"Electric car range anxiety to be cured by battery that charges in five minutes"

May 19, 2021 Last reply: 5 years ago 213 Replies

I would love an electric car that had the range and performance and capital cost of what I have now, but it doesn't exist.

If it did I would have bought it already.

Oddly enough, the reason I bought what I did, was to meet my personal requirements for transport. Not to save the planet, or virtue signal my Greenness (and wet-behind-the-ears-ness)

Its all very well to say 'hire a fuel car for a long trip' but that's a hassle. And as one gets older, increasingly difficult.

The fact remains that whilst many of the ducks are in the row for electric, not all are, and not all look like they ever *can* be, let alone *will* be.

As with nuclear fusion, in principle its simple. Just create a small sun in a bottle. Just develop a cheap lightweight high capacity electrical energy store out of common materials.

If we had been able to do that - and batteries preceded internal combustion engines - we would never have developed those IC engines in the first place.

Everything about electric cars is right - except for the batteries. Too expensive, too heavy, too material intensive, and made out of scarce materials at that.

What we need is 'cold fission' so we can stick a lump of plutonium in a car and make it produce 150,000 miles of electricity...

I would say that is more likely than BEVS, in future

I am saying all this because *most* of the reasons that people object to BEVs are in fact perfectly soluble technically and at reasonable price. There is no problem ultimately building enough nuclear plant and a big enough grid to provide perfectly safe rapid charging points at every motorway stop and supermarket. Nor the batteries capable of being charged that fast, technically.

But there is probably not enough lithium in the world to do it. And anyway lithium is simply too heavy, and its the lightest battery there is.

I'd suggest you try an IC engined car equipped with a decent modern auto. ;-)

presumably they'd like some space on-deck for vehicles, rather than just a ferry full of generators and diesel tanks?

In message snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)" snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk> writes

If so, this will be yet another example of how we're progressing back to the days of travel by stagecoach.

Can't really see any other way. With diesel etc you pay more tax the more you drive. And it's not really possible to tax electricity used in EVs separately.

or a very small nuclear reactor

I plan to. It?s not an argument against EVs though. Indeed it?s an argument to get one sooner rather than later.

Tim

It will come; where smart meters will charge accordingly.

Again, your astonishing lack of logic and distortion of the facts astounds me.

Bill

But they'll bring in road charging and it will have to raise as much as fuel duty. And since energy derived from electricity is more expensive that energy derived from petrol (both before taxes) we will be worse off.

It isn't going to last.

Stress free for you maybe...

Bill

Do you do it deliberately? This non sequitur thing that you do? It's weird.

Let's look at this. You say, "I'm very sure you think religion will save the planet Bill."

  1. what do you know about my personal beliefs? Answer: nothing
  2. Just for the record, am I in fact religious? Answer: no.
  3. Do I in fact think religion will save the planet? No, because I don't believe in any religion and I don't think the planet needs saving.

You see, what you say, apart from not being a logical argument against what I said, has no basis in fact. It's just meaningless waffle, like an orphaned fart drifting around a school hall.

Bill

Can't they peg it in one go?

Bill

I'm surprised you object so much to my thinking you religious, since you were very quick to apply a religious belief to me. And that you jump to defend the practices of religion, regardless of the problems it may cause others.

I'm quite sure the planet will survive. Life as we know it, a different matter.

Pretty well like your last paragraph, then.

Personally, I doubt it. A mileage charge will be much easier to implement.

Tim

They can build bridges aircraft medical equipment cars railways power stations steel mills etc et.

No they count beans.

In article snipped-for-privacy@news.individual.net>, Tim+ snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com writes

Diesel and petrol cost is mostly tax.

Well you and I are subsidising the Scots anyway, so it's your money.

That is a valid argument. Use pricing to deter those with ICE cars from going into town and city centres.

The electric motor is much more suited for automotive use than the ICE.

Horses for courses. I'm against compulsory halting of production of ICE cars.

They're too expensive.

I am absolutely fine with per mile payment - as long as it is flat rate (not penalising people from needing to travel at peak times or on congested roads), is revenue neutral (no taking the opportunity to hike up motoring taxes), done by tamperproof odometer (no tracking of where, when, how fast, etc. you drive) and is not used to penalise existing petrol and diesel vehicles by by charging it on top of fuel duty.

A work colleague did ask if we had a bulk buy deal with a florist.

I think you're being very optimistic. A long while ago it was said that motor revenue was equivalent to Income Tax. Why do you think all the cash will go to providing road maintenance and nothing else?

I'm sure there will be more congestion charges too, since its revenue goes to the local council and not the Treasury.

Why do you think there won't be lots of ANPR cameras dotted around the country to confirm your distance travelled.

Of course, if you've got nothing to hide there's nothing to worry about!

Tamper proof odometer? I'll just fit bigger wheels/tyres!

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required