RE: Aston boss doubles down on PHEVs amid EV slowdown
Discussion
Nomme de Plum said:
He is best ignored completely. It saves wasting time. Apparently there is a script to blank certain posters but it's just as easy to scroll past.
I suspect he is of mature years(old) and can't come to terms with what the future looks like.
Every time I think you’ve reached peak patronising, you set a new bar. Congratulations. I suspect he is of mature years(old) and can't come to terms with what the future looks like.
GT9 said:
I would have to bow down to Mr Bunny's superior solution if he can do these three things:
1. Present me with say £1T to build and commission the infrastructure required solely for UK cars.
2. Stop time for say 50 years or more to get the job done before 2050.
3. Zero the carbon footprint of man extracting the materials and manufacturing all the wind turbines, electrolysers, carbon capture farms and hydrocarbon synthesis plant.
If he can't do that, then the deal is off.
Not only do we need to 'find' 600 TWh of electricity supply each year, we've got to turn all that that energy into hydrogen or captured CO2 and put it in some fancy blenders.
Did I mention the importance of eliminating waste heat?
You work in the field…amazing you never mention 1. Present me with say £1T to build and commission the infrastructure required solely for UK cars.
2. Stop time for say 50 years or more to get the job done before 2050.
3. Zero the carbon footprint of man extracting the materials and manufacturing all the wind turbines, electrolysers, carbon capture farms and hydrocarbon synthesis plant.
If he can't do that, then the deal is off.
Not only do we need to 'find' 600 TWh of electricity supply each year, we've got to turn all that that energy into hydrogen or captured CO2 and put it in some fancy blenders.
Did I mention the importance of eliminating waste heat?
Why can’t you accept not everyone wants or needs EV?
Clivey said:
How do today's supercar manufacturers differentiate their product in an EV-only future? We are starting to see that the quantity of power and performance on it's own just isn't the answer - especially here in the UK, where you can't even use full throttle on a new hot hatch for more than a few seconds without risking prison time. We're also just beginning to see disillusionment, with reviews and opinions that the new mega-powerful, AWD, computer-guided techfests just leave people cold compared with what came before.
That's certainly where I am with EVs. - The Taycan might look fantastic on a spreadsheet but in the real world, vehicles like it have only served to make massive performance strangely mundane and uninteresting. I just don't want one...but there are thousands of ICE vehicles I'd love to experience for a similar budget.
The sales numbers for cars like the Taycan seem to contradict your assertion of disillusionment with performance EVs. 40,600 new Taycan sold versus 34,000 Panameras.That's certainly where I am with EVs. - The Taycan might look fantastic on a spreadsheet but in the real world, vehicles like it have only served to make massive performance strangely mundane and uninteresting. I just don't want one...but there are thousands of ICE vehicles I'd love to experience for a similar budget.
If you think cars are too powerful why would you be interested in similarly priced ICEs which would also have massive performance. That just seems like prejudice?
I've always been an advocate of advancement so did not eschew all synchro gearboxes, fuel injection in lieu of carbs, ECU in lieu of distributor, anti lock breaks, traction control, turbo or superchargers or anything else that improved bhp per litre. I suspect you embraced all of these.
Yet for some reason the idea of a motive power that gives a power profile much better suited to personal transport you don't like it.
Not all EVs have massive power should those with high kW be too intimidating.
carlo996 said:
GT9 said:
I would have to bow down to Mr Bunny's superior solution if he can do these three things:
1. Present me with say £1T to build and commission the infrastructure required solely for UK cars.
2. Stop time for say 50 years or more to get the job done before 2050.
3. Zero the carbon footprint of man extracting the materials and manufacturing all the wind turbines, electrolysers, carbon capture farms and hydrocarbon synthesis plant.
If he can't do that, then the deal is off.
Not only do we need to 'find' 600 TWh of electricity supply each year, we've got to turn all that that energy into hydrogen or captured CO2 and put it in some fancy blenders.
Did I mention the importance of eliminating waste heat?
You work in the field…amazing you never mention 1. Present me with say £1T to build and commission the infrastructure required solely for UK cars.
2. Stop time for say 50 years or more to get the job done before 2050.
3. Zero the carbon footprint of man extracting the materials and manufacturing all the wind turbines, electrolysers, carbon capture farms and hydrocarbon synthesis plant.
If he can't do that, then the deal is off.
Not only do we need to 'find' 600 TWh of electricity supply each year, we've got to turn all that that energy into hydrogen or captured CO2 and put it in some fancy blenders.
Did I mention the importance of eliminating waste heat?
Why can’t you accept not everyone wants or needs EV?
J4CKO said:
GT9 said:
J4CKO said:
Was on about this one, fair to say Toyota are doing quite a bit of Hydrogen research.
https://newsroom.toyota.eu/toyota-showcases-experi...
I think people take it as that’s the future, not that a massive company are hedging their bets and having a horse in every race ?
Note the blanked-out rear compartment.https://newsroom.toyota.eu/toyota-showcases-experi...
I think people take it as that’s the future, not that a massive company are hedging their bets and having a horse in every race ?
If they want to bring a 2-seater 'weekend' hatchback to the market, good luck to them.
Will there be sufficient hydrogen access to refuel this car in the UK?
My feelings towards these type of cars are driven by expectation management.
And the same people say that EV's wont work as the infrastructure isnt there, and its not yet, but it seems an utterly bizarre thing to ay having just said "Hydrogen is the future".
carlo996 said:
GT9 said:
I would have to bow down to Mr Bunny's superior solution if he can do these three things:
1. Present me with say £1T to build and commission the infrastructure required solely for UK cars.
2. Stop time for say 50 years or more to get the job done before 2050.
3. Zero the carbon footprint of man extracting the materials and manufacturing all the wind turbines, electrolysers, carbon capture farms and hydrocarbon synthesis plant.
If he can't do that, then the deal is off.
Not only do we need to 'find' 600 TWh of electricity supply each year, we've got to turn all that that energy into hydrogen or captured CO2 and put it in some fancy blenders.
Did I mention the importance of eliminating waste heat?
You work in the field…amazing you never mention 1. Present me with say £1T to build and commission the infrastructure required solely for UK cars.
2. Stop time for say 50 years or more to get the job done before 2050.
3. Zero the carbon footprint of man extracting the materials and manufacturing all the wind turbines, electrolysers, carbon capture farms and hydrocarbon synthesis plant.
If he can't do that, then the deal is off.
Not only do we need to 'find' 600 TWh of electricity supply each year, we've got to turn all that that energy into hydrogen or captured CO2 and put it in some fancy blenders.
Did I mention the importance of eliminating waste heat?
Why can’t you accept not everyone wants or needs EV?
GT9 - genuine question.
At the moment, the 300TWh for cars is provided via liquid fuels. To replace that with 100TWh of electric via the grid it'd seem we need to increase our reliable power generation and distribution capacity by a third.
Is this really feasible, even the lower increases needed against the current proposed adoption rates?
Surely we need to be banging out loads of modern nuclear plants, or is it a case of (guessing!) 3x the required capability in solar/wind and a load of storage?
At the moment, the 300TWh for cars is provided via liquid fuels. To replace that with 100TWh of electric via the grid it'd seem we need to increase our reliable power generation and distribution capacity by a third.
Is this really feasible, even the lower increases needed against the current proposed adoption rates?
Surely we need to be banging out loads of modern nuclear plants, or is it a case of (guessing!) 3x the required capability in solar/wind and a load of storage?
All manufacturers should be lobbying their governments to slow down this race to 100% EV's and wait for technology and the infrastructure to catch up to the point where all EV's will be capable of at least 400 miles in all weathers and conditions. All that is happening now is that people are being forced to buy very expensive cars that that are next to worthless the moment the drive off the dealers forecourt because they are out of date and are being superseeded at such a rate.
stickshift said:
All manufacturers should be lobbying their governments to slow down this race to 100% EV's and wait for technology and the infrastructure to catch up to the point where all EV's will be capable of at least 400 miles in all weathers and conditions. All that is happening now is that people are being forced to buy very expensive cars that that are next to worthless the moment the drive off the dealers forecourt because they are out of date and are being superseeded at such a rate.
No one is being forced right now. We are far away from anyone being forced for even a new vehicle. stickshift said:
All manufacturers should be lobbying their governments to slow down this race to 100% EV's and wait for technology and the infrastructure to catch up to the point where all EV's will be capable of at least 400 miles in all weathers and conditions. All that is happening now is that people are being forced to buy very expensive cars that that are next to worthless the moment the drive off the dealers forecourt because they are out of date and are being superseeded at such a rate.
It’s not a bad suggestion, the Mercedes EQS just got facelifted and gets 511 miles combined which I think would probably just about make 400 miles on a freezing motorway journey if it needed to. But that’s an increase of something like 35 miles on the pre-facelifted car… Today the cost per kg of that 118 kWh battery in the Mercedes is about $19000 but the forecast is in for it to reach around half that by 2028 making it at least available for a VW/BMW and around parity with an ICE. Mind you, will it be needed with 20% compound growth in chargers between now and then
Sway said:
GT9 - genuine question.
At the moment, the 300TWh for cars is provided via liquid fuels. To replace that with 100TWh of electric via the grid it'd seem we need to increase our reliable power generation and distribution capacity by a third.
Is this really feasible, even the lower increases needed against the current proposed adoption rates?
Surely we need to be banging out loads of modern nuclear plants, or is it a case of (guessing!) 3x the required capability in solar/wind and a load of storage?
The flowchart for 2050 contains the answer.At the moment, the 300TWh for cars is provided via liquid fuels. To replace that with 100TWh of electric via the grid it'd seem we need to increase our reliable power generation and distribution capacity by a third.
Is this really feasible, even the lower increases needed against the current proposed adoption rates?
Surely we need to be banging out loads of modern nuclear plants, or is it a case of (guessing!) 3x the required capability in solar/wind and a load of storage?
Offshore (and some onshore) wind.
Combined with more modest increases in nuclear and solar.
Not my flowchart of course, but the National Grid's.
The amount of wind power added by 2050 is shown as 500 TWh, about 5 times higher than today.
A monumental undertaking, no doubt.
The good news is we have the seabed depth, coastline length and weather patterns that present a golden opportunity for domestically and renewably sourcing nearly all of our energy needs.
What is important to note is that cars take only 100 TWh of that extra 500 TWh, the rest goes towards decarbonisation of home heating, commercial and industrial users and export.
The high level of export (100 TWh) is because the wind doesn't alway blow so we will need overcapacity to deliver to domestic users.
If cars needed 600 TWh, the plan becomes very much pie-in-the sky and the energy for them would need to be sourced from foreign 'regimes'.
Some would say the plan for 500TWh of extra wind is pie-in-the-sky, we shall see.
The decarbonisation comes from powering the usage phase of the car from wind turbines.
Offshore wind is already delivering about 2 g/km usage-phase footprint, so for an EV solely charged from the wind, the only component of the car's lifetime footprint of any note is that to manufacture the battery.
This 2 g/km includes the extraction of material, the production, commissioning, operation and decommissioning of the turbine for 25 years life.
It's such an incredibly low number, it's scarcely believable, but it's real.
The result of just one large offshore wind turbine powering several thousand extremely energy efficient cars.
Now, if the battery can be manufactured from 95% recycled materials and produced using renewable electricity, its footprint can be brought to a really attractively low number as well.
About half of a battery's footprint is due to the electricity consumed to make it.
At that point an average UK car's lifetime footprint drops from the ICE standard of about 50 tons to 10 tons or under for a 2040 and beyond EV.
Today's EVs are averaging 20-25 tons.
What's the catch?
The worst of it is probably the environmental damage to extract the minerals for first generation batteries before recycling can kick in.
Is that worse than the avoided environmental damage of extracting crude to cover the same mileage.
I honestly don't know for sure, but I suspect there's not a lot in it, particularly as minerals only need to be extracted once and can then be used for a hundred years or more, so the hit is essentially 'one-time'.
AmitG said:
Rotorsforme said:
Jaguar has abandoned any thought of making proper cars, that will not bode well for them.
As someone who has owned at least 3 XJs in the past, I am fascinated to see what happens with Jaguar. They are totally all-in on BEV, they have no plan B as far as I am aware. I believe that new models will be shown this year and go on sale in 2025, and they will all be BEV. The ICE models are already being discontinued (I believe that you cannot order a factory-built XE or XF any more).It's certainly a different strategy to Toyota, who seem to be more pragmatic about the whole thing.
carlo996 said:
Why can’t you accept not everyone wants or needs EV?
I gladly accept that.In fact I posted earlier today to say that petrol has that covered.
I'm vocal about hydrogen and e-fuel specifically because I'd hate to see us throwing the baby out with the bathwater pursuing 'replacements' for petrol that are built on sand.
My posting is entirely driven by a desire to see petrol and interesting petrol cars protected from the threats they face.
EV is not the threat.
Diesel emissions dragging petrol down with it is a threat.
Diesel forcing lower speed limits on petrol cars is a threat.
Insisting people who could happily use an EV should keep buying new mundane diesel or petrol cars is a misguided threat.
EV is the opportunity to diminish all of these threats.
Perspective is a wonderful thing isn't it?
carlo996 said:
Perhaps they want a 'normal' driving experience, not a boring one pedal automatic?
For getting to work, doing the school run, trip to the garden centre? Not likely.If they could afford to buy an EV and the charging set-up available to them works for them, then they would be happy.
Which is what I said.
Insisting that they stick with ICE then forces every subsequent user of that car to stick with fossil fuel for the remainder of the car's life.
The take-up of EV slows, the infrastructure investment then slows because the take-up slows.
Decarbonisation then slows, most likely resulting in all car users being put under more pressure to reduce emissions by lowering speeds and mileage.
Who wins out of that?
As far as I can tell it's only the bloke posting on the internet, livid that he got smoked by a Tesla, and wants payback (not directed at you).
An EV's carbon footprint is almost unaffected by how far or how fast you drive it and once it's done its time it simply gets turned into a new EV with a very modest amount of new minerals and resources required.
You of all people should be able to see the clear benefits that will brings long term.
GT9 said:
For getting to work, doing the school run, trip to the garden centre? Not likely.
Why not, I enjoy driving generally...and after a business trip away with the dull i3 I always enjoy getting back into a normal car.GT9 said:
If they could afford to buy an EV and the charging set-up available to them works for them, then they would be happy.
Which is what I said.
I can afford it, I just don't want it. Do you not think you are heading in Professor Plum territory here....Which is what I said.
GT9 said:
Insisting that they stick with ICE then forces every subsequent user of that car to stick with fossil fuel for the remainder of the car's life.
The take-up of EV slows, the infrastructure investment then slows because the take-up slows.
I have a couple of ancient cars, their impact is negligible, certainly less than anything new...especially EV's which are being traded ASAP for more range etc as they are in the betamax phase. The take-up of EV slows, the infrastructure investment then slows because the take-up slows.
GT9 said:
Decarbonisation then slows, most likely resulting in all car users being put under more pressure to reduce emissions by lowering speeds and mileage.
Who wins out of that?
That's a load of politically driven BS. There are far bigger issues, which nobody cares about in respect to the circular economy. Who wins out of that?
GT9 said:
As far as I can tell it's only the bloke posting on the internet, livid that he got smoked by a Tesla, and wants payback (not directed at you).
If you think a cars enjoyment is based upon drag racing...you are deluded. And I have enver been 'smoked' by a Tesla.GT9 said:
An EVs carbon footprint is almost unaffected by how far or how fast you drive it and once it's done its time it simply gets turned into a new EV with a very modest amount of new rminerals and resources required.
BS. It'll use more rubber, it'll require more energy, and charging. Which in EV fantasy land is all free GT9 said:
You of all people should be able to see the clear benefits that will brings long term.
What I can see is a lot of greenwashing and nonsense from people who are likely in the upper percentile of consumption. desperately projecting their green credentials, whilst ignoring some uncomfortable home truths. I guess you'll still take your transatlantic flights, and banana's in winter.......Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff