Electric cars are a pipe dream

An electric recharge station would cost a fraction of the liquid fuel recharge station to set up. It is just wiring, after all.

Location, location, location.

Fast recharge stations are needed for people undergoing long journeys, not daily commutes. Fast recharge stations require 480 V DC @ 125 amps. Fast recharge stations are needed by the side of motorways. They just do not have the infrastructure in place to deliver 50Kw per car.

Sure, daily commuters who leave their cars for eight hours can hook up to a regular socket and recharge while they work, but again, it requires investment, and there are still health and safety issues surrounding electrical hookups, anybody who has worked for a public facing business knows the testing procedures and documentary requirements for logging tests of equipment people touch. I used to be certified to perform PAT myself.

And both the recharge station and the ev will be much safer than the equivalent using liquid fuels.

480v @125 A, outdoors, 'safe'. We have different definitions of the word it seems.

Nor would a traditional fuel station be the logical place to set up a recharge station. Quite the contrary. The logical place for electric recharges is a cafe carpark. In fact, these points would so easy and cheap to set up that they could be placed in corporate carparks also. And shopping centres. And supermarket carparks. You get the idea?

I get the idea, but the numbers don't stack up. Rapid charging requires 50kw output per car. Petrol stations can re-fuel a dozen cars or more at a time. That means you need half a megawatt. Less rapid charging at a shopping centre also scales badly,... yes, you can use 240v @13A the regular supply voltage from a UK socket, but EVs will take eight hours to charge (and nobody shops for eight hours) and my local shopping centre boasts parking for 2,000 cars. That's 6 megawatts required to charge EVs, and back down to over half a megawatt if just 10% need a charge.

I have still to hear back from the naysayers any reply on my suggestion that their objections will disappear if we look at a 20 year time frame.

I covered that already on this thread. You can't apply mathematical progressions to progress in an attempt to guarantee that progress, it just doesn't work that way. Prophecies such as Moore's law do not apply equally everywhere.

In 20 years, plus or minus a few, we can expect to see a battery technology permitting long range and rapid recharge. The electric equivalent of an SUV will, by then, be perfectly able to tow a caravan, at highway speeds, for two hours.

Get back to me when it's five hours. I need to be able to travel 300miles while towing.

Two hours is all that should be required.

Agreed people should take breaks.

For safety reasons, no driver should drive continuously for more than two hours.

Yep, we stop halfway, get a coffee, food, take the dogs for a walk to stretch their legs, but that takes about 30mins. I need a charging station therefore that can accommodate an 18foot long caravan, and fully charge the rig while we wait.

In the mean time, before that 20 years of ongoing development, there will be a place for short range ev's as commuter vehicles and shopping baskets. Such vehicles can be cheap to build and very cheap to run.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REVA

We already had those in the UK. The vehicles that are operated by the people that deliver our fresh milk to domestic residences, use electric vehicles. Have done for decades. It's not caught on outside this niche. What does that tell you?
 
The electric only range of a Prius, for example, is around 15 miles. That's within the majority of UK commutes, but still people aren't buying them. Because they are shit.

Well the Nissan Leaf is already reached its pre-order target 3 months ahead of schedule, so perhaps Toyota does not have the right design philosophy, marketing or is not popular right now because of a fiasco?

Just not a road legal option.

At present.

Mining and refining Zinc is hardly a 'green' process, but better than slopping electrolytes around I guess.

Compared to most metals its pretty good, considering that zinc will be constantly recycled and not used once like oil and the mining consideration is minor.

480v @125 A, outdoors, 'safe'. We have different definitions of the word it seems.

Probably safer than gasoline.

Get back to me when it's five hours. I need to be able to travel 300miles while towing.
Your needs are too specific, most people certainly beyond 90% could be satisfied with EVs, all their regular needs met, assuming the coming energy crisis does not killed your camper vacations altogether, I'm sure a SUV hybrid or SUV PHEV by then should satisfy your needs.
 
I fucking posted 2! I even posted an image from the latter and you did not see this, was it in your fucking blind spot???...
Quoting from your first link:

“… we find that, while driving on battery power, PHEVs compared to their conventional hybrid counterparts reduce CO2emissions by 25% in the short term and as much as 50% in the long term. The short-term fractional increase in demand for margin fuels such as natural gas is found to be roughly twice the fractional penetration of PHEVs into the nationwide light-duty vehicle fleet. We also compare, on an energy basis, the CO2 savings of replacing coal plants versus replacing conventional vehicles with PHEVs. …”

Yes I completely agree that in the short term ASSUMNG NATURAL GAS REPLACES COAL as the primary fuel then full cycle CO2 release by EV will be lower. I also agree that in the long term ASSUMNG NUCLEAR POWER ETC. REPLACES COAL as the primary fuel then full cycle CO2 release by EV will be lower.

How does the above counter my doubt of the claim by an EV enthusiast that the EV will reduce CO2 by 17 to 22% even if the primary energy source is coal.? Answer: Your link does not weaken that doubt as link assumes the primary fuel is not coal to achieve the CO2 reductions.

Your second link and your graph both are concerned with ALL Green House Gases, GHG, not just the CO2. I have already agreed that the EV will reduce GHGs. I specifically pointed out that the ICE, especially the more efficient ones (high temperature &pressure combustion), make a lot of NOx, which power plants do not. I.e. Yes I agree that the EV can reduce GHG, but I still doubt it can make 17 to 22% reduction in the CO2 release with coal as the primary energy source.
You have given ZERO evidence that it true.

...its not ethanol or electrics, its ethanol AND electrics, AND a more efficient life style AND Nuclear power AND solar, wind, wave power*, AND slow phase out of fossil fuels as we deplete them despite their global warming side effect is the best we can hope for.
I basically agree with this, but only note that it is difficult to now list the components of the energy supply mix (including conservation, greater efficiency).

As always, it is their economic competitiveness, which will determine the mix. Currently, there is no other renewable energy source or liquid fuel as economical as sugar cane ETOH - It is cheaper than gasoline on a per mile driven basis. Being a liquid fuel it is too valuable to be used as power plant fuel but I think it could economically compete with "clean coal" as a power plant fuel if there were more ETOH than the mobile use demand needs. (I say that as oil is used in power plants and ETOH is as cheap as oil on an energy content basis, if not already, soon. i.e. The production cost of oil is rapidly rising as more of it comes from deep ocean drilling and the cost of ETOH production is steadily falling as sugar cane genetics is improved and mechanical harvesting replaces hand cutting of the cane.)
---------------
* I strongly doubt wave power will ever be even 0.05% of the electrical energy system. Mainly because it is the life cycle cost that determines what generators get built, with the "up front" capital cost usually being the dominate cost. (And ~100% of the cost for wave power)

The power of the waves goes as the cube of their height. Thus a 10KW wave power system designed for 3 meter peak waves, needs to be capable of coping with 10MW wave power when the 30 meter wave comes, as it typically will in the 30 years most electric generators use for life cycle cost analysis. I don't think that sturdy a structure is economically possible (except as some have suggested if it sinks far below the surface when the big storms come).

I think river and tidal power do have a chance of being a few percent of the electric energy mix, but not wave power. Few (or none) man-make systems can tolerate a 1000 fold increase above their design level in the power applied to them
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well the Nissan Leaf is already reached its pre-order target 3 months ahead of schedule, so perhaps Toyota does not have the right design philosophy, marketing or is not popular right now because of a fiasco?

And how many is that? The Prius sold units, just not many. How many have Nissan sold?

At present.

Not legal, and won't become so.

Probably safer than gasoline.

Not really, add the public, and weather.


Your needs are too specific,

Not at all. The current vehicle we have is a customised Japanese import. There is a members club. That club has over 10,000 members in the UK. It seems we are not alone. Campers are popular vehicles amongst surfers.

most people certainly beyond 90% could be satisfied with EVs

No, people could be satisfied with EVs 90% of the time,.... it's just they fail when we start talking about range, or capacity. People _could_ be buying EVs now, but don't, because of that 10% of other uses.

I'm sure a SUV hybrid or SUV PHEV by then should satisfy your needs.

Hell, the Toyota Highlander SUV Hybrid gets about the same MPG as our old Nissan Diesel 4x4. Zero benefit, at extra cost. No point.
 
... even when petrol runs low, the new market will be for a fuel substitute, not EVs.
Correct. Most likely that fuel is sugar cane based alcohol (especially if the crushed cane can be made into alcohol also to nearly triple the yield per acre) but there are some things to be said other liquid hydo-carbons that solar energy can also produce. Specifically some can go thru the existing pipeline distribution system.
... Here's the simple maths:

100K miles/40mpg=2500 galls of fuel @4.30 a gallon = £10,750

If your EV is £10k more than an equivalent petrol car, it isn't going to save you a penny. Got that?
Yes but too simple as it neglects the "TIME VALUE OF MONEY" I.e. you pay up front but your fuel saving come years later, so discounted to their present value they are only about half as large.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And how many is that? The Prius sold units, just not many. How many have Nissan sold?

Nissan sold out withing their production capacity for the Leaf, the number sold is irrelevant.

Not legal, and won't become so.

Depends purely on demand.

Not really, add the public, and weather.

Oh do tell, so what can the public and weather do?



Not at all. The current vehicle we have is a customised Japanese import. There is a members club. That club has over 10,000 members in the UK. It seems we are not alone. Campers are popular vehicles amongst surfers.

10,000 members out of Uk population of 62,041,708, wow thats 0.02% congrats! I'm sure all the surfers that need caravans and caravans owners don't amount to even 5% of the UK population, if EV can satisfy the other 95%, even the other 80%, go buy a gas guzzler for all I care!

No, people could be satisfied with EVs 90% of the time,.... it's just they fail when we start talking about range, or capacity. People _could_ be buying EVs now, but don't, because of that 10% of other uses.

People ARE buying EVs now.

Hell, the Toyota Highlander SUV Hybrid gets about the same MPG as our old Nissan Diesel 4x4. Zero benefit, at extra cost. No point.

its not a PHEV, more so diesel hybrids have not hit the market yet.
 
I live in the UK, and at present, the cost of the Leaf is £28,990, and the 'grant' proposed has not been approved. So the Leaf costs nearer £30k than £20k. Get your facts right.

I got my facts from the Nissan site. The MSRP is $32,780, or £20k.
http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index#/leaf-electric-car/index

If the UK is doing something to INFLATE the price of the Leaf by £10k that's an entirely different matter and thus the economics might not work in the UK, in which case it sucks to be you.

?? FFS, they went on sale THIS MONTH. I know their value is going to drop like a turd off a cliff edge, but used models are still not going to be that affordable.

Can you GET REAL please?
All new cars drop in value pretty quick, I suspect EVs will drop slower than ICEs but still after 5 or more years on the market THEN the availability of used EVs will start to become a consideration. We are talking about a 20 year horizon here, so there will be plenty of 2nd and 3rd owners of EVs on the road for most of that time.


FFS, £10k is TEN YEARS of fuel for a car than can average 40mpg. That's 100k miles. That petrol car will still have life left in it, whereas the batteries in your EV will be cycled out, out of warranty, and running at a small fraction of their former original capacity, and the EV will be worth NOTHING.

Again, there is not (in the states at least) a £10k differential on the Leaf. Also a car will not be worth nothing when the battery needs changing. Unlike an ICE car, that will actually be a reasonable thing to consider. When you look at the high end priced EVs (like the Telsa for instance) than the price of swaping the battery compared to the price of the car will make it a no-brainer. The batteries are also likely to retain quite a bit of value for their materials.

The thread is called 'Electric cars are a pipe dream'. So yes, EVs are the discission here. Not hybrids.

I'm not including HYBRIDS like the Prius, though they have a battery, they are really ICE cars with an assist. BUT, cars like the Volt are indeed EVs, they just carry an onboard recharger with them, but in typical use about 80%of their milage is expected to be supplied by the Grid and stored in the onboard battery.

You don't understand economics. Current stations are profitable. New charging stations need to be able to project a future profit to get investors. EVs are shit. Nobody is buying them = no profit = no investment = no charging stations = nobody buys EVs , round and round. People aren't going to stop buying petrol cars, even when petrol runs low, the new market will be for a fuel substitute, not EVs.

And this is where I fully expect a one time subsidy from the Govt to overcome the INITIAL hurdle of needing sufficient density of stations to make EVs practical. But govts have a very real incentive to do so because they are making a real step towards reducing the cost of imported oil by encouraging a move to Grid based power for transportation. Similarly I expect govts to subsidize early adopters of EVs to get that production kick started.

Simply no. If an EV costs 10k more than an equivalent petrol car, you'll NEVER get your money back on fuel savings. And that's assuming an EV can drive 100k miles before the batteries give out.

Here's the simple maths:

100K miles/40mpg=2500 galls of fuel @4.30 a gallon = £10,750

If your EV is £10k more than an equivalent petrol car, it isn't going to save you a penny. Got that?

But it DOESN'T cost £10k more, and I wish that the only cost of maintaining an ICE for 100k miles is just putting gas in it. It's actually quite a bit more. AS far as driving an EV 100k miles, the Leaf Warranty is for 8 years/100,000 miles, so that's NOT an issue.

Arthur
 
I got my facts from the Nissan site. The MSRP is $32,780, or £20k.
http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index#/leaf-electric-car/index

Dude, you can't just assume the price of an item is on sale in other countries at the equivalent price in dollars! There are differing rates of tax payable, you have to take that into consideration.

If the UK is doing something to INFLATE the price of the Leaf by £10k

Kid, the price is set by economic factors, and Nissan want to sell as many of these things as they can, they don't inflate the prices.

that's an entirely different matter and thus the economics might not work in the UK, in which case it sucks to be you.

Sucks to be me? No. I don't want an EV!

All new cars drop in value pretty quick, I suspect EVs will drop slower than ICEs

The received wisdom is that the value of an EV will drop faster than a petrol car, and be worthless near the time the guarantee on the batteries is up.

but still after 5 or more years on the market THEN the availability of used EVs will start to become a consideration.

After five years of cycling, the batteries aren't going to be as good, and it's to be seen if they hold up like the manufacturers claim, especially through winter and summer temperature fluctuations.

We are talking about a 20 year horizon here, so there will be plenty of 2nd and 3rd owners of EVs on the road for most of that time.

The batteries in many EVs are guaranteed for 100k miles, and will almost certainly require replacing shortly after that time. That's going to be uneconomical as the vehicle will be worth less than the cost of the replacement batteries at that point. I doubt there will be any 20 year old EVs on the road.

Again, there is not (in the states at least) a £10k differential on the Leaf.

There is in the UK, and that's where I live, and I don't give a rat's how much they cost elsewhere.

Also a car will not be worth nothing when the battery needs changing.

A 10 year old 2nd hand EV like the Leaf will be worth a couple of £k, replacement batteries will cost several times that, and the car won't then be worth the combined value+cost of batteries. It just doesn't work like that.

like the Telsa for instance) than the price of swaping the battery compared to the price of the car will make it a no-brainer. The batteries are also likely to retain quite a bit of value for their materials.

Balls. The projected cost of replacing the batteries on the Tesla is $36,000. That's after 100k miles. The car shell won't be worth that much, so yes, it is a no-brainer, it's not economically viable. Even Tesla realise this, and have given the option of stumping up twelve grand extra when you buy one, and they'll send you the batteries after seven years. After 50k miles however, you'll be at 70% capacity, so your Tesla, that started being able to travel 200miles between charges, will be down to 140 miles. Oh, and by that time, your warranty is up. You only get three years or 36k miles from Tesla.


I'm not including HYBRIDS like the Prius, though they have a battery, they are really ICE cars with an assist. BUT, cars like the Volt are indeed EVs, they just carry an onboard recharger with them,

Dude, do your research, because you are badly informed. The volt has a four cylinder engine, it's a hybrid too.

but in typical use about 80%of their milage is expected to be supplied by the Grid and stored in the onboard battery.

Balls. It can do 40miles on battery only drive, and 300 using the petrol engine to provide electricity. That's not 80%!

And this is where I fully expect a one time subsidy from the Govt to overcome the INITIAL hurdle of needing sufficient density of stations to make EVs practical. But govts have a very real incentive to do so because they are making a real step towards reducing the cost of imported oil by encouraging a move to Grid based power for transportation. Similarly I expect govts to subsidize early adopters of EVs to get that production kick started.

More balls. Govt's make money from drivers, road tax, duty on fuel, ... IF EVs ever became a significant presence on the road, the Govt would start losing revenue. They'll start taxing EVs like they tax regular vehicles. You'll pay back any previous subsidy in spades.


But it DOESN'T cost £10k more,

Oh yes it does.

and I wish that the only cost of maintaining an ICE for 100k miles is just putting gas in it. It's actually quite a bit more. AS far as driving an EV 100k miles, the Leaf Warranty is for 8 years/100,000 miles, so that's NOT an issue.

Nope, the BATTERIES are warrantied for 8 years/100k miles. Not the whole car. But you are going to lose range as they age. and after 8 years/100k miles, they'll be about useless, and need replacing.

So it all sounds good, until you have to fork out for new batteries, and then the servicing cost you think you didn't have to pay for all happens in one great big lump if you want to keep driving.
 
You have given ZERO evidence that it true.

Aside for the first link its self, so this argument is all about trying to ameliorate your doubt? Well considering this is an Internet argument your doubt could very well be infinite, no matter what evidence I place you clearly nitpick its perimeters or claim it biased (bias by the way is a glorious fallacious argument, like the claim of tooth decay is a lie because the dental industry is bias to claim tooth decay exist to sell you a bunch of useless appliances and pastes) So no I don't think I can quench your doubt nor do I think it worth it wasting more time to continue to try. If you choose to believe the world is flat, there only so much I'm going to do to try to make you believe otherwise.

Currently, there is no other renewable energy source or liquid fuel as economical as sugar cane ETOH - It is cheaper than gasoline on a per mile driven basis.

Only in Brazil. Again how economical will it be when Brazil goes from 25% ethanol to 100% ethanol, when it tries to supply say the rest of the world?

* I strongly doubt wave power will ever be even 0.05% of the electrical energy system. Mainly because it is the life cycle cost that determines what generators get built, with the "up front" capital cost usually being the dominate cost. (And ~100% of the cost for wave power)

There that doubt of your again! I clearly get the sense that once you find a detail to contend with pure to continue arguing. Wave power is merely a part in a large variety of alternative energy source, and I really don't care how much power it provides to what ever energy system. Bioelectricity from decomposing waste for example will probably be minuscule as well, but its all good to me. Certainly if you want to put percentages on it your a more daring man then I, I'm not going to guess at what it will or won't be. biofuels as a matter of my career I will put bets as having very viable future, but I also accept it limits.

The power of the waves goes as the cube of their height. Thus a 10KW wave power system designed for 3 meter peak waves, needs to be capable of coping with 10MW wave power when the 30 meter wave comes, as it typically will in the 30 years most electric generators use for life cycle cost analysis. I don't think that sturdy a structure is economically possible (except as some have suggested if it sinks far below the surface when the big storms come).

Great logic but it has no actually meaning on many wave energy converter designs. Say for example a single point generator is nothing but a buoyant buoy that pulls a piston, its mechanism and structure it not much more fragile then existing buoys, if the wave height tops it that just energy it can't absorb. The "Anaconda" wave convert design is nothing but a tube of rubber filled with sea water!
 
Kid, the price is set by economic factors, and Nissan want to sell as many of these things as they can, they don't inflate the prices.

Try to respect other people, I don't think adoucette is a child.

Sucks to be me? No. I don't want an EV!

I think it means that when gas prices are off the charts and you can't even get the fuel for your luxury uses, then your options will be either stay home or change, well probably be then you'll just be sucking it.

The received wisdom is that the value of an EV will drop faster than a petrol car, and be worthless near the time the guarantee on the batteries is up.

aaah a good theory but neither proven or disproven.

The batteries in many EVs are guaranteed for 100k miles, and will almost certainly require replacing shortly after that time.

So your telling me your telling me that the batteries will fail completely by 101k? If the batteries lost 20% capacity by 110K I could agree. Certainly more advance battery designs like A123 or Altairnano which can servive decades worth in cycling and wider temperature ranges I don't think the present state of the art or future batteries will simply fail or even wear down depressibly by 100k.

Balls. The projected cost of replacing the batteries on the Tesla is $36,000. That's after 100k miles. The car shell won't be worth that much, so yes, it is a no-brainer, it's not economically viable.

your asking if a sportcar, is economically viable for everyone? More so this is a sportcar with technology that is already outmoded (outmoded battery technology)

Dude, do your research, because you are badly informed. The volt has a four cylinder engine, it's a hybrid too.

PHEV, please learn to difference.
 
Dude, you can't just assume the price of an item is on sale in other countries at the equivalent price in dollars! There are differing rates of tax payable, you have to take that into consideration.

The difference is I provided an actual link to the Manufacturers listed price of the car. You haven't.
If you do produce said link also provide a link for a comparable car so we can see if this price difference that doesn't exist in the US is real or not in the UK.

Kid, the price is set by economic factors, and Nissan want to sell as many of these things as they can, they don't inflate the prices.

I didn't say Nissan inflated the price. I suspect if it costs that much more in the UK its probably related to your VAT tax or an import tax etc.

The received wisdom is that the value of an EV will drop faster than a petrol car, and be worthless near the time the guarantee on the batteries is up.

Gosh, I haven't received that wisdom. My assumption is that it wouldn't because when you put a new battery in and it would be nearly as new, something that isn't really practical with ICEs, which after 100k you could put in a rebuilt engine/transmission for a LOT of money, but still not get as good a system as you had originally, but when you replace the batteries in an EV you are likely to be able to put in a better than original replacement.

After five years of cycling, the batteries aren't going to be as good, and it's to be seen if they hold up like the manufacturers claim, especially through winter and summer temperature fluctuations.

Ah that's why they have a warranty, so you don't have to rely on claims.

The batteries in many EVs are guaranteed for 100k miles, and will almost certainly require replacing shortly after that time. That's going to be uneconomical as the vehicle will be worth less than the cost of the replacement batteries at that point. I doubt there will be any 20 year old EVs on the road.

Unlikely that they will require replacing that soon. If they can warrant them out to 100k miles and 8 years they have to have just about the same expectaion of an ICE engine warranted out 5 years and 50,000 miles today, that the engine will far exceed that, else they would be forced to replace too many that failed at say 90,000 miles or 7 years.

There is in the UK, and that's where I live, and I don't give a rat's how much they cost elsewhere.

Well that's nice, but this discussion is not JUST about the UK. If you want to change the topic to EVs won't work in the UK fine, but we aren't talking about just the UK. I mean the US has 5 times as many people and even a higher ratio of cars.

A 10 year old 2nd hand EV like the Leaf will be worth a couple of £k, replacement batteries will cost several times that, and the car won't then be worth the combined value+cost of batteries. It just doesn't work like that.

We shall see.


Balls. The projected cost of replacing the batteries on the Tesla is $36,000. That's after 100k miles. The car shell won't be worth that much, so yes, it is a no-brainer, it's not economically viable. Even Tesla realise this, and have given the option of stumping up twelve grand extra when you buy one, and they'll send you the batteries after seven years. After 50k miles however, you'll be at 70% capacity, so your Tesla, that started being able to travel 200miles between charges, will be down to 140 miles. Oh, and by that time, your warranty is up. You only get three years or 36k miles from Tesla.

Ah, but if you replace the batteries there really isn't that much else to worry about is there? In fact the car will probably perform better than new (lower weight batteries but same capacity). You see this is a DIFFERENT model than aging ICE cars we are familiar with where the number of systems BESIDES the motor are all aging and adding to the maint cost. With an ICE you also have the cooling system, the fuel system, the exhaust system, the starting/charging/ignition system and the Transmission/drive train that have aged and drag down the value of the car. None of those even exist in the Telsa. The fact is a Telsa which has been taken care of will likely retain far more of it's value then if it had an ICE, and what's interesting is the cost of the replacement battery is likely to go DOWN over time, not up.

Dude, do your research, because you are badly informed. The volt has a four cylinder engine, it's a hybrid too.
I'm quite aware of the Volt drive train and yes it has an ICE, but the engine runs at only two speeds and never drives the car, so no, it's not a hybrid drive.

Balls. It can do 40miles on battery only drive, and 300 using the petrol engine to provide electricity. That's not 80%!

Nope, because that's not the way it will be driven in normal use. The average daily driving cycle for most motorists is less than 40 miles so in most cases it won't even use the onboard recharger. Over it's life it is expected to get 80% of its milage from the Grid. Think of it this way, buyers of the Volt will overwhelming be those who expect to use the battery for most of their driving. If you don't fit that profile the Volt isn't that great of a choice to begin with.

More balls. Govt's make money from drivers, road tax, duty on fuel, ... IF EVs ever became a significant presence on the road, the Govt would start losing revenue. They'll start taxing EVs like they tax regular vehicles. You'll pay back any previous subsidy in spades.

You totally missed the point, which was on initial govt subsidies to get sufficient recharging points such that early adopters find the cars practical in normal use.

Nope, the BATTERIES are warrantied for 8 years/100k miles. Not the whole car. But you are going to lose range as they age. and after 8 years/100k miles, they'll be about useless, and need replacing.

So it all sounds good, until you have to fork out for new batteries, and then the servicing cost you think you didn't have to pay for all happens in one great big lump if you want to keep driving.

I think you will find in an EV that the range will also be warranted. Any drop in range beyond a small amount agreed to upfront would be considered a defect. Actually, purchase of a new battery will probably be financed, just like you finance a car.

Arthur
 
... no matter what evidence I place you clearly nitpick its perimeters or claim it biased ...
Not "nitpicking" when I contradict your claim to have provided two posts.

One of your links assumed the coal source was replaced to show reduced CO2 and the other was not even speaking of CO2, but GHG.

Your post were way off the subject, which was the claim that EVs would reduce the CO2 production by 17 to 22% even if coal is the primary energy source. -That I still doubt. It is not "nitpicking" to point out that your "proofs" either don't speak of CO2 or assume the coal is replaced to lower the CO2. I try not to "nitpick" and don't like to be accused of that (especially it is not true.)
 
Not "nitpicking" when I contradict your claim to have provided two posts.

One of your links assumed the coal source was replaced to show reduced CO2 and the other was not even speaking of CO2, but GHG.

Probably because you did not read anything past the abstract, here I'll post a picture from at one, OOH and it does specify CO2 emissions from "well to wheel" or mine to wheel in coals case.
Co2fromdiffrentcarschemes.png


Probably will find some problem with this one as well :rolleyes:

I try not to "nitpick" and don't like to be accused of that (especially it is not true.)

No you nitpick extensively, heck just a few posts ago you were arguing over wave energy when I listed it in a example of combining mutually non-exclusive energy schemes, for what reason? To have something to contend with perhaps. So you pick perimeters to contend with just to argue, if I present evidence you pick out that it could be a bias source, other evidence you pick out GHG there for moot because only CO2 matters for some reason, and on other evidence you pick out an sentence from the abstract as damning the whole, I'll call it as I see it: nitpicking.
 
Probably because you did not read anything past the abstract,
that is correct. I did not see figure 4. It does support a reduction in CO2 even with coal as primary energy source. I stand corrected.
... No you nitpick extensively, heck just a few posts ago you were arguing over wave energy when I listed it in a example of combining mutually non-exclusive energy schemes, for what reason?...
No, I was not arguing over wave energy, only using it as an example of my point: Namely one needs to consider the economics when listing possible electric energy sources. Wave power has very little possibility of ever being even 0.05% of the electric power mix for reasons I discussed there. Specifically I said to start that section:
" I basically agree with this, but only note that it is difficult to now list the components of the energy supply mix ..." I don't think pointing that out is "nitpicking" either.
 
Actually, it is not a good thing to be too adamant about such points.

Wave power is impractical right now, mainly due to the need to withstand 100 year storms. However, a lot of research is going into new systems, and it may become fully practical within a decade or three. I read some years ago, in a Scientific American article on novel methods of generating electricity, that ocean wave energy has the potential to supply the world's needs, many times over.

We are only speculating here, but it is possible that ocean wave energy may become of primary importance globally.
 
The difference is I provided an actual link to the Manufacturers listed price of the car. You haven't.

Go to nissan.co.uk and see for yourself.

Unlikely that they will require replacing that soon. If they can warrant them out to 100k miles and 8 years they have to have just about the same expectaion of an ICE engine warranted out 5 years and 50,000 miles today, that the engine will far exceed that, else they would be forced to replace too many that failed at say 90,000 miles or 7 years.

Wrong. A petrol engine will lose some power after it's run 100k miles, but it's range won't be significantly less. An EVs batteries however will lose capacity over time and charge discharge cycles. Go check the facts abot the Tesla batteries for yourself. Apart from that, both cars will have worn bearings, and the motors of both wll have worn. This is inescapable engineering.
 
We are getting a little off thread but where the recharge energy comes from is important. Here is the first wave power unit connected into any US grid:
PowerBuoy-40.jpg
It is only 40KW but the proto-type for their planned 150KW unit. Even that will have terribly high capital cost /KW of capacity.
I wish them luck, but my money is on the power of the sea to destroy* it in about a decade.

I think it would be informative to to get some US coast guard data on how long their buoys survive but note that when they can, they try to avoid placing them in high wave locations instead of promising wave power locations.

* Snap its mooring cable or tear out its anchor and set it free to be pounded into scrap on the shore, etc. This unit is three quarters of a mile off the coast of Oahu, and that should keep ways from "surfer's waves" but not storms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still see most of this argument is based on current technology. New battery technology will be quite different. I posted several references to research that already shows that it is possible to build a lithium battery with ten times the storage capacity of current ones, and it is possible to build a battery that can be recharged in minutes.

Long term durability of batteries is also improving.
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/18833/page1/

I quote :
"Over the next 12 months, researchers from, Compact Power, Continental Automotive Systems and GM will be testing the battery-pack designs in the lab and in vehicles to confirm that the packs can work for the life of the car--at least 10 years"

So far, there is no commercially available battery that combines range, rapid recharge, and durability for the life of the car. But development is heading that way. As I said before, if we look ahead 20 years, things will be very different.

By way of comparison, think of cell phone battery development. There was a joke that was funny 15 years ago, but is no longer funny.
An Asian gentleman lines up at customs at the airport carrying two suitcases. There is the sound of a phone, and the guy answers his watch. His watch is a cell phone! When he hangs up, the customs guy says : "Wow, that's amazing. But what is in those suitcases?"

The reply is : "batteries."

As battery technology has responded to the needs of the cell phone manufacturers, and become small, so will they respond to the needs of electric vehicle makers, and become smaller, with more range, durability, and rapid recharge.
 
phlogistician said:
Apart from that, both cars will have worn bearings, and the motors of both wll have worn. This is inescapable engineering.
Gas cars have many, many more bearings and gears and moving parts.

The transmissions alone provide more sources of wear and other problems than the entire engine and drivetrain of an electric.

Plus they have all the electronics - batteries, computer chips controlling the engine, etc.

The battery range and lifespan is the one area of vulnerability for an electric, and realistically less than half the cars on the road now are being driven outside those parameters - include a reasonable infrastructure and customary setup, it's down to less than 10%.
 
Back
Top