Why do you hate the electric car

[V88Dicky]

zeppelin101 said:

calibrax said:

they still use electricity produced from fossil fuels

If a take-up in renewable energy sources is actioned though then this point is invalid.

The interesting thing for EVs is the following:

1) Any complaints regarding where the power comes from can (and will be in time) changed. Currently there is a large fossil fuel dependency because it's dirt cheap.

2) The battery park can be fully upgradeable. There is nothing to stop you buying a car now which is a pure EV, some new battery tech being made available and slotting a new battery pack in exchange for the current one to be recycled.

What's ironic is that the concept is quite wonderful really - immediate torque and the motor will give everything it can generate at any RPM. But the technology which supports it has been completely stagnant for so long. The battery side of things hasn't been especially well thought out in the grand scheme of things and technology is so far behind the vehicle it has to be packaged in it's untrue.

As soon as battery technology actually progresses, I can't see why anyone would have an issue with an EV as far as a car to get around in goes. Range will improve as will the manufacturability (even a word?) of the units in time. Just needs investment.

The ideal situation is that most cars go EV and then performance models could use a synthesised fuel for the "full" motoring experience. Because let's face it, part of the drama with a performance car is the noise. Mind you, in the long long term, thinking on that front will probably change too.

But there will still be those of the "burn it, it's a witch" disposition who probably still have an issue with diesel and describe it as "smelly and unclean" when in fact diesel cars are cleaner emissions-wise than their equivalent petrols at the moment...

When you say 'emissions', do you mean Carbon Dioxide?

Because if you do, that is the elephant in the room.

[odyssey2200]

Happy82 said:

300bhp/ton said:

I don't hate electric cars.

However I do HATE:

-how they are portrayed as being so green when they aren't.
-how they are so fashionable in most US TV shows and with Hollywoods finest as the current must have (hybrids more so than pure EV's).
-how they are portrayed as being "cheap", when most are nothing more than a rich mans toy.
-how they get cheap VED, parking and other perks when most people buying and using them have more than enough money to not need these incentives.
-how EV is touted as the future by prats who forget that many people don't live in a city and do need to do more than 6 miles a day.

Pretty much what I think too.

Agreed.

I hate the way the true believers absolutely know that there will be a revolutionary battery technology really soon yet can't say what or when, but it will definitely happen and then petrol is dead.

[Clark3y]

I'm not against it, if there was a 200+hp rear drive coupe that I could afford, I'd have one. Can't though, so for now will stick to old 3 series and turbo Datsuns.

Electric racing is a bit daft though, nobody is interested in it at all. Bunch of cars going around in peace and quiet is not a spectacle, no atmosphere, no appeal. I suppose if you could beat some combustion engine cars with an EV it might sell some, but that won't happen soon.

[zeppelin101]

V88Dicky said:

When you say 'emissions', do you mean Carbon Dioxide?

Because if you do, that is the elephant in the room.

CO2 not necessarily - but particulates yes.

Currently petrols aren't forced down the GPF route. I think almost every diesel now-a-days has a DPF and soon they will have SCR for NOx as well. With the small chemical factory hiding in the exhaust, there is less st flying out the back of a diesel than there is a petrol.

Example, whenever I see a diesel at work, almost always has shiny clean tail pipes. The petrols are all sooted up to st after a few hundred miles.

[rohrl]

I don't hate them.

They'll get better and lighter as time goes on and technology advances.

[anonymous-user]

V88Dicky said:

zeppelin101 said:

calibrax said:

they still use electricity produced from fossil fuels

If a take-up in renewable energy sources is actioned though then this point is invalid.

The interesting thing for EVs is the following:

1) Any complaints regarding where the power comes from can (and will be in time) changed. Currently there is a large fossil fuel dependency because it's dirt cheap.

2) The battery park can be fully upgradeable. There is nothing to stop you buying a car now which is a pure EV, some new battery tech being made available and slotting a new battery pack in exchange for the current one to be recycled.

What's ironic is that the concept is quite wonderful really - immediate torque and the motor will give everything it can generate at any RPM. But the technology which supports it has been completely stagnant for so long. The battery side of things hasn't been especially well thought out in the grand scheme of things and technology is so far behind the vehicle it has to be packaged in it's untrue.

As soon as battery technology actually progresses, I can't see why anyone would have an issue with an EV as far as a car to get around in goes. Range will improve as will the manufacturability (even a word?) of the units in time. Just needs investment.

The ideal situation is that most cars go EV and then performance models could use a synthesised fuel for the "full" motoring experience. Because let's face it, part of the drama with a performance car is the noise. Mind you, in the long long term, thinking on that front will probably change too.

But there will still be those of the "burn it, it's a witch" disposition who probably still have an issue with diesel and describe it as "smelly and unclean" when in fact diesel cars are cleaner emissions-wise than their equivalent petrols at the moment...

When you say 'emissions', do you mean Carbon Dioxide?

Because if you do, that is the elephant in the room.

Nope, no elephant (well maybe a small one)

EVs use approximately 3x less energy for every mile they use than conventional ICE enigned ones

(ICE, 50litres of gasoline, = 435kWh of energy, do about 500miles, VS EV 35kWh of energy, do about 100miles)

So, yes, even if ALL that energy comes from fossil fuels, we will still be using something like 3x less total energy, and hence 3x total less co2. No, not the "Zero emissions" as if often incorrectly spouted by marketing types, but a lot lot better than ICEs and worthy of a "low emissions" tag i should have thought.

Also, the grid is improving all the time, you might be surprised by how much is renewable already:

Grid Watch

[zeppelin101]

5RedLights said:

Hydrogen cars however are genuinely brilliant and the answer. It's a shame that there isn't a bigger movement behind this, but then given the money already invested in electricity generally as an energy source, hardly surprising.

Hydrogen extraction is horribly inefficient and expensive. The idea is lovely in principle - it's abundant enough. If only it didn't want to bond with all and sundry and be such a pain in the arse to separate it would be perfect.

[JDMDrifter]

Too costly and range Is poor. However as a commuter car they are faultless, id happily have a twizzy for going to the office and back.

[Devil2575]

odyssey2200 said:

Agreed.

I hate the way the true believers absolutely know that there will be a revolutionary battery technology really soon yet can't say what or when, but it will definitely happen and then petrol is dead.

I don't like the use of the term true believers. Do you refer to everyone who buys into a new technology early on as a true believer? or is it just reserved for those who buy into a tech you don't like?

Given enough research I don't doubt that battery technology will improve as time passes. Do you believe that we currently know all there is to ever know about battery technology?

[300bhp/ton]

Devil2575 said:

How do you know it isn't the future?

It might not work for everyone today, but in 10 years time?

10 years is not such a long time tbh.

But it's really rather simple. To charge anything takes time. And you can only charge at 'x' rate. This will never get close to the speed that you can pump fuel at. So refilling an electric car will always be an issue vs any form of IC vehicle.

I'm sure you could adapt some kind of removable battery unit, but this would mean getting all car makers to adhere to the same design. This won't happen, and it would also limit future development and changes and ignore the fact differing vehicles would need different amounts of power and power sources anyhow.

Devil2575 said:

People don't like it because it signifies change. People are very emotionally attached to the internal combustion engine and anything that threatnes it's continued existance is going to meet with opposition.

I imagine the same thing happened when steam locomotives were replaced with Diesels.

http://www.railway-technical.com/st-vs-de.shtml

There are a lot of myths and legends about locomotive power and the comparisons between steam and diesel locomotives, which have led to a lot of misconceptions and arguments. Many of these arguments are based on romantic ideas of the beauty of steam and the perceived characterlessness of diesel locomotives.

Sound familiar?

[Devil2575]

zeppelin101 said:

5RedLights said:

Hydrogen cars however are genuinely brilliant and the answer. It's a shame that there isn't a bigger movement behind this, but then given the money already invested in electricity generally as an energy source, hardly surprising.

Hydrogen extraction is horribly inefficient and expensive. The idea is lovely in principle - it's abundant enough. If only it didn't want to bond with all and sundry and be such a pain in the arse to separate it would be perfect.

Not to mention the fact that hydrogen has a few safety issues. Not only is it flamable but it also has a very low ignition energy and leaks tend to ignite very quickly. It also burns with a clear flame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety

[jet_noise]

Dear MT,

Max_Torque said:

Nope, no elephant (well maybe a small one)

EVs use approximately 3x less energy for every mile they use than conventional ICE enigned ones

<snip>

Source for the 3x?
The first doc I found with a well to wheel comparison suggests ~2.2x chart on page 3 petrol civic vs. Tesla,
And that's before build energy and vehicle life is compared,

regards,
Jet

[Devil2575]

300bhp/ton said:

But it's really rather simple. To charge anything takes time. And you can only charge at 'x' rate. This will never get close to the speed that you can pump fuel at. So refilling an electric car will always be an issue vs any form of IC vehicle.

True, but charging times will come down and it simply requires a degree of planning. Once the benefits of EVs outweigh the negatives, such as recharge time, then it won't be an issue.

[900T-R]

zeppelin101 said:

If a take-up in renewable energy sources is actioned though then this point is invalid.

Simple question:

as we speak, the power grid in The Netherlands is 95,2% dependant on non-renewable energy sources even though 'green' energy has been pushed for at least the past two decades. If anything, we are going the other way as privatised energy companies are buying in electricity from cheap Eastern European coal-fired stations. In fact, two whopping big coal-fired stations are almost ready for operation near my doorstep and when they come online, the CO2 emissions within the Rotterdam region will increase by 30%.

For some reason or another, it seems to be only viable to derive a tiny percentage of our current electricity demand from renewable sources.

How is creating more demand for electricity going to change that situation for the better?

Methinks governments going about this arse about face. Instead of granting big incentives for 'clean' transport (that isn't really clean in the current situation and for the forseeable future, not by a long way) and punishing those of us who use traditional fuels, the carrot and stick method should be used at the energy production side of things.

I've got nothing against electric vehicles. I do have something against silly subsidies and incentives based on the fallacy that electric vehicles have zero CO2 emissions. If you have to levy taxes on CO2 emissions, please do it equally on every energy source that is being used based the overall CO2 emissions per unit for that specific energy source (EV= CO2 emissions per kW from the national electricity grid). This would also give an incentive for energy providers of every kind to clean up their act or else they'll price themselves out of the market.

[Jacobyte]

When car companies can develop suitably comparable range and recharging for the masses, with their own money, then it'll be a winner.

Until that time, it's just an overhyped and overpoliticised government free-for-all that prevents progress in other areas of much more deserving development.

[anonymous-user]

jet_noise said:

Dear MT,

Max_Torque said:

Nope, no elephant (well maybe a small one)

EVs use approximately 3x less energy for every mile they use than conventional ICE enigned ones

<snip>

Source for the 3x?
The first doc I found with a well to wheel comparison suggests ~2.2x chart on page 3 petrol civic vs. Tesla,
And that's before build energy and vehicle life is compared,

regards,
Jet

You'll note the fact i included the word "approximately" before the x3 bit!

The problem is that you cannot directly compare EV efficiency to ICE efficiency because it is highly dependent on the driving cycle over which it is compared! For example at a steady 80mph, an EV is only about 1.5x more efficient (due to lower drag, and less friction), but at a steady 20mph, the EV is over 4x more efficient. Then you get to transient cycles (more like the rear world) where the EV can use regen to capture the KE of the vehicle (which an ICE cannot) and then they can be 10x more efficient!

The 3x figure is a "average" value we generated for a Uk government study that took into account real driving data from both fleet and private vehicles. In this case, the ICE does worse than the EU homologated consumption numbers may suggest because the vast majority of engines are started at way less than the mandated 25degC (not something that makes much difference to the EV)

[anonymous-user]

300bhp/ton said:

And you can only charge at 'x' rate. This will never get close to the speed that you can pump fuel at. So refilling an electric car will always be an issue vs any form of IC vehicle.

But that is only because you are applying your existing knowledge and expectations of IVE engineed vehicles to EV's. You consider ICE refuelling, but really, the only reason it needs to be fast is because you have to go somewhere specific to do it, and you only "refuel" when a light comes on.

EV's aren't really like that. The vast majority of people spend no more than 2hrs a day in their cars, leaving 22 left to recharge it! Because you can install a recharging station at home, you don't wait till it's "empty" to recharge, you just leave it plugged in. Personally, i like to get a good 8hrs sleep every night, plenty of time for my car to top itself up!

Fast charging is only really useful for those unexpected trips or occasions (and these do happen) but the current crop of EVs are starting to offer 30min "fast" charges in emergencies. etc


The issue really is just one of familiarity. We have all spent the last 50 years driving ICE engined cars, and have adapted to them. We will just have to adapt to a slightly different way of thinking that's all!

[Jacobyte]

Genuine question: What will happen when the Lithium runs out, as there's only enough to replace a fraction of the cars on the road today?

http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/Lithium_M...

Or will researchers will keep finding more?

[Mr Will]

Baryonyx said:

Horse Pop said:

I don't hate em on principle.

I haven't liked most of the implementations so far.

This. I'm not against them per se but the products so far haven't been very convincing. I'm waiting for an electric S Class or an electric A8, a really high quality product.

Won't this do?

[Gilhooligan]

I just don't like the way they are marketed as environmentally friendly cars. When the amount of energy and resources consumed to make the batteries (filled with all those rare earth metals) is quite substantial. Aren't we effectively trying to reduce our dependence from one finite resource to another?
The mains electricity used to recharge them probably comes from a coal fired power station too.