Organisations unable to ever fully adopt electric vehicles
Discussion
I think both the emergency services and armed forces will be fully electric at least within the next 100 years, probably sooner.
Electric propulsion is currently being used in both already.
It will very soon be much easier to generate and store electricity via renewables than extract, refine and store crude oil.
Electric propulsion is currently being used in both already.
It will very soon be much easier to generate and store electricity via renewables than extract, refine and store crude oil.
Dingu said:
DonkeyApple said:
There's enough oil and sunlight for everyone living today so whether one runs out in 100 or 4bn years is moot. .
Only if we decide we don’t care about future generations. Sadly the impression I get from 90% of people here is that is absolutely true and they couldn’t care less if the world is in a much worse state when they are gone than when they were born. As long as their car goes vroom vroom. Even the people who claim to be being environmental are just using it to facilitate their ghastly shopping associations and hideously destructive lifestyles.
I'd wager the most ardent EV and eco enthusiast on PH resides in a shrine to Chinese tat they have no need of and live with a pile of debt due to their rapacious consumption.
And nor in the tiny U.K. switching its 40m cars at a rate of a few hundred thousand a year going to have any global impact.
Anyway, the entire global economic superstructure is constructed on oil and regardless of whether we switch to EVs the world will still be burning oil and we'll still be dumping all our old tat in third world landfills.
It's just the reality. Along with the baffling confusion of old men shouting about EVs being forced on them when no one has to buy one, there are barely any in the U.K. and they will all be dead decades before ICE cars become unusable.
Cold said:
A 65 tonne Challenger 3 prototype heading back to the factory to be retrofitted with a 6 tonne battery pack for less range, tomorrow.
Er, i'm actually working on electric traction projects for the defence industry, because they do have some advantages, from much lower thermal and audible noise signatures, being agnostic to the source of the 'lecy used to charge them, reducing logistics chains, masively improving the servicability of front line vehicles, reduced flamibility due to not having to carry hundreds of litres of highly flamable liquid fuels, being more maneouverable and faster, and potentially allowing one basic EV "chassis" to be used across a wide range of configerable utility and fighting bodies. And you have to remember, the push in the industry is for increase and potential total autonomy so as to minimise our casualties in any future battle (the political stomach for dead UK solders is very small these days), and a EV powertrain is much easier to integrate in this respect, and allows many more packaging benefits, and reduced armour, meaning an MTB may not need to be a 60 tonne leviathan for much longer.....DickyC said:
The proposition is about fully adopting electric vehicles as the UK government seems to want.
what? The Goverment have introduced a requirement for commerically sold small road vehicles to not use just an ICE engine after 2030. This is very sensible, as the majority private car and small van users could quite easily transition to a BEV, as part of their normal vehicle lifecycle. ie simply buy their new car/van as an EV when they were going to change anyway.The .gov have no requirement for everysingle vehicle to be an EV, and of course it won't be. BUT, imo, in as little as 3 years time, no one will be buying a pure ICE, unless they have a very niche use (ie ultra high performance supercars may stay ICE powered for a while yet, for example)
Cold said:
A 65 tonne Challenger 3 prototype heading back to the factory to be retrofitted with a 6 tonne battery pack for less range, tomorrow.
CR3 is fundamentally a turret upgrade...But the next generation MBT will be capable of limited electric running, it's inevitable. Modern AFV use large battery sets anyway, primarily to run the electronic equipment, as they're largely working to reduce their reliance on APU for silent-watch activities, and thus reduce their signatures.
Similarly, there are huge advantages in electric drivetrains (even if using an ICE to generate the electricity) in both simplicity and efficiency. That reduces maintenance demands and logistics burden.
But things move slowly in (British, and mostly global) AFV development. Fully digital Fighting Vehicle platforms have literally only entered service this decade.
DonkeyApple said:
The military aspect of trying to be low CO2 when killing people is an interesting one. To ensure you are as efficient as you can be at the killing or to minimise the chance of being killed, the equipment mustn't ever be hindered by energy supply issues. Running a tank on batteries won't happen for a very long time because of you have to ship diesel to the front line to run the generators to recharge the tank you'd actually be one of the biggest f
ktards of all time not to realise that you could just skip the generator step and pour the diesel into the tank and get back to killing as efficiently as possible.
Eliminating the logistic chain for fuel is one of the military imperatives behind finding ways to keep the army moving. In 2009 it was costing the Pentagon an average of $400/gallon to deliver fuel to Forwards Operating Bases in Afghanistan, not to mention lives lost protecting fuel convoys.ktards of all time not to realise that you could just skip the generator step and pour the diesel into the tank and get back to killing as efficiently as possible. Hence a lot of military research into self-sustaining FOBs - from portable solar panels and wind turbines right up to mini nuclear reactors and space-based solar power beamed to the ground.
Max_Torque said:
Er, i'm actually working on electric traction projects for the defence industry, because they do have some advantages, from much lower thermal and audible noise signatures, being agnostic to the source of the 'lecy used to charge them, reducing logistics chains, masively improving the servicability of front line vehicles, reduced flamibility due to not having to carry hundreds of litres of highly flamable liquid fuels, being more maneouverable and faster, and potentially allowing one basic EV "chassis" to be used across a wide range of configerable utility and fighting bodies. And you have to remember, the push in the industry is for increase and potential total autonomy so as to minimise our casualties in any future battle (the political stomach for dead UK solders is very small these days), and a EV powertrain is much easier to integrate in this respect, and allows many more packaging benefits, and reduced armour, meaning an MTB may not need to be a 60 tonne leviathan for much longer.....
Indeed. The Army already testing hybrid electric drive armoured vehicles and logistics vehicles. Silent mobility, more performance, "tank turns" and built in generator displacing to transport separate diesel generators to power command posts, field hospitals and other power needs.
Max_Torque said:
Er, i'm actually working on electric traction projects for the defence industry, because they do have some advantages, from much lower thermal and audible noise signatures, being agnostic to the source of the 'lecy used to charge them, reducing logistics chains, masively improving the servicability of front line vehicles, reduced flamibility due to not having to carry hundreds of litres of highly flamable liquid fuels, being more maneouverable and faster, and potentially allowing one basic EV "chassis" to be used across a wide range of configerable utility and fighting bodies. And you have to remember, the push in the industry is for increase and potential total autonomy so as to minimise our casualties in any future battle (the political stomach for dead UK solders is very small these days), and a EV powertrain is much easier to integrate in this respect, and allows many more packaging benefits, and reduced armour, meaning an MTB may not need to be a 60 tonne leviathan for much longer.....
Agnostic? The fight with autocorrect continues.
DickyC said:
Max_Torque said:
Er, i'm actually working on electric traction projects for the defence industry, because they do have some advantages, from much lower thermal and audible noise signatures, being agnostic to the source of the 'lecy used to charge them, reducing logistics chains, masively improving the servicability of front line vehicles, reduced flamibility due to not having to carry hundreds of litres of highly flamable liquid fuels, being more maneouverable and faster, and potentially allowing one basic EV "chassis" to be used across a wide range of configerable utility and fighting bodies. And you have to remember, the push in the industry is for increase and potential total autonomy so as to minimise our casualties in any future battle (the political stomach for dead UK solders is very small these days), and a EV powertrain is much easier to integrate in this respect, and allows many more packaging benefits, and reduced armour, meaning an MTB may not need to be a 60 tonne leviathan for much longer.....
Agnostic? The fight with autocorrect continues.
“not preferring a particular device or system —usually used after a noun”.
E.g. they can hook it up to solar, wind, nuclear, petrol, diesel etc generators.
Hill92 said:
DonkeyApple said:
The military aspect of trying to be low CO2 when killing people is an interesting one. To ensure you are as efficient as you can be at the killing or to minimise the chance of being killed, the equipment mustn't ever be hindered by energy supply issues. Running a tank on batteries won't happen for a very long time because of you have to ship diesel to the front line to run the generators to recharge the tank you'd actually be one of the biggest fktards of all time not to realise that you could just skip the generator step and pour the diesel into the tank and get back to killing as efficiently as possible.
Eliminating the logistic chain for fuel is one of the military imperatives behind finding ways to keep the army moving. In 2009 it was costing the Pentagon an average of $400/gallon to deliver fuel to Forwards Operating Bases in Afghanistan, not to mention lives lost protecting fuel convoys.ktards of all time not to realise that you could just skip the generator step and pour the diesel into the tank and get back to killing as efficiently as possible. Hence a lot of military research into self-sustaining FOBs - from portable solar panels and wind turbines right up to mini nuclear reactors and space-based solar power beamed to the ground.
Max_Torque said:
Er, i'm actually working on electric traction projects for the defence industry, because they do have some advantages, from much lower thermal and audible noise signatures, being agnostic to the source of the 'lecy used to charge them, reducing logistics chains, masively improving the servicability of front line vehicles, reduced flamibility due to not having to carry hundreds of litres of highly flamable liquid fuels, being more maneouverable and faster, and potentially allowing one basic EV "chassis" to be used across a wide range of configerable utility and fighting bodies. And you have to remember, the push in the industry is for increase and potential total autonomy so as to minimise our casualties in any future battle (the political stomach for dead UK solders is very small these days), and a EV powertrain is much easier to integrate in this respect, and allows many more packaging benefits, and reduced armour, meaning an MTB may not need to be a 60 tonne leviathan for much longer.....
Indeed. The Army already testing hybrid electric drive armoured vehicles and logistics vehicles. Silent mobility, more performance, "tank turns" and built in generator displacing to transport separate diesel generators to power command posts, field hospitals and other power needs.
No military in existence has ever lasted long without focussing on ensuring its baggage train is as efficient as it can be, or more succinctly, better than the oppositions.
Wellington has an inferior general, with an inferior army and having to operate far away from home. He only succeeded due to accidentally having a far more efficient and manoeuvrable drivetrain. The fuel supply battles within WWII also serve as obvious reminders.
Every general knows that if the enemy can refuel more efficiently, or operate with less fuel then they have an often unassailable advantage. As such, it would be inconceivable that alternative drive trains and alternative uses for diesel were not being explored. What it doesn't mean is that they will ever be adopted where they don't transpire to offer clear logistical or tactical advantage over the perceived current and future enemy. Nor does it mean that if a new system is adopted that it has anything at all to do with being eco.
It's going to be a bold or stupid military that adopts ev early. You're advertising to the enemy that your vehicles will be heavier, with reduced range, that your supply chain will be compromised by needing to haul heavier equipment with much less energy dense fuel.
It's basically giving yourself a giant handicap going into a fight.
I would bet good money that the people actually fighting wars want none of this but are having it forced upon them by politicians who will never have to face the consequences of their actions, certainly not at the sharp end.
It's basically giving yourself a giant handicap going into a fight.
I would bet good money that the people actually fighting wars want none of this but are having it forced upon them by politicians who will never have to face the consequences of their actions, certainly not at the sharp end.
Maracus said:
Max_Torque said:
What is it about anti-electric car idiots? Why do they feel so threatened that they have to make up utterly stupid and patently false "reasons" why BEVs won't work?
Pistonheads needs a new section for this 
M_T, myself and several others have been working in this field for decades. We have literally spent a lifetime investigating all the avenues, trying all the ideas, doing endless calculations, trade studies, analyses, validation tests, you name it, to all pretty much arrive at the same conclusion as almost every other engineer/manager/technical authority in this field.
That conclusion can be summarised fairly easily. Energy efficiency is king, the rest is just noise.
It is human nature for a certain % to continually question the consensus, either due to lack of knowledge & ability, or because that's just your personality type. For some, no amount of new information or reasoned argument will change their entrenched position. They will only accept information, fact or fiction, it doesn't matter, that backs up that entrenched position. Confirmation bias 101. I think this is nature's subtle way of making you go back and triple-check your work, just to be more than 100% sure you are on the right track.
Yeah, it's bloody annoying, but less so if you see at as a natural checks & balances process.
shouldbworking said:
It's going to be a bold or stupid military that adopts ev early. You're advertising to the enemy that your vehicles will be heavier, with reduced range, that your supply chain will be compromised by needing to haul heavier equipment with much less energy dense fuel.
It's basically giving yourself a giant handicap going into a fight.
I would bet good money that the people actually fighting wars want none of this but are having it forced upon them by politicians who will never have to face the consequences of their actions, certainly not at the sharp end.
There's going to be equipment that will operate better on batteries than ICE though. That stuff will get changed over. A first world military must also prepare for the inevitable energy storage breakthrough that will suddenly render much of the vital ICE kit obsolete overnight so they must be involved in R&D of the next generations of equipment. It's basically giving yourself a giant handicap going into a fight.
I would bet good money that the people actually fighting wars want none of this but are having it forced upon them by politicians who will never have to face the consequences of their actions, certainly not at the sharp end.
You can look back quite clearly and see the logistical advantage of switching aircraft carriers away from burning oil and reverting to being steam powered. Most drones currently use a 2 cylinder petrol engine because of the superior energy density of petrol but it seems obvious that the moment batteries are capable of storing efficient levels of energy for their mass then that sort of equipment will move quickly away from ICE.
I'd wager that light weight military vehicles are approaching a cusp where EV advantages over ICE are starting to appear. There are probably already arguments for quicker accelerating, more manoeuvrable and better offroad, as well as quieter equipment in some areas.
I suspect that electric motors will appear in first world militaries more and more as their usable advantages grow. It won't be a case of being driven by the consumer eco t
ttery of the retail market. You're not going to be getting many sane military leaders demanding that being kind to the environment and running good marketing PR takes prece sent over being able to win a fight any more than they currently demand the uniforms be made by Armani because it's important to look fabulous when running across open ground hoping to kill someone before they kill you. GT9 said:
I look that at this phenomenon in a different light.
M_T, myself and several others have been working in this field for decades. We have literally spent a lifetime investigating all the avenues, trying all the ideas, doing endless calculations, trade studies, analyses, validation tests, you name it, to all pretty much arrive at the same conclusion as almost every other engineer/manager/technical authority in this field.
That conclusion can be summarised fairly easily. Energy efficiency is king, the rest is just noise.
It is human nature for a certain % to continually question the consensus, either due to lack of knowledge & ability, or because that's just your personality type. For some, no amount of new information or reasoned argument will change their entrenched position. They will only accept information, fact or fiction, it doesn't matter, that backs up that entrenched position. Confirmation bias 101. I think this is nature's subtle way of making you go back and triple-check your work, just to be more than 100% sure you are on the right track.
Yeah, it's bloody annoying, but less so if you see at as a natural checks & balances process.
No one here has said they are anti electric vehicles. M_T, myself and several others have been working in this field for decades. We have literally spent a lifetime investigating all the avenues, trying all the ideas, doing endless calculations, trade studies, analyses, validation tests, you name it, to all pretty much arrive at the same conclusion as almost every other engineer/manager/technical authority in this field.
That conclusion can be summarised fairly easily. Energy efficiency is king, the rest is just noise.
It is human nature for a certain % to continually question the consensus, either due to lack of knowledge & ability, or because that's just your personality type. For some, no amount of new information or reasoned argument will change their entrenched position. They will only accept information, fact or fiction, it doesn't matter, that backs up that entrenched position. Confirmation bias 101. I think this is nature's subtle way of making you go back and triple-check your work, just to be more than 100% sure you are on the right track.
Yeah, it's bloody annoying, but less so if you see at as a natural checks & balances process.
The proposition is that some organisations will be unable to fully adopt electric vehicles. It's nothing to do with energy efficiency, it's to do with situations where an electric vehicle is impractical. For those situations, however scarce, the military and the emergency services, for example, will have a Plan B which requires internal combustion engines. There will be circumstances, I'm fairly certain, where horses are used in preference to motor vehicles because even a Land Rover isn't appropriate. Putting all your eggs in one basket, burning your bridges or drilling holes in the boats after you've invaded isn't wise.
DickyC said:
No one here has said they are anti electric vehicles.
The proposition is that some organisations will be unable to fully adopt electric vehicles. It's nothing to do with energy efficiency, it's to do with situations where an electric vehicle is impractical. For those situations, however scarce, the military and the emergency services, for example, will have a Plan B which requires internal combustion engines. There will be circumstances, I'm fairly certain, where horses are used in preference to motor vehicles because even a Land Rover isn't appropriate. Putting all your eggs in one basket, burning your bridges or drilling holes in the boats after you've invaded isn't wise.
But you did seem to be suggesting that they were being forced to go EV. The proposition is that some organisations will be unable to fully adopt electric vehicles. It's nothing to do with energy efficiency, it's to do with situations where an electric vehicle is impractical. For those situations, however scarce, the military and the emergency services, for example, will have a Plan B which requires internal combustion engines. There will be circumstances, I'm fairly certain, where horses are used in preference to motor vehicles because even a Land Rover isn't appropriate. Putting all your eggs in one basket, burning your bridges or drilling holes in the boats after you've invaded isn't wise.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff