RE: DiCaprio's Formula E team
Discussion
Just a reply from a newbie here, ignoring all the facts/opinions about battery life, environmental friendliness etc..... when they race the things, will there be marshalls' on each corner ready and waiting to pick them up and put them back in the slot to continue racing? Or am I missing something here??? 
oyster said:
Can you provide some evidence of poor EV residuals along with the sample size? Because I don't believe you.
And can you confirm your opinion of what a 3 year old i3 will be worth? (just to come back here and see if you're right in 3 years time). After all, if you're confident of your opinion then you'll be able to do this.
A 3 year old i3 will have completely sAnd can you confirm your opinion of what a 3 year old i3 will be worth? (just to come back here and see if you're right in 3 years time). After all, if you're confident of your opinion then you'll be able to do this.
t batteries and they are SO toxic you will have to pay a million pounds to recycle itBut i'll give you £500 for it
"The future of our planet depends on our ability to embrace fuel-efficient, clean-energy vehicles," said the Titanic star.
Hmm. Whilst this statement is debatable in the first place, even if true, EVs are not really the answer. Let's try some joined-up thinking, that gets beyond the fallacy that EVs are "zero-emissions".
Let us first assume we live in a wonderful world where EVs have a sensible range, cost no more than a Fiord Fiesta, and can be charged from 0 Volts to full charge in a couple/three minutes (oh and have sufficient cargo capacity to transport that lovely unicorn that lives in your garden).
In such a world, there will be millions, nay hundreds of millions of such vehicles on the planet. And every single one of them will need energy from somewhere. Unless we can find electricity fairies, bustling around lifting up electrons to give them potential, at the bottom of our garden, we will have to generate that somehow. That will means lots more electrical generating capacity, and I do mean LOTS. I will leave others to do the sums (hi Elon - if it works for you it works for me), but that's a shedload of investment in infrastructure, which I do not suppose the likes of Tesla and Fisker will be contributing towards.
Ok, so imagine we have as a society somehow found enough cash to build all this additional generating capacity. Some of it will be green - wind, waves, etc, (each of which has environmental impacts, some of which we do not fully understand yet) but the likelihood is that most of it will be very non-green - fossil fuels, hydropower (ask a flooded biosphere how they feel about hydropower), or nuclear fission. We take all this energy, which we have generated at some finite, less-than-one, efficiency, and transmit and distribute it to the users - this is all done at some finite, less-than-one efficiency. Then we have to put that electricity into our vehicle, again at a finite, less-than-one efficiency. Lastly it is used in the vehicle, again at a finite, less-than-one efficiency. Again, like Elon, I will leave others to do the sums, however our total energy efficiency is not going to be great. And we still have a whole load of environmental issues to deal with, from the place where all the electricity got generated. (Note that this is unlikely to be Hollywood - unless we can collect all the hot air generated by celebs who think they understand this stuff.)
This is not to suggest that we can go on using fossil fuels to power our transportation indefinitely - we need solutions. But the EV is a poor solution that merely displaces the issues from the point of use to somewhere else, and, due to the lengthy supply chain, sheds efficiency in the process. You could I suppose promote distributed generation (e.g. everyone has their own electric generator at home) - but this option has a whole load of other issues that would need solving (e.g. how many people would be willing to have a diesel generator in their backyard, or a large wind turbine, or a small fission reactor?), even if we return to our first assumption that somehow EVs have been developed and engineered to become a viable mass private transportation solution.
As a stopgap solution while we try to make fuel-cells viable or while we try to make a viable fusion reactor EVs might have some value. But a solution that saves the planet? Puh-leeease!
Hmm. Whilst this statement is debatable in the first place, even if true, EVs are not really the answer. Let's try some joined-up thinking, that gets beyond the fallacy that EVs are "zero-emissions".
Let us first assume we live in a wonderful world where EVs have a sensible range, cost no more than a Fiord Fiesta, and can be charged from 0 Volts to full charge in a couple/three minutes (oh and have sufficient cargo capacity to transport that lovely unicorn that lives in your garden).
In such a world, there will be millions, nay hundreds of millions of such vehicles on the planet. And every single one of them will need energy from somewhere. Unless we can find electricity fairies, bustling around lifting up electrons to give them potential, at the bottom of our garden, we will have to generate that somehow. That will means lots more electrical generating capacity, and I do mean LOTS. I will leave others to do the sums (hi Elon - if it works for you it works for me), but that's a shedload of investment in infrastructure, which I do not suppose the likes of Tesla and Fisker will be contributing towards.
Ok, so imagine we have as a society somehow found enough cash to build all this additional generating capacity. Some of it will be green - wind, waves, etc, (each of which has environmental impacts, some of which we do not fully understand yet) but the likelihood is that most of it will be very non-green - fossil fuels, hydropower (ask a flooded biosphere how they feel about hydropower), or nuclear fission. We take all this energy, which we have generated at some finite, less-than-one, efficiency, and transmit and distribute it to the users - this is all done at some finite, less-than-one efficiency. Then we have to put that electricity into our vehicle, again at a finite, less-than-one efficiency. Lastly it is used in the vehicle, again at a finite, less-than-one efficiency. Again, like Elon, I will leave others to do the sums, however our total energy efficiency is not going to be great. And we still have a whole load of environmental issues to deal with, from the place where all the electricity got generated. (Note that this is unlikely to be Hollywood - unless we can collect all the hot air generated by celebs who think they understand this stuff.)
This is not to suggest that we can go on using fossil fuels to power our transportation indefinitely - we need solutions. But the EV is a poor solution that merely displaces the issues from the point of use to somewhere else, and, due to the lengthy supply chain, sheds efficiency in the process. You could I suppose promote distributed generation (e.g. everyone has their own electric generator at home) - but this option has a whole load of other issues that would need solving (e.g. how many people would be willing to have a diesel generator in their backyard, or a large wind turbine, or a small fission reactor?), even if we return to our first assumption that somehow EVs have been developed and engineered to become a viable mass private transportation solution.
As a stopgap solution while we try to make fuel-cells viable or while we try to make a viable fusion reactor EVs might have some value. But a solution that saves the planet? Puh-leeease!
98elise said:
The tesla model s already has a real world 250 mile range, and a the ability to hot swap batteries in less time than you can fuel a car. In addition a fast charge is about 45 minutes. 250 miles is 4-5 hours of driving, so personally I'd welcome a 45 minute break.
And the UK Tesla S 85kWh model costs: £62,300. Mass market penetration assured. 
How many UK Tesla fast charging and battery swop stations exist?
You could also tow another 600 Kg of batteries behind a Renault ZOE on a trailer and get a similar 250 mile range. A tad expensive and logistically limiting in a lifestyle sort of way.
Just something to add to the mix.
1) The UK isn't the world.
2) Other countries have different habits and different energy generation abilities.
A direct example, New Zealand often runs an energy surplus with zero nuclear power. Of course, a lot of hydro and geothermal potential, but goes to show how the solution could come from elsewhere.
I could easily see power lines from Iceland (Geothermal) and Finland (Hydro) to supply the UK - let's face it, they can run gas and oil lines across entire countries and underwater so *shrug* why not?
1) The UK isn't the world.
2) Other countries have different habits and different energy generation abilities.
A direct example, New Zealand often runs an energy surplus with zero nuclear power. Of course, a lot of hydro and geothermal potential, but goes to show how the solution could come from elsewhere.
I could easily see power lines from Iceland (Geothermal) and Finland (Hydro) to supply the UK - let's face it, they can run gas and oil lines across entire countries and underwater so *shrug* why not?
Plenty of capacity in the UK grid overnight:
National Grid Monitor
Note the 20GW dip for just over 6 hrs overnight. That's 120GWHr, or about 4million EV's worth of 30kWhr EV's being charged fully over just that period!
Considering that the average uk daily commute will nowhere near flatten even a current "Limited range" EV, there's probably something like 10M EV's that can be charged every night without currently even affecting the national grid at all (in fact, it will make it more efficient because less "Load leveling" will have to occur.........
National Grid Monitor
Note the 20GW dip for just over 6 hrs overnight. That's 120GWHr, or about 4million EV's worth of 30kWhr EV's being charged fully over just that period!
Considering that the average uk daily commute will nowhere near flatten even a current "Limited range" EV, there's probably something like 10M EV's that can be charged every night without currently even affecting the national grid at all (in fact, it will make it more efficient because less "Load leveling" will have to occur.........
oyster said:
Technomatt said:
RemarkLima said:
Technomatt said:
Just look at the latest EV, the BMW i3 with it’s built in £10,000 battery change cost at the 8 year point. EVs with that built in short life expectancy and yet the unquestioning techno converts still just lap it up.
I rarely see a car older than 8 years old these days... *shrug*Edited by RemarkLima on Tuesday 10th December 10:32
An 8 year battery life kiss of death for an EV. The dismal residuals are there for a reason.
Still a disbeliever? Pop yourself onto AutoTrader and see what a used Twizzy, Leaf or Fluence actually sell for.
Still not happy, how about a link to an authoritative (ie non-Daily Mail
) journalistic source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/green-motoring...Wow this is what we need. If there's one thing I'd love it's motorsport to be completely silent. Then it would be just like watching real scalextric cars through my glowing magic window box. Yes that would be lovely. Electric is the future of racing? Meh. So much PR/greenwashing, so little actual interest. Drop in the ocean anyway motorsport, next thing you know Nasa will be developing a spacecraft that they can like, recycle or something and that can, you know, glide down to earth using no fuel. LOL. Oh wait I think they did that.
Sampaio said:
Leggy said:
The sooner they hurry up and perfect EV will mean more petrol for the rest us!
That's why I'm not at all against EV cars. The idea of people who don't care about cars driving around in their petrol-powered Yaris makes me a bit frustrated. Whenever anything new comes along that isn't a confirmation of the old ways, the naysayers come out. We all know that oil burning cars are on the way out: I know it, and everybody here knows it. I am racing a petrol burner because I can. So what? It does not make me a hypocrite because I support new ways of trying to preserve the planet. It is certainly worth trying, isn't it?
Or should we stick our collective heads in the (tar) sand and just commit suicide? Because that is what doing nothing is.
Or should we stick our collective heads in the (tar) sand and just commit suicide? Because that is what doing nothing is.
Back on a racing theme, this electric car Formula E racing venture looks like it has that failed A1 GP type feel about it.
Kicking off in Sept 14 to supposedly fill the gaps in the winter F1 calendar and going for city circuits, it looks like another over ambitious venture with cars that just look just like any sub F1, GP2 type offerings.
The only interest factor is the technology going on under the surface and if the interest level in solely electric powered propulsion mirrors the minimal public interest in electric road cars, the inevitable demise is already decided. F1 already has a sop towards ecological sustainability with KERS.
Kicking off in Sept 14 to supposedly fill the gaps in the winter F1 calendar and going for city circuits, it looks like another over ambitious venture with cars that just look just like any sub F1, GP2 type offerings.
The only interest factor is the technology going on under the surface and if the interest level in solely electric powered propulsion mirrors the minimal public interest in electric road cars, the inevitable demise is already decided. F1 already has a sop towards ecological sustainability with KERS.
canucklehead said:
"The future of our planet depends on our ability to embrace fuel-efficient, clean-energy vehicles," said the Titanic star.
Hmm. Whilst this statement is debatable in the first place, even if true, EVs are not really the answer. Let's try some joined-up thinking, that gets beyond the fallacy that EVs are "zero-emissions".
Let us first assume we live in a wonderful world where EVs have a sensible range, cost no more than a Fiord Fiesta, and can be charged from 0 Volts to full charge in a couple/three minutes (oh and have sufficient cargo capacity to transport that lovely unicorn that lives in your garden).
In such a world, there will be millions, nay hundreds of millions of such vehicles on the planet. And every single one of them will need energy from somewhere. Unless we can find electricity fairies, bustling around lifting up electrons to give them potential, at the bottom of our garden, we will have to generate that somehow. That will means lots more electrical generating capacity, and I do mean LOTS. I will leave others to do the sums (hi Elon - if it works for you it works for me), but that's a shedload of investment in infrastructure, which I do not suppose the likes of Tesla and Fisker will be contributing towards.
Ok, so imagine we have as a society somehow found enough cash to build all this additional generating capacity. Some of it will be green - wind, waves, etc, (each of which has environmental impacts, some of which we do not fully understand yet) but the likelihood is that most of it will be very non-green - fossil fuels, hydropower (ask a flooded biosphere how they feel about hydropower), or nuclear fission. We take all this energy, which we have generated at some finite, less-than-one, efficiency, and transmit and distribute it to the users - this is all done at some finite, less-than-one efficiency. Then we have to put that electricity into our vehicle, again at a finite, less-than-one efficiency. Lastly it is used in the vehicle, again at a finite, less-than-one efficiency. Again, like Elon, I will leave others to do the sums, however our total energy efficiency is not going to be great. And we still have a whole load of environmental issues to deal with, from the place where all the electricity got generated. (Note that this is unlikely to be Hollywood - unless we can collect all the hot air generated by celebs who think they understand this stuff.)
This is not to suggest that we can go on using fossil fuels to power our transportation indefinitely - we need solutions. But the EV is a poor solution that merely displaces the issues from the point of use to somewhere else, and, due to the lengthy supply chain, sheds efficiency in the process. You could I suppose promote distributed generation (e.g. everyone has their own electric generator at home) - but this option has a whole load of other issues that would need solving (e.g. how many people would be willing to have a diesel generator in their backyard, or a large wind turbine, or a small fission reactor?), even if we return to our first assumption that somehow EVs have been developed and engineered to become a viable mass private transportation solution.
As a stopgap solution while we try to make fuel-cells viable or while we try to make a viable fusion reactor EVs might have some value. But a solution that saves the planet? Puh-leeease!
I sense the sarcasm. I see no reason why we won't continue using fossil fuels for decades. The only reason fuel is expensive here is taxation and therefore the only reason the electric car is viable is taxation. Taxation encourages us to use fossil fuels in the most efficient way though when I look at other countries with cheap fuel or building coal fired power stations I sometimes think why do we bother?!Hmm. Whilst this statement is debatable in the first place, even if true, EVs are not really the answer. Let's try some joined-up thinking, that gets beyond the fallacy that EVs are "zero-emissions".
Let us first assume we live in a wonderful world where EVs have a sensible range, cost no more than a Fiord Fiesta, and can be charged from 0 Volts to full charge in a couple/three minutes (oh and have sufficient cargo capacity to transport that lovely unicorn that lives in your garden).
In such a world, there will be millions, nay hundreds of millions of such vehicles on the planet. And every single one of them will need energy from somewhere. Unless we can find electricity fairies, bustling around lifting up electrons to give them potential, at the bottom of our garden, we will have to generate that somehow. That will means lots more electrical generating capacity, and I do mean LOTS. I will leave others to do the sums (hi Elon - if it works for you it works for me), but that's a shedload of investment in infrastructure, which I do not suppose the likes of Tesla and Fisker will be contributing towards.
Ok, so imagine we have as a society somehow found enough cash to build all this additional generating capacity. Some of it will be green - wind, waves, etc, (each of which has environmental impacts, some of which we do not fully understand yet) but the likelihood is that most of it will be very non-green - fossil fuels, hydropower (ask a flooded biosphere how they feel about hydropower), or nuclear fission. We take all this energy, which we have generated at some finite, less-than-one, efficiency, and transmit and distribute it to the users - this is all done at some finite, less-than-one efficiency. Then we have to put that electricity into our vehicle, again at a finite, less-than-one efficiency. Lastly it is used in the vehicle, again at a finite, less-than-one efficiency. Again, like Elon, I will leave others to do the sums, however our total energy efficiency is not going to be great. And we still have a whole load of environmental issues to deal with, from the place where all the electricity got generated. (Note that this is unlikely to be Hollywood - unless we can collect all the hot air generated by celebs who think they understand this stuff.)
This is not to suggest that we can go on using fossil fuels to power our transportation indefinitely - we need solutions. But the EV is a poor solution that merely displaces the issues from the point of use to somewhere else, and, due to the lengthy supply chain, sheds efficiency in the process. You could I suppose promote distributed generation (e.g. everyone has their own electric generator at home) - but this option has a whole load of other issues that would need solving (e.g. how many people would be willing to have a diesel generator in their backyard, or a large wind turbine, or a small fission reactor?), even if we return to our first assumption that somehow EVs have been developed and engineered to become a viable mass private transportation solution.
As a stopgap solution while we try to make fuel-cells viable or while we try to make a viable fusion reactor EVs might have some value. But a solution that saves the planet? Puh-leeease!
As you said electricity generation won't be zero emissions until nuclear fusion works or renewables are cost effective and though fission is available now there will be a long transition period from coal/gas as it's still more expensive. It's pointless pretending anything else will work now unless it's PR/greenwashing.
There are other environmental problems that are important the rainforests will will be gone in my lifetime and all the massive container ships still go round the globe on the dirtiest oil they can use. Also disposing of waste that doesn't bio-degrade and producing enough cheap basic foodstuffs for those in less developed countries. Nuclear annihilation seems to have calmed down since a lot since the end of the cold war thankfully.
I'm a glass half full kinda guy. ayseven said:
Whenever anything new comes along that isn't a confirmation of the old ways, the naysayers come out. We all know that oil burning cars are on the way out: I know it, and everybody here knows it. I am racing a petrol burner because I can. So what? It does not make me a hypocrite because I support new ways of trying to preserve the planet. It is certainly worth trying, isn't it?
Or should we stick our collective heads in the (tar) sand and just commit suicide? Because that is what doing nothing is.
My comment was a bit tongue in cheek as I love new tech. Would have one those new BMW i3 if I commuted short distances and didn't do 25k a year on motorways. I'm trying to persuade the wife though.Or should we stick our collective heads in the (tar) sand and just commit suicide? Because that is what doing nothing is.
Technomatt said:
Back on a racing theme, this electric car Formula E racing venture looks like it has that failed A1 GP type feel about it.
Kicking off in Sept 14 to supposedly fill the gaps in the winter F1 calendar and going for city circuits, it looks like another over ambitious venture with cars that just look just like any sub F1, GP2 type offerings.
The only interest factor is the technology going on under the surface and if the interest level in solely electric powered propulsion mirrors the minimal public interest in electric road cars, the inevitable demise is already decided. F1 already has a sop towards ecological sustainability with KERS.
I bet you're a barrel of laughs at parties........... Kicking off in Sept 14 to supposedly fill the gaps in the winter F1 calendar and going for city circuits, it looks like another over ambitious venture with cars that just look just like any sub F1, GP2 type offerings.
The only interest factor is the technology going on under the surface and if the interest level in solely electric powered propulsion mirrors the minimal public interest in electric road cars, the inevitable demise is already decided. F1 already has a sop towards ecological sustainability with KERS.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff