Are EVs really the answer in the future? I do not think so.

[wraymond]

Originally Posted by Rickoshea

For some reason I get huge pleasure visiting this thread to read luddites expressing views that merely prove how little they understand of the matters that they are pontificating about. I feel the need to educate them so here goes!

1. Historically, electricity has been generated to meet demand. The problem with the move to renewable energy is that electricity production is driven by the weather and this clearly is not in line with demand. Our Masters have understood this for many years and are trying to address it with “smart” meters in the hope of altering demand to the amount of electricity being generate and the best (simplistic) mechanism is to charge more for electricity when it is short supply and less when it is in surplus - again to be delivered by “smart” meters.

2. Now the highest demand for electricity is usually early evening with everybody rushing home to make a cup of tea and prepare dinner. At the other extreme, there is stacks of electricity in the late evening and over night. EVs being charged during this period help address this issue - this is one of the reasons our Masters encouraging their adoption! We have had our car for 6 months and have done all our charging overnight and never had to rely on public charges. My reward for doing what our Masters want is the ability to get 250 miles of electricity for £6 overnight. Now if I used a public high speed charger during the day this cost would rise to £13 to £60 at the most expensive rate. There are also thoughts that once EVs are more widely adopted then they could be used to recharge at the night time cheap rate and also power the home when demand is highest. Since most home should use no more that 8kwhs during the day and most EVs should have batteries Ranging from 40 to 90kwhs then they should always be enough electricity in the EV for the usual family journeys as well as the house.

3. To all those who say they will never have an EV (without ever having driven one) think on this! EVs are likely to price match ICE cars within 5 years and progressively become cheaper. An EV has about 200 moving parts whilst an ICE car has 2,000 ish. It will therefore be much more reliable and cost almost nothing to maintain (no gearbox, no clutch, no anti pollution bits, no fuel injectors, fuel pumps, spark plugs exhaust etc.) The most braking is done by regeneneration so pads and disks should last 100,000 mile. It will hold the road better due to lower CG because of battery weight slung low. It will offer a silent ride and out accelerate the poor saps relying on bits of metal flying up and down to move. They are also likely to be built out of Aluminium meaning no tin worm to kill them off.

PS those with EVs but no driveway are already allowed to run a cable from their house to a car parked on the curb so long as the cable is protected by one of these to ensure no trip hazard! https://www.amazon.co.uk/Allcam-2-me...4014303&sr=8-5

PPS Why would the French not want to continue supplying us with the surplus nuclear powered electricity that they have. This is not an act of charity on their part - they are jolly grateful for our business. Perhaps you also think they will refuse to sell us wine and frocks!

PPPS the only drawback I could find when looking at getting the I Pace was the need to pay an annual “luxury” tax as the car cost over £40k. This was eliminated on all EVs in the budget yesterday - well done Chancellor!

Luddite or not (I haven’t destroyed any industrial machinery as far as I know) and disregarding your pleasure quotient together with any lack of capacity for the understanding of what ‘pontificating’ entails, it’s not a matter of education dear chap!

Perspective: it’s not the argument of comparative social value, nor the suitability of alternative forms of personal transport that concerns so many.

It’s moved on to the political impetus to fund a major change in transport to facilitate highly suspect faux science. It is founded on a cobbled together cause manufactured by largely ignorant (in the ‘depth of expertise’ sense) social media-based crowd-followers! Nor is it a cost-saving crusade.

In the febrile mind of a succubus scrabbling for vicarious fame, those others who see things from another perspective are once again denigrated as they were on so many earlier occasions! The contrary evidence in this seismic shift of established science to assumptive guesswork is easily obtained for those who want to see it and just as easily ignored by those who refuse to look.

The argument then gets deflected away from the suspect climate principle to operating costs. The tight-lipped promise of the sunny uplands of cheaper travel, with no regard for what new charges are likely to be, nor what onerous penalties are likely to be applied, is part of the trick.

The itemised advantages of EV over ICE cars are of course accurate down to fine detail, but not really what is at the root of contra debate. Only in my view, of course!

[bl52krz]

Like I have always said, it’s a load of rubbish about being more efficient.The only reason for their continued pushing by industry is because of MONEY. They will never be as efficient as diesel cars in a straight comparison. The actual batteries are totally at odds with the supposed ethic of being ‘cleaner’ than diesel.

[bl52krz]

Originally Posted by Comfortably Numb

MG John said:"Meantime, I will continue to enjoy my Petrol Turbo MGs and Rovers until such time as they send the big strong geezers in white coats after me...". Except it will be the be the big strong geezers in the dark blue uniforms and stab vests! For my part, I am looking forward to the day I can afford an EV that will get me from A to B without the inconvenience that the current technology and infrastructure apparently provide. I think you would have to recognise that whatever its causes, climate change is real, and at a rate that humanity is struggling to adapt to. While I am old enough to take the complacent attitude that it probably won't affect me that badly, the sooner we stop adding to the planet's atmospheric energy, the more chance we have of having the time to adapt to the ever more extreme weather events that will reduce our advanced technological world to submerged rubble, and leave our children spend their lives trying to cope with results of our generation consumption-driven and self-indulgent indulgent lives. No wonder a highly intelligent 16 year old is leading her non- compliant rebels to take actions that will hopefully shake the complacency of so many of us older folk. Are we going to carry on dancing on the deck of the Titanic because somebody said it was unsinkable? There may actually still be time to plug the leak, or close the bulkhead doors.

Lets get the big stick out and beat the living daylights out of ourselves. We are so selfish are we not. You really need to read or re-read MG Johns posted post. Just read it through without having any prejudice before hand. I am amazed that some people seem to hold the view that the end of the world is nigh, without any comprehension whatsoever of what it is all about.There are to many expurts about. I would like to have time to put everything I have researched myself , that the so called ‘expurts’ either fail to tell people, or have not researched the way I have. The , I am now going to use a very descriptive word, ‘crap’ that is being spouted by these people, including the poor young girl that is being used for ulterior motives by her family and the sick media. Just one more thing, if you remember, we were told by renown people, one I used to admire very much and still do if he sticks to his profession, that we had three years to do something about so called ‘global warming’. Well we have around 16 months to curb it or we will all be dead. Yea, ok.

[KWIL]

Research just released by University of California Riverside shows that using the industry standard fast charger can result in a reduction in battery capacity to 60% after only 40 recharges. The batteries under test were circular lithium ion type as used by Tesla

After 60 such charges, many batteries showed signs of cracking, with the attendent fire dangers.

So much for the future of EVs.

Source The Engineer magazine 13th March 2020

[bazyerma]

Originally Posted by KWIL

Research just released by University of California Riverside shows that using the industry standard fast charger can result in a reduction in battery capacity to 60% after only 40 recharges. The batteries under test were circular lithium ion type as used by Tesla

After 60 such charges, many batteries showed signs of cracking, with the attendent fire dangers.

So much for the future of EVs.

Source The Engineer magazine 13th March 2020

KWIL, Did you read the whole article? The below link has it, did you think no one would check??

People like you are the problem. As a millennial lefty snowflake, I don't like to offend people, but you made it hard today!

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/study-fast-charging-evs/

[mileshawk56]

No your not allowed to run a cable over the pavement! Chris.S.

[KWIL]

Yes I did and noted that the researchers did have their own charge method but the degradation still showed a drop to 80% after 36 charging cycles. As of now the industry standard fast chargers as presently rolled out in California, can damage the batteries.

Your insults do not faze me at all, it merely shows you for what you are.

[bl52krz]

Originally Posted by bazyerma

KWIL, Did you read the whole article? The below link has it, did you think no one would check??

People like you are the problem. As a millennial lefty snowflake, I don't like to offend people, but you made it hard today!

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/study-fast-charging-evs/

Hi. Millennial Lefty snowflake, as you wish to call yourself, the facts are the facts. And the fact is that EVs as they seem to be called, are another phase (fad) in the life of the movement for the masses. Trillions of £s are being invested, and made, out of what in my opinion, and my opinion alone, is just another way of making the masses pay through the nose to be independent of movement. We are being herded in the normal way, by people in power, who are normally loaded, with plenty of bull around a subject that really is straight forward. The sooner people realise what is going on.the better. All that will happen is that some other power will be used to get you to change from your normal habits. It is called, standing on one leg? Keep em standing on one leg, and it’s easy to push them in the direction you want them to go. It is a bit like what I was taught when I was 19 years old:- A person with no body balance has no strength. A bit like the old saying of shovel and manure. Ramble over, and sorry if it offends some people, but seen it and heard it all many times over.

[Rickoshea]

Originally Posted by bl52krz

Like I have always said, it’s a load of rubbish about being more efficient.The only reason for their continued pushing by industry is because of MONEY. They will never be as efficient as diesel cars in a straight comparison. The actual batteries are totally at odds with the supposed ethic of being ‘cleaner’ than diesel.

Come on old chap, you can’t really believe that tosh!

Let's look at the process required to get you the Devil’s fuel. First you need an empty supertanker to make the journey to a despotic Middle East regime.They will pump up some oil from the wells and store it in huge great tanks that will then be discharged into your tanker - so lots of energy used. Once loaded your ship will need to make the return journey to Blighty, this time using far more fuel as it is now fully loaded. Once home it will need to discharge into a refinery. Here the good stuff (Petrol and Kerosene) will be produced. The black sludge left will be converted into diesel. All this will require energy. The stuff will then need to be loaded onto road tankers to drag the stuff to your local filling station. It as this point that the real energy horror occurs. Once in your car a mere 30% of the fuel’s energy will be used to propel your car and probably a lot less in an elderly BMW engine.

Now let’s look at the electricity cycle! The electrons needed to propel my car first appear from wind turbines, Solar PV or nuclear power plans scattered around OUR country covering about 70% of demand (plus 5% from France!). The electricity so produced is squirted down wires into the National Grid and hence to my home where in goes directly into the car. There will be some transmission losses but minute compared to hauling and refining fossil fuel. The generally accepted that EVs are around 60% efficient at converting the stored electricity into motion. I accept that only about 70% of our electricity in produced by non carbon generation but the majority of the missing 30% is delivered by gas fired plants that are around 64% efficient and use the cleanest of fossil fuels.

So the choice is drive electric that is cleaner, quieter, cheaper and more fun or drive a diesel churning our pollution that reduces the life chances of children and the life span of the elderly while being unpleasant to drive. Not that difficult a choice surely?

[mileshawk56]

This is a question. Will the increasing number of EV's need more Pylons and the other bits and pieces they have and has anyone any knowledge of the increase, if any. Chris S.