhaps battery exchanges are in place. Lack of infrastructure for cars is a major issue as is range but that will change. Yes, some hauliers in the UK already moving to Hydrogen, but supply still an issue. I think in time, Hydrogen will take over completely. It will probably require the commercial use of Fusion energy to come online, but when it does it will change everything. Two 100% fully renewable forms of energy. Why do you believe that Hydrogen will take over? Why is your answer I variably a question So that people explain why they have made an assertion or stated a belief. Statements rarely explain anything. And questions answer nothing Just to be clear, I wasn't answering a question with a question just now. I simply asked a question in response to a statement. I do usually answer questions directly before asking my own question. That is how a conversation works. Asking a question in response to an question should make the questioner think about what they were asking and why. Hopefully, they might go and find out some more before returning. Some people just don't like being questioned because they have to justify their position having only believed they were 100% correct before. What is your view on if EVs are a failed idea after a decade? That's a question though, and on topic, so you probably will not want to respond other than with an insult of some description... you're laughable "Well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
") I agree that change is coming, whether we like it or not. The only thing is, Electric cars are the present, they are no longer the future. Their time will be short, as the future is hydrogen. I think like today there will be a combination of types. Heavy vehicles will move towards hydrogen whereas I think family vehicles will be electric once infrastructure or perhaps battery exchanges are in place. Lack of infrastructure for cars is a major issue as is range but that will change. Yes, some hauliers in the UK already moving to Hydrogen, but supply still an issue. I think in time, Hydrogen will take over completely. It will probably require the commercial use of Fusion energy to come online, but when it does it will change everything. Two 100% fully renewable forms of energy. Why do you believe that Hydrogen will take over? Why is your answer I variably a question So that people explain why they have made an assertion or stated a belief. Statements rarely explain anything. And questions answer nothing Just to be clear, I wasn't answering a question with a question just now. I simply asked a question in response to a statement. I do usually answer questions directly before asking my own question. That is how a conversation works. Asking a question in response to an question should make the questioner think about what they were asking and why. Hopefully, they might go and find out some more before returning. Some people just don't like being questioned because they have to justify their position having only believed they were 100% correct before. What is your view on if EVs are a failed idea after a decade? That's a question though, and on topic, so you probably will not want to respond other than with an insult of some description... you're laughable
Well said"What does that have to do with electric cars? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
") I agree that change is coming, whether we like it or not. The only thing is, Electric cars are the present, they are no longer the future. Their time will be short, as the future is hydrogen. I think like today there will be a combination of types. Heavy vehicles will move towards hydrogen whereas I think family vehicles will be electric once infrastructure or perhaps battery exchanges are in place. Lack of infrastructure for cars is a major issue as is range but that will change. Yes, some hauliers in the UK already moving to Hydrogen, but supply still an issue. I think in time, Hydrogen will take over completely. It will probably require the commercial use of Fusion energy to come online, but when it does it will change everything. Two 100% fully renewable forms of energy. Why do you believe that Hydrogen will take over? Why is your answer I variably a question So that people explain why they have made an assertion or stated a belief. Statements rarely explain anything. And questions answer nothing Just to be clear, I wasn't answering a question with a question just now. I simply asked a question in response to a statement. I do usually answer questions directly before asking my own question. That is how a conversation works. Asking a question in response to an question should make the questioner think about what they were asking and why. Hopefully, they might go and find out some more before returning. Some people just don't like being questioned because they have to justify their position having only believed they were 100% correct before. What is your view on if EVs are a failed idea after a decade? That's a question though, and on topic, so you probably will not want to respond other than with an insult of some description... you're laughable
Well said
What does that have to do with electric cars?"You still haven't explained my paradox. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
