RE: £300k all-electric SLS only months away
Discussion
Max_Torque said:
60kWh is a BIG battery! wow. When you consider something like a Ampera/Volt is 16kWh of which 50% is usuable, and that the Volt battery weighs 240kg.
Volt is 192kg.... 290kg for the Leafs 24kWh.I guess this battery also needs to be this large due to power density aswell as energy. I think the Tesla model S 300mile variant is 70kWh!
Fatman2 said:
r11co said:
Cynical move to drastically reduce the average C02 emissions of the range. Not quite as cynical as the Toyota Cygnet, but fiddling the figures nonetheless.
Incidentally, I've heard the argument several times now that we are at the 'Sinclair Spectrum' stage of electric car (and renewable energy) technology, but I'm still not convinced. These moves are driven by politics and not science.....
So do you think that oil will be available forever or is that just scaremongery by the government?Incidentally, I've heard the argument several times now that we are at the 'Sinclair Spectrum' stage of electric car (and renewable energy) technology, but I'm still not convinced. These moves are driven by politics and not science.....
Edited by r11co on Thursday 20th September 20:23
I've read arguments similar to yours every time an article pops up about electric cars but despite the naysaying, no-one ever has any form of suggestion for what the future may bring.
I'm not having a go at you directly but if petrol runs out and electric cars aren't the answer then what is going to be on our roads in 50 years time?
will261058 said:
Probably Hydrogen power which only emits water and we can still have V6,V8,V12 etc. And it wont run out any time soon!
hydrogen's power density is poor, even stored as a liquid.Bio fuels from genetically modified algae grown in bio reactors seems to be promising (and does not have the CO2 releasing problems from the ground of large scale fuel crops).
A bio fuel hybrid running about 30-35% efficiency would get near an electric car without the problems of charging and range.
JonnyVTEC said:
Max_Torque said:
60kWh is a BIG battery! wow. When you consider something like a Ampera/Volt is 16kWh of which 50% is usuable, and that the Volt battery weighs 240kg.
Volt is 192kg.... 290kg for the Leafs 24kWh.Today I met a friends mate Dave Williams who own a milk float. This is a very odd milk float, it looks like a 1980/90's one, but can do the standing 1/4 mile in 12 seconds. It is electric and cost him a lot less than 300K. Range is around 100-120 miles if drive with care. He is looking into fitting a jet power generator to increase its range. Long term is a new body with aerodynamics and a few track days once the suspension, which he is still working on, is improved so it handle with a bit less roll. Felt alright to me as is.
KDIcarmad said:
Today I met a friends mate Dave Williams who own a milk float. This is a very odd milk float, it looks like a 1980/90's one, but can do the standing 1/4 mile in 12 seconds. It is electric and cost him a lot less than 300K. Range is around 100-120 miles if drive with care. He is looking into fitting a jet power generator to increase its range. Long term is a new body with aerodynamics and a few track days once the suspension, which he is still working on, is improved so it handle with a bit less roll. Felt alright to me as is.
So what relevance has this to the electric sls?Max_Torque said:
I think you're right, but in the first world, we simply don't have the room to grow both fuel for our cars and our mouths.............
That's why we grow the biofuel crops in third world countries where no one cares if people starve and land owners don't have problems clearing villages and forests by force. Max_Torque said:
No, i'm afraid it isn't. Have you weighed one? I have. It's 240kg including the latest side impact re-enforcement they were forced to add to prevent cell penetration.
A 50kg plate was added? Yeah ok...... No I haven't. I have access to the a database that has though which I assume is the battery rather than a fully structure which isn't actually related to energy density is it.
Max_Torque said:
Gary C said:
A bio fuel hybrid running about 30-35% efficiency would get near an electric car without the problems of charging and range.
I think you're right, but in the first world, we simply don't have the room to grow both fuel for our cars and our mouths.............I think we are going to have to use much less energy. Nano polymer batteries may improve electric cars but they are likely to remain heavier and slower to charge and with limited life compared to a petrol equivalent.
Climate change may be real, may be fake, maybe natural, maybe man made but petrol/diesel will become too expensive to use as stocks dwindle and alternatives will be needed.
May others live in interesting times, but for now I'm going to enjoy what we have left !
Edited by Gary C on Sunday 23 September 20:59
Gary C said:
Which is why reseach is going into algae, as it should take up less space and only use the sun, water, CO2, & nutrients. However, it remains to be seen. Africa may become the new 'oil sheiks' with land and lots of sun. The affect on geopolitics would be significant.
I suspect thousands of natives will be murdered again. It's the same everytime any substance of value is discovered there.Max_Torque said:
KDIcarmad said:
Today I met a friends mate Dave Williams who own a milk float. This is a very odd milk float, it looks like a 1980/90's one, but can do the standing 1/4 mile in 12 seconds. It is electric and cost him a lot less than 300K. Range is around 100-120 miles if drive with care. He is looking into fitting a jet power generator to increase its range. Long term is a new body with aerodynamics and a few track days once the suspension, which he is still working on, is improved so it handle with a bit less roll. Felt alright to me as is.
So what relevance has this to the electric sls?Herbs said:
Pistonwot said:
Electric cars are comedy politics at their best.
Whoever falls for this prepostorous lie is rediculous and should punch their own face really hard.
Electric cars may come 'of age' 10 or 20 years in the future but not before the technology is actually available and does actually work, until then they are a joke.
I really dont get it but it must be a very funny joke, plenty of clowns are laughing when they really should
Surely you realise that they are in the development phase now rather than a "joke"??Whoever falls for this prepostorous lie is rediculous and should punch their own face really hard.
Electric cars may come 'of age' 10 or 20 years in the future but not before the technology is actually available and does actually work, until then they are a joke.
I really dont get it but it must be a very funny joke, plenty of clowns are laughing when they really should
Look at the early cars and their practicality and MPG compared to day and the same applies to aeroplanes - engineering doesn't just appear out of thin air you know.
I bet you would be one of the people slating the government and car manufacturers if fossil fuels were to ever run out and no development had taken place meaning the world grinding to a halt.....
These are JOKE cars because they do nothing to reduce emissions, they just pass the emissions from the vehicle to the electricity grid where the power comes from.
This is worse.
Nobody wants Nuclear Power Stations on UK soil but thats what we will get due to these abominations.
Our saviour they are not.
The e-car technology needs to catch up to peoples expectations of what they are capable of.
Right now its not a whole lot.
Pistonwot said:
Their purpose is emissions reduction.
These are JOKE cars because they do nothing to reduce emissions, they just pass the emissions from the vehicle to the electricity grid where the power comes from.
This is worse.
Nobody wants Nuclear Power Stations on UK soil but thats what we will get due to these abominations.
Our saviour they are not.
The e-car technology needs to catch up to peoples expectations of what they are capable of.
Right now its not a whole lot.
I want nuclear stations. Our choices are essentially coal and oil (+gas) or nuclear (+gas). Looking long term nuclear makes a lot more sense. How else are we going to generate our electricity? These are JOKE cars because they do nothing to reduce emissions, they just pass the emissions from the vehicle to the electricity grid where the power comes from.
This is worse.
Nobody wants Nuclear Power Stations on UK soil but thats what we will get due to these abominations.
Our saviour they are not.
The e-car technology needs to catch up to peoples expectations of what they are capable of.
Right now its not a whole lot.
I'm not sure why shifting emissions to the power plants is a bad thing. They also do reduce emissions overall - power plants are, in general, more efficient than cars even when charging and transmission losses are accounted for.
hairykrishna said:
Pistonwot said:
Their purpose is emissions reduction.
These are JOKE cars because they do nothing to reduce emissions, they just pass the emissions from the vehicle to the electricity grid where the power comes from.
This is worse.
Nobody wants Nuclear Power Stations on UK soil but thats what we will get due to these abominations.
Our saviour they are not.
The e-car technology needs to catch up to peoples expectations of what they are capable of.
Right now its not a whole lot.
I want nuclear stations. Our choices are essentially coal and oil (+gas) or nuclear (+gas). Looking long term nuclear makes a lot more sense. How else are we going to generate our electricity? These are JOKE cars because they do nothing to reduce emissions, they just pass the emissions from the vehicle to the electricity grid where the power comes from.
This is worse.
Nobody wants Nuclear Power Stations on UK soil but thats what we will get due to these abominations.
Our saviour they are not.
The e-car technology needs to catch up to peoples expectations of what they are capable of.
Right now its not a whole lot.
I'm not sure why shifting emissions to the power plants is a bad thing. They also do reduce emissions overall - power plants are, in general, more efficient than cars even when charging and transmission losses are accounted for.
Fission fusion and fission reactor plants are fairly uncontrolled with these 2 shining examples a testament to this.
So that leaves us coal and oil/gas which pollutes more than cars.
Why no mention of Hydro?
Pistonwot said:
Nuclear Power gives us Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Fission fusion and fission reactor plants are fairly uncontrolled with these 2 shining examples a testament to this.
So that leaves us coal and oil/gas which pollutes more than cars.
Why no mention of Hydro?
Modern coal and oil/gas plants are more efficient than cars, even if you take into account transmission and charging losses. Even old crappy ones beat everything apart from new, very efficient, diesels. Fission fusion and fission reactor plants are fairly uncontrolled with these 2 shining examples a testament to this.
So that leaves us coal and oil/gas which pollutes more than cars.
Why no mention of Hydro?
Hydro's not a solution for the UK. Even optimistic assessments of future suitable sites only project it meeting a few percent of demand. It also has pretty bad environmental impacts and, if I remember correctly, statistically kills more people per kWh than any other generation method. If you're talking about tidal, severn bore etc, then maybe a few 10's of percent from unproven tech. Where's the rest coming from?
I can't even be arsed to have the nuclear debate. If you base your assessment of the viability and safety of modern plants in the UK on Chernobyl and Fukushima then you're an idiot.
Pistonwot said:
Nuclear Power gives us Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Fission fusion and fission reactor plants are fairly uncontrolled with these 2 shining examples a testament to this.
So that leaves us coal and oil/gas which pollutes more than cars.
Why no mention of Hydro?
All it took at Fukushima was a tsunami, how many of those happen in UK. Chernobyl was people braking the rules, they were try to find out how long it took for the reactor to go critical. Not long! By the way why did to leave out Three Mile Island! This but for the curtailment wall this would be as big as the other two. Still to dangerous to enter, people are in both the Chernobyl and Fukushima reactors buildings. Do you know how many reactor there are in the UK, 16 operational nuclear reactors at nine plants and have this every gone bang like Chernobyl! A reactor can not turn in a nuclear bomb, it was water pressure at Chernobyl that blasted out of the building, sending out gases and reactor rods. Fission fusion and fission reactor plants are fairly uncontrolled with these 2 shining examples a testament to this.
So that leaves us coal and oil/gas which pollutes more than cars.
Why no mention of Hydro?
As to fusion we do have any work fusion reactors. A few test reactor none of which have had any accidents. These are a long way from a working power station. Most only running for a few minutes. It is claimed that these will be safer. I understand these will not create the waste of fission and may use sea water as fuel.
Which is more likely to kill you a car or a nuclear reactor!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff