No ICE from 2040?!?
Discussion
DoubleTime said:
Max_Torque said:
I've got more than a funny feeling, in fact i'm both quite sure of it and i'd stake my reputation on it, that the precise opposite is going to happen!
Hybrids are a stop gap. they are expensive to develop, are insanely complex (having all the bits of an ICE and an EV) and in the real world, only offer minor improvements in energy consumption (compared to a pure EV).
As soon as the cost of pure EVs falls (next generation will be the cross over point) people will be test driving those in the dealers, and so far, ime, no one who's driven the EV version of a car prefers the hybrid version (in mainstream passenger cars, rather than some low volume hyper performance car).
People will learn to put aside their range anxiety, will become used to perhaps hiring a longer range car the few times a year they need to do long journeys. IME, it takes less than a month of driving an EV to make just about any ICE car feel like yesterdays technology. (In the same way that in less than 5 years, it went from no one to having a smart phone to EVERYONE having one........)
Let's meet back in 5 years and compare notes?Hybrids are a stop gap. they are expensive to develop, are insanely complex (having all the bits of an ICE and an EV) and in the real world, only offer minor improvements in energy consumption (compared to a pure EV).
As soon as the cost of pure EVs falls (next generation will be the cross over point) people will be test driving those in the dealers, and so far, ime, no one who's driven the EV version of a car prefers the hybrid version (in mainstream passenger cars, rather than some low volume hyper performance car).
People will learn to put aside their range anxiety, will become used to perhaps hiring a longer range car the few times a year they need to do long journeys. IME, it takes less than a month of driving an EV to make just about any ICE car feel like yesterdays technology. (In the same way that in less than 5 years, it went from no one to having a smart phone to EVERYONE having one........)
sorry, I missed the part where you compared smart phones to electric vehicles. Did you really just do that? I mean, seriously? It's as simple as that is it?
Edited by DoubleTime on Thursday 27th July 19:26
Evanivitch said:
kambites said:
That does depend on the city. Southampton has shocking air quality and that's largely not because of the cars.
It was a broad statement. Any idea why Southampton doesn't offer shoreside power to ships?Max_Torque said:
I do have a slight advantage over you, because i already know what we'll be driving in 5years, because i'm working on it right now....... ;-)
Are EVs with ICE range extenders (i.e. just to charge the batteries, not connect to the drivetrain) ever going to be a phase? It seemed to me it would be a logical step until battery tech hits the next level.skylarking808 said:
I was of the understanding that peak use we had to get electric from abroad, although maybe wrong. Do we still have to import raw materials for power stations to use?
I suppose I am trying to highlight whether the UK owns the electric companies who seem to charge us customers an increasing amount for this..
Yep the pollution is focused on the inner cities, but the main routes seem to have lorries day and night using ICE tech. Seems daft not to have a fully thought out transport plan rather than just focus on cars/vans.
We don't import electricity so much because we need it, but because it's cheaper. France has huge nuclear production and Norway and Netherlands have large wind production that they can't throttle, so they sell cheap. We also sell back to the French and Irish.I suppose I am trying to highlight whether the UK owns the electric companies who seem to charge us customers an increasing amount for this..
Yep the pollution is focused on the inner cities, but the main routes seem to have lorries day and night using ICE tech. Seems daft not to have a fully thought out transport plan rather than just focus on cars/vans.
Yes we import lots of oil, coal, gas and biomass.
Yep this isn't the answer to everything. And it's not a great plan from the government. But it's something, I believe, in the right direction.
J4CKO said:
It is better all round if polluting IC engined cars go, just because a small band of car enthusiasts grew up with and have an affinity for them doesnt mean they should stay, much as we love them they are dirty, smelly, noisy and inefficient compared to an electric motor,
Is that really the true picture though? The whole, complete energy usage (both during manufacture and usage) need to be measured. What of the nasty chemicals in the batteries? The safety hazard of high energy batteries causing fires in an accident (or will they simply not occur if autonomous?).There is also the situation that we are using too much electricity, and (certainly in UK) a large deficit is envisaged - Do we cook our dinner tonight or drive the car tomorrow?
Fastpedeller said:
Is that really the true picture though? The whole, complete energy usage (both during manufacture and usage) need to be measured. What of the nasty chemicals in the batteries? The safety hazard of high energy batteries causing fires in an accident (or will they simply not occur if autonomous?).
There is also the situation that we are using too much electricity, and (certainly in UK) a large deficit is envisaged - Do we cook our dinner tonight or drive the car tomorrow?
I guarantee a litre of petrol is worse than a lithium cell.There is also the situation that we are using too much electricity, and (certainly in UK) a large deficit is envisaged - Do we cook our dinner tonight or drive the car tomorrow?
The chemicals in batteries are also in the production of cars.
Unless you cook dinner between midnight and 6am, why are you making the choice? It doesn't take all night to charge a car and it certainly doesn't need to start when you get home.
braddo said:
Max_Torque said:
I do have a slight advantage over you, because i already know what we'll be driving in 5years, because i'm working on it right now....... ;-)
Are EVs with ICE range extenders (i.e. just to charge the batteries, not connect to the drivetrain) ever going to be a phase? It seemed to me it would be a logical step until battery tech hits the next level.Max_Torque said:
As mentioned, series architectures (where the ICE is not mechanically connected to the drive wheels) are currently being used in various cars. They all suffer from the same issue though, which is overall efficiency is poor, because a mechanical shaft is still easily the lowest loss way for transfering mechanical power. Take the i3 with the range extender, which struggles to average 50mpg in range extending mode, but gets something like 200mpg (energy equivalent) in pure EV mode.
Um no. The engines in both the i3 and Ampera is more efficient because it's not directly connected (the Ampera goes so far to use an Atkinson cycle like the Prius)The reality is both cars' Range Extender is undersized for the mass of the car (i3 weighing 1300kg with a 650cc engine). Meaning both cars take a huge hit when running on the ICE.
covmutley said:
True but range extender is really only to pick up the occasional longer journeys.
If you are regularly doing over 175 miles per trip then it isn't really the right car.
I do a 400 mile round trip a few times a month in the Ampera, and business pays for the petrol. I do my commute purely on EV, charging at home and free at the office.If you are regularly doing over 175 miles per trip then it isn't really the right car.
It's the perfect daily for me!
Max_Torque said:
As mentioned, series architectures (where the ICE is not mechanically connected to the drive wheels) are currently being used in various cars. They all suffer from the same issue though, which is overall efficiency is poor, because a mechanical shaft is still easily the lowest loss way for transfering mechanical power. Take the i3 with the range extender, which struggles to average 50mpg in range extending mode, but gets something like 200mpg (energy equivalent) in pure EV mode.
Thanks, I didn't realise they were already around. Thinking of a family who does say 3 long (500+ miles) journeys for holidays per year, would your i3 example above have 300+ range at 50mpg? If so it might be reasonable if the other 90% of use is mostly electric use?Interesting to think how future car use will change, e.g. if moving more to rental cars for long holiday trips etc.
Evanivitch said:
Max_Torque said:
As mentioned, series architectures (where the ICE is not mechanically connected to the drive wheels) are currently being used in various cars. They all suffer from the same issue though, which is overall efficiency is poor, because a mechanical shaft is still easily the lowest loss way for transfering mechanical power. Take the i3 with the range extender, which struggles to average 50mpg in range extending mode, but gets something like 200mpg (energy equivalent) in pure EV mode.
Um no. The engines in both the i3 and Ampera is more efficient because it's not directly connected (the Ampera goes so far to use an Atkinson cycle like the Prius)The reality is both cars' Range Extender is undersized for the mass of the car (i3 weighing 1300kg with a 650cc engine). Meaning both cars take a huge hit when running on the ICE.
Evanivitch said:
Ali_T said:
Why are they so determined to focus on electric cars? We don't have enough lithium, we don't have the electricity infrastructure and we don't have any plans in place to improve either. Why isn't the focus on biofuel and hydrogen? Both can easily be introduced to the current infrastructure, remove the NOx problem and reduce or negate CO2?
Known lithium reserves were considered low because there wasn't the demand to drive exploration. In reality it's the 25th most abundant element in the earth's crust and economic reserves are growing constantly.We have some very technically minded people on this thread and it is interesting to follow. Now another question, on car manufacture and servicing. How long, since there are far fewer moving parts, will a fully electric car last with these wonderful new batteries? Will the car just be recycled when the batteries die, thereby creating pollution to manufacture a new one, or will we be changing them on a five or ten year basis? Will they need regular servicing, and will the annual MOT be still needed? I am on my third car in 25 years and expect the current one to do at least another ten years, or 125,000 miles if I keep to my usual schedule.
Salamura said:
What utter b
ks. It is ridiculous that politics is trying to drive technology, when it should be the other way around. This only shows how short-sighted politicians are and how they refuse to see the big picture.
- How do they know that the EV technology (mainly battery capacity) will be advanced enough by then that it will allow the same sort of range and charging speed as today's ICE powered cars? Or do they expect that the public will just accept that a journey from London to Birmingham will from then on be a 2 day trip?
- They refuse to see that the chunk of the pollution generated by transport vehicles is not contributed to passenger cars, but lorries and ships, which has been shown by not one study. Surely, you can't expect fully electric trucks or ships by 2040. The required range will just be impossible to achieve, so these will remain diesel with 99.9% certainty.
- If for the sake of argument everyone switches to electric, where is all the electricity come from? Politicians miss the fact that most of the electricity is produced by oil, gas and coal these days. With this technology, the well-to-wheel efficiency of electric vehicles has time and again been shown to be much poorer than gasoline and diesel cars (I should know, I work in this field). Unless we build tens of nuclear power plants (which we won't, once again because of populim, eve though they are statistically the safest and best long term solution of our energy needs. The French got that one right.) I just don't see how burning oil and gas to power cars will reduce pollution at all. In fact, i expect it to get worse. I don't believe that by 2040 we will have solved the renewable energy problem.
In conclusion, stupid decision, which might or might not get implemented, that will get us nowhere in terms of producing the benefits they tell people will be possible... Unless there is a breakthrough in battery and energy production technology. But you can't legislate for that...
The distance from London to Birmingham is 125 miles, Tesla can do over 200 today and once you're there just plug it in, 30 minutes on a supercharger gives you 80% of the maximum range. You're just making up nonexistent issues.ks. It is ridiculous that politics is trying to drive technology, when it should be the other way around. This only shows how short-sighted politicians are and how they refuse to see the big picture.- How do they know that the EV technology (mainly battery capacity) will be advanced enough by then that it will allow the same sort of range and charging speed as today's ICE powered cars? Or do they expect that the public will just accept that a journey from London to Birmingham will from then on be a 2 day trip?
- They refuse to see that the chunk of the pollution generated by transport vehicles is not contributed to passenger cars, but lorries and ships, which has been shown by not one study. Surely, you can't expect fully electric trucks or ships by 2040. The required range will just be impossible to achieve, so these will remain diesel with 99.9% certainty.
- If for the sake of argument everyone switches to electric, where is all the electricity come from? Politicians miss the fact that most of the electricity is produced by oil, gas and coal these days. With this technology, the well-to-wheel efficiency of electric vehicles has time and again been shown to be much poorer than gasoline and diesel cars (I should know, I work in this field). Unless we build tens of nuclear power plants (which we won't, once again because of populim, eve though they are statistically the safest and best long term solution of our energy needs. The French got that one right.) I just don't see how burning oil and gas to power cars will reduce pollution at all. In fact, i expect it to get worse. I don't believe that by 2040 we will have solved the renewable energy problem.
In conclusion, stupid decision, which might or might not get implemented, that will get us nowhere in terms of producing the benefits they tell people will be possible... Unless there is a breakthrough in battery and energy production technology. But you can't legislate for that...
25 years ago it wasnt even considered possible.
My mobile phone charges wirelessly faster than any mobile phone 15 years ago from a wall outlet. The average phone battery capacity today is around 3000mah, 15 years ago it was closer to 700-800 in the same package.
Wireless charging already exists in some buses, in 25 years we might have it built in every parking space so people living in flats will always come to a fully charged car in the morning.
Marine transport pollution is a serious issue, but the container ships don't park with the engine running outside of my kid's school.
AER said:
Completely rubbish! The i3's range extender engine is woeful because it's a cheap re-purposed scooter engine with a disaster of a bore/stroke ratio and no pretense at being efficient at all. The Volt might be slightly better but the 90%-ish peak electrical conversion efficiency is enough to kill any advantage that hybridization offers. If you're going to hybrid for the purposes of efficiency, a parallel hybrid is the only way to go otherwise it's just (emergency) range extension - pure and simple.
Do you consider the engine in the Volt/Ampera to just be an emergency range extension?The Voltec powertrain runs as a Series hybrid for the vast majority of the time, allowing the engine to run at it's most efficient cycle to meet the load. Only in some circumstances where the load is low and speed steady does the vehicle become a parallel hybrid.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff