Another thing about electric cars

All this begs the question of why first the train and then the motor car became popular.

Simply because they delivered more, for less effort. You can ride dobbin cross country, but in terms of communications it was better to ride him on a road, and as for goods transport, carts need roads. So roads already existed.

Train tracks did not, but the huge speed and power advantage of a steam engine over dobbin - either pulling a cart or pulling a barge - meant there was a massive commercial pressure to build them. And, once built, people wanted to travel in them. It was easier and quicker than a stage coach.

I was there in the post war years when cars went from being an expensive luxury for rich people, to being the means by which everyone travelled simply because they were reliable, within budget and way faster than any public transport, because they ran when *you* were ready, not to a schedule, and they ran door to door, not station or stop to station or stop.

It is not for no reason that 'car culture' is lionized in popular music of the American 50s and European 60s...

"Oh Lord, won't you buy me, a Mercedes Benz..."

The drive to BEVS is being driven not by popular choice but by gross market distortion and a faux moral imperative. Nice though some of the aspects are, the batteries are simply not good enough for all but niche applications.

A one thousand mile battery would solve all the issues. People do not drive 1000 miles with no break for sleep and recharge, and even truck drivers are only allowed what - 9 hours per day? 56 hours per week...or

90 hours per fortnight.

At 90km/h - around 55 mph, so at best they can manage 3,000 miles in a week, at a duty cycle of 33%. with a worst case ten hour stint twice a week., So they are limited *by law* to 550 mile stints. With 14 hours to sleep between them. Given suitable charging at truck stops 1000 miles of battery would be fine for them, as well.

I think the longest stints I ever did in one go was 900 miles at an average of 60mph. With a ferry crossing in the middle. Peak speeds in excess of 130mph.

1000 miles would suit that especially with a rapid recharge on the ferry

So, it is easy to see that if sensibly priced BEV technology with 1000 mile range existed, there would be queues in the showrooms. Even 600 miles would be enough for most people. The fact is that is simply not there, and BEV sales are driven by legislation, not be being a more attractive solution, except to the intra urban middle class, with garages in which to charge a second car that never goes further than the local school or supermarket.

As for issues of heating and cooling, 5kW is enough for any sane location and with a 50kwH battery that's only a 10% range reduction, less with bigger batteries, and almost meaningless with a 1000 mile battery. Everything about electric cars is fine and dandy,and vastly superior to a fuel car, except the sodding batteries.

And they are tantalisingly close, but in reality we need the capacity per unit weight up by a factor of at least three while the costs come down that much...and I simply dint see the potential to achieve that with existing technologies.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
Loading thread data ...

I think that would never happen. If you look at where those cars get driven, apart from the school run, almost all of them end up in public car parks at the supermarket, or in a town centre for visits to the shops. Those are ideal locations for charging stations.

I really dont think charging is ultimately a barrier to BEVs - it's a matter of money only, and already batteries that can fully recharge in under ten minutes, given a big enough current, are feasible., What is unacceptable is having only a 210 mile range and the need to go miles out of your way - increasing journey lengths and times - to find a charge station.

And what is even more unacceptable is having their use legislated by diktat from Princess NutNuts and her ilk.

Looking at the use of current cars what is needed is >600 mile range, - which implies something like a 250kWh battery - so that charging overnight during the week, at home, or even at a local supermarket or charge station within reasonable walking distance, nets you a once a week long trip to see granny etc. without need to 'refuel'

The problem is that currently that would weigh and cost more than the rest of the car put together by a considerable margin.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

You missed the intermediate step of canals - which meant the skillbase for laying railway lines was already easily available.

Reply to
Jethro_uk

The Natural Philosopher snipped-for-privacy@invalid.invalid wrote: [snip]

You're not comparing the same thing!

5kW *for an hour* is 10% of 50kwH. So even for the range of existing electric cars, say 250 miles, 5kW for the whole 250 miles at an average of 50mph is 5 x 5 kwH, i.e. 25kwH, 50% of your battery capacity.
Reply to
Chris Green

You've hit the nail on the head: the range needs to be sufficient for the most driving that one can legally/practicably do in a day, on the assumption that you will "always" be able to find somewhere to refuel during planned down-time (eg overnight).

I don't think I've ever had to refuel during a day's journey, *as long as I've started with a full tank of fuel*. There may be good reasons why I haven't done started with a full tank, especially if I know that somewhere along my journey I will be driving through an area where fuel is significantly cheaper than at the start of my journey. But I know with a diesel car that wherever I choose to refuel, I can do so in a couple of minutes.

Even if I'm touring around during a day, I may only stop only long enough to go to the loo, have lunch, visit a park for a walk etc - none of those stops are anywhere near long enough to recharge an electric car significantly.

We have got used to being able to refuel quickly. That is the more significant advantage of fossil fuel cars over electric than the increased range - the knowledge that wherever and whenever we refuel (how ever frequent or infrequent that may be) we will not be kept waiting many hours while it happens, requiring us to plan to do something during that time. To remove that advantage is to "progress backwards", and no amount of "it is good for the environment" will make up for that.

By 2030, will we have the generating capacity to supply the extra energy that electric cars will use - and to do so in several peaks during the day (when everyone gets home in the evening, when everyone gets to work in the morning)? Most house supplies can probably cope with the increased current - even with a car charger, a cooker, a tumble drier and an electric fire, you're probably within the 60 A (or 80 A) limit of the "company fuse". But add together all the extra power from all the houses, and you may start to overload HV distribution lines or generating capacity. OK, car charging can be staggered so some cars charge as soon as they are plugged in and some charge as late as they can manage while still being complete by the time you set off. But the longer the range, the longer the charging time and so the less leeway there will be to stagger the charging.

Reply to
NY

Funny, I was going to make that point too. But railways (as it happened) followed hot on the heels of canals, so canals tend to be the forgotten solution. A railway line (certainly of the time) was a lot easier to put in than a canal.

Reply to
Tim Streater

??????

I thought it was the reverse. To lay a railway line you need embankments much wider than a canal ????

Reply to
Jethro_uk

Canals carried on being useful until the big freeze of 1947

Reply to
charles

Well the post ended up long enough already. And canals were dobbin powered anyway.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

I am not sure on that point. Both had to adhere to contours or remove a huge amount of material or build fantastic bridges...ultimately the canal was a bit wider, but the train track itself had to be laid, but that was really the easiest part of the job.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

One !!. Princess Nut Nuts

But split into two factions. The ERG group and the rest.

Reply to
Andrew

The rear hubs on a Volvo V50 are the same as a Ford Focus. Theye are even stamped FoMoCo. One of the engines fitted to a mini was the same as one used in the Pug 208, but if you try and buy engine parts from a Pug dealer they won't supply.

Reply to
Andrew

Still wool (and merths) ?

Reply to
Andrew

Does it have its own separate tank though ?.

The VW411 fastback had a petrol-powered aux heater. They caused some interesting moments.

Reply to
Andrew

Indeterminate. Consider the salient issues

1/. Will we have an economy able to sustain multi billion year on year investment in infrastructure? If the answer is windmills, we most certainly will not have... 2/. If the answer is nuclear power, once again will we have the cash to invest in that AND a massive grid upgrade? 3/. If we are overwhelmed by fast breeder immigrants, would they even care enough to let it happen?

The conservative approach is to let things develop naturally adding in capacity as it becomes needed without second guessing where it will all end up, but with contingency plans to deal with reasonable possible variations.

The current total energy consumption of the nation equates to around

300GW. Now that doesn't directly equate to electrical needs since e.g. a BEV is 90% efficient whereas a diesel today is at best 40%, and electric cars can have regen braking to further improve MpKwh.

Obviously if you are generating electricity from carbon based fuel at

55% efficiency then its not much less carbon emitting...but if we shift to nuclear power where efficiency is not a huge issue, due to the cheap cost of uranium, then we can say that in terms of transport we will need perhaps half the energy in kwh as in the fuel we put in the tanks.

So perhaps the lower limit on grid uplift is only 150GW - which is when closure of coal is considered something like a 3:1 increase in the grid capacity.

The last time I looked at government policy, it was something like 75GW nuclear and 75GW of windmills and solar panels. I don't think that is enough and mixing windmills with nukes is pointless anyway.

So it all depends how much longer the renewable fraud continues.

And if that goes down die to force majeure pist COVID, then its reasonable to suppose that so to will legislated for BEVs.

I hope, with a little confidence, that in fact COVID 19 and Brexit will break the spine of the post consumer cabal that seeks to impose totalitarianism by stealth, getting us to sign away freedoms for fear of whatever it is they have dreamed up this time.

A rational policy would be to clear the way for massive nuclear expansion by rewriting the rules needed to deploy it, defund 'renewables' and allow fracking.

BEVS would then penetrate the market as when when users found them a better choice than fuel cars.,

Most house supplies can probably cope with the

Or 100A..

Of course. We know this. We are not art students. But in fact a longer range helps. recharging can be scheduled into when its convenient, not when the damned thing is totally flat.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Twin-engined piston-powered aircraft often have heaters that use avgas (petrol with the more volatile fractions removed and more lead than usual added). The procedures on how to use them need to be carefully followed!

Reply to
nothanks

Err, why? Do you currently park in the middle of a field? Can you only use your mobile phone in your own house?

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News

but they don't need to be as level - or watertight.

Reply to
charles

Why? Do you always make sure your fuel tank is full before every journey?

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News

They managed perfectly well to put parking metres in every bay when it suited. They dig up the roads to run fibre in as and when needed. Etc.

How much do you think it would cost to equip every house with a charging point outside it in the road - done all at the same time? As opposed to the costs of changing every car in the street for an EV?

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.