Why do you hate the electric car

[aka_kerrly]

Gilhooligan said:

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.

I'm inclined to agree. I don't have a specific issue with the concept of EV but I have issues with the typical pro EV campaigner who waffles about the environment and thinks all the magical electric required to power these cars is captured out of thin air!

Plus 300BHP point about American celebs using them as a publicity tool pisses me off no end.

[anonymous-user]

Gilhooligan said:

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.

Again, no more substantial than the vast number of complex and heavily engineered parts than make up a current petrol or diesel car!

Here's a picture of a auto box:


or an engine:




Not exactly simple and "low cost". In fact the only reason you can afford to buy one is because we make so many of them!


here's an electric traction motor by way of comparison:


Ok, it ain't total childs play, but compared to an ICE is very easy to engineer and make!

[aka_kerrly]

Max_Torque said:

here's an electric traction motor by way of comparison:


Ok, it ain't total childs play, but compared to an ICE is very easy to engineer and make!

So in theory engine conversions in the future could be a lot easier and presumably there won't be too many different ways of making a motor so even ones from various manufactures could be utilised?

[odyssey2200]

Devil2575 said:

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?

There are a number of posters on here that seem to actually hate the ICE to the point of an almost religious blind faith in the EV .

I am sure that technology will improve but may never improve to the point where an EV can offer the levels of convenience and range that the ICE can.

Batteries have been around for years but technology hasn't improved that much.

Also there seems to be the belief that the imminent leap in technology will be restricted to EVs and dismiss the equal possibilities of advances in ICE or Hydrogen production.

[900T-R]

Max_Torque said:

Again, no more substantial than the vast number of complex and heavily engineered parts than make up a current petrol or diesel car!

What part of 'rare earth materials' you don't understand?

[Snowboy]

JDMDrifter said:

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.

Mr too.
Except, they are relatively expensive to buy.
The battery lease is £50 a month.

If it's just a short commute then it's cheaper to but a little fiat 500 (or a very old ka) and put in £30 fuel a month.

The problem for me is that they are being advertised as great things, but in reality the technology isn't mature enough yet.

[98elise]

5RedLights said:

I dislike them because it's all a fallacy that they're environmentally friendly.

They're not, the exhaust pipe is just a somewhere else, i.e. a power station. The car is still run by the combustion of non-renewable, CO2 producing fuel. Electricity generally, (and I may be wrong here) isn't a high yield energy source, as so much potential energy is lost in production and prior to use.

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.

I am genuinely baffled by answers like this. None of it makes any sense to an Engineer, or even someone with the slightest grasp of physics, you we still get the same old bks spouted.

It takes as much power to produce a gallon of petrol, than an EV will use to move 30 miles, and the ICE still needs to burn the petrol (at 30% efficiency).

Electrical energy is very efficient to produce and distribute vs an ICE. Power stations are 60-70% efficiency, ICE's are 30% on a good day (driving like a granny).

Hydrogen is simply an energy store (like a battery), but its comically inefficient to crack hydrogen.Its like a very very inefficient battery. It will also need an entirely new infrastructure for storage whereas we already have an electrical energy infrastructure with enough capacity. Current battery tech is suitable for just about any average driver.

[AnotherClarkey]

900T-R said:

Max_Torque said:

Again, no more substantial than the vast number of complex and heavily engineered parts than make up a current petrol or diesel car!

What part of 'rare earth materials' you don't understand?

You do realise that they aren't particularly rare?

[300bhp/ton]

Max_Torque said:

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.

I may be using existing knowledge, but to be fair that is the current limitation of the technology and nobody can foresee when there will be an unknown breakthrough.

Personally I'm all for electric power and in things like RC planes and cars it's certainly the way to go and far superior to the IC ones IMO.

But for personal transport I think it is different. We don't always have time to plan ahead and it's just far too easy for things to happen that mean you are reactive (going and filling up when the light comes on) rather than proactive. IC engines give you both options, EV's don't.

Max_Torque said:

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.

If you note, this was one of my points in my earlier post (although not the part about calling you an idiot).

But the thing is, some people do spend more than 2 hours a day driving. Hence why I hate the blanket view it's such a good idea for everyone.

And critically and most importantly - NOT everyone can have a recharging station at home. Lots and lots and lots of people don't have off street parking. Which makes this completely unviable. And many people live in flats or park in areas that simply are either unsuitable or far too costly to install enough public charging points.

Max_Torque said:

Personally, i like to get a good 8hrs sleep every night, plenty of time for my car to top itself up!

And what if your car is parked 50 yards down the road? And chances are you won't be able to park in the same place tomorrow?

Max_Torque said:

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

Umm 30 min for how much juice though? I can fast charge lead acid 12v batteries, but 30 mins of charge time really isn't a lot of amps. Same is true with my LiPo, LiFePO4 and Li-ion ICR and IMR cells.

And while I'm sure range will continue to increase on EV's, although part of this is just bigger capacity batteries, which will then need a longer charge time... But unexpected things can happen a lot, be it an emergency (someone hospitalised/in an accident but you can't go to them as the car still needs another 4 hours of charge first). Or something simple like forgetting to get some bread, but the car is flat and by the time it's charged the shops will be shut.

Max_Torque said:

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!

Adapting is fine, so long as it isn't a backwards step. Start removing and reducing ability and function, and it's then a no brainier that it likely isn't the solution, just a compromise.

[spikey78]

With the exception of one like the Tesla, they just look terrible! I saw an i3 earlier-it just looks like a proper spaz wagon-bit like a G-wazz.. Anyone who gets in one instantly looks like a fanny, and probably wafts their own guff up their noses approvingly (anyone seen that episode of South Park about the hybrid cars?!)
Oh and they're just not viable compared to a proper car (at the moment anyway)

[Dave Hedgehog]

I am very happy with petrol engines
Engine sound is at least 50% of my decision process when I buy a car
EVs sound utterly crap
EV cars are not needed
EV cars at best will only delay the inevitable
EV cars have terrible range, and your up the creek if you get stuck in traffic for 2-3 hours at night in the snow in an EV car

[Major Fallout]

Easy one for me.

I hate electric cars because I own a petrol station.

[5RedLights]

Devil2575 said:

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

This is why I'm not in the automotive or energy business. Alot of my things would blow up.

[okie592]

Still. At least the leaf helps Nissan raise the money to shave Another 0.01 second off the gtr 0-60 time

[anonymous-user]

900T-R said:

Max_Torque said:

Again, no more substantial than the vast number of complex and heavily engineered parts than make up a current petrol or diesel car!

What part of 'rare earth materials' you don't understand?

You use the word "rare" but it isn't really correct imo. if it were truely rare it would be expensive, like say Gold. Yet i can go to a shop (ok, a chinese shop) and buy a lithium battery cell for less than a £1.

Batteries are also fundamentally "solid state" and simple in terms of architecture. Unlike say my auto gearbox example above, they don't take the raw material and require multiple "machining & finishing operations" to make the parts (try and knock together an typical Gear profile on a hard steel blank for example). So, yes, they use a material that is ultimately finite (although it's fairly easily recyclable too) but the finished product is simple and mass producable (hint, how many batteries are made for mobile phones each year( 1.81 billion phones sold last year apparently)!).


The best current estimator of the environmental impact of any given product is its price. There is a direct link between the cost of something and the amount of Co2 generated (and the work required to make it). Most current studies of EV suggest that, as volumes increase, the BOM for one will fall to between 50 and 65% of a conventional ICE vehicle. As such, they will generate a similar amount less CO2 in their construction.

[s1962a]

Just over 5k happy miles on my Nissan Leaf since I got it earlier this year. Is it all going to go terribly wrong?

What if I need to go to Birmingham one day in a hurry to visit relatives I don't have???

[5RedLights]

Fair play to some well informed posts on here, such as Max Torque. I'd say they've genuinely swayed me about my thoughts on EV and make alot of sense.

[zeppelin101]

odyssey2200 said:

Batteries have been around for years but technology hasn't improved that much.

Also there seems to be the belief that the imminent leap in technology will be restricted to EVs and dismiss the equal possibilities of advances in ICE or Hydrogen production.

What has been the impetus to improve battery technology? Items like laptops and phones have reduced their power consumption significantly so current battery tech has been fine. It's an expensive field to invest in.

There needs to be a driver for improvement in any field, especially where energy is concerned.

There is still life in combustion engines yet, there are plenty of technologies on the horizon which will yield further improvements in efficiency but we're not really talking about colossal numbers here. The drive to reduce engine emissions by governments worldwide inevitably leads to one place - get rid of the thing that chucks the emissions out. Even if what's coming out the exhaust is cleaner than what's going into the engine now.

I can't see a strong future for hydrogen. Not to the same extent as a pure EV anyway. As has been mentioned, it requires a fairly considerably infrastructure change and the processes aren't likely to improve that much to make it worthwhile. The amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen is pretty ridiculous to boot. It's probably more efficient to just use that energy to charge some EVs and use them.

It's comical how much this polarises views. Why does it have to so strongly for/against? I'd prefer it if ICE's kept going. Keeps me in a job for starters. But by the same token, it doesn't mean I can't see reasons for EVs to exist and how they can be beneficial.

Actually, it's probably more likely that clever hybrids will be the immediate future. Engine can provide propulsion and run as a generator. Smaller battery pack, range is still dictated by fuel usage and less so battery size and overall powertrain efficiency improves massively.

Edited by zeppelin101 on Thursday 12th December 15:57

[300bhp/ton]

s1962a said:

Just over 5k happy miles on my Nissan Leaf since I got it earlier this year. Is it all going to go terribly wrong?

What if I need to go to Birmingham one day in a hurry to visit relatives I don't have???

Mind if I ask some questions?


1. Was it a private purchase?
2. What was the driving factor(s) in opting for an EV?
3. How far to drive most days?
4. Do you have off road/private parking?
5. I know winter hasn't got going yet, but how does power consumption vary on say a hot sunny day with the windows open vs minus figures, with frost, in the dark (use of headlights) and use of wipers (foggy/sleet) and use of the heater?

[budgie smuggler]

odyssey2200 said:

Batteries have been around for years but technology hasn't improved that much.

Yes it has, massively so. Compare NIMH W/KG, charge efficiency and expected cycles to LIPO for example. Li Air should give good gains again.