Would you wait 45 minutes when filling up to get it free?

[GT119]

Max_Torque said:

SimonYorkshire said:

because I think EVs will remain a niche for a long time

Can we make sure we capture this ^^ and revisit it in, oh, say, 2 years time......... ;-)

Simon is entertaining, got to give him that.

Last night there was an EV section on one of the BBC news programmes, highlighting the amount of global R&D going into Li-ion and other battery technologies.

A production battery building block was shown that was claimed to be 50% better than Tesla's, not sure if they were referring to energy density or something else like cooling effectiveness. They were also talking about JLR in the same segment so I wonder if it was the i-Pace battery.

The programme also highlighted the value of intelligent distribution of generating and storage devices such as PV, static batteries and EV batteries to augment conventional generation.
Trials of small 'connected communities' are underway in the UK to demonstrate this.

Some interesting bits that I wasn't aware of: 10 year old EV batteries that have reduced in performance by say 10-20% can be redeployed for another 10 years in static applications where energy density is less of an issue, and this is happening now. In addition, EV battery degradation is actually reduced if the car is connected to the grid and utilised as a storage device by the utility.

So whilst we have been focussing on the efficiency benefits of the EVs themselves, there is a whole host of other benefits to the wider electrical network that I don't think many people will be aware of.

There was no mention of LPG.

[SimonYorkshire]

babatunde said:

If I can get all the EV advocates on here to agree that LPG is the future will you shut up and stop sprouting lines and lines of rubbish?

P.S if when in the pub every other person tells you you are wrong then walks away, it's not usually because you have a superior argument.

LPG will remain a niche, I've said this many times.

I do like the pub analogy - In this pub I picture many tables each with a different discussion about cars going on. Five EV enthusiasts sit at one of the tables discussing EVs and are joined by just one other bloke who isn't an EV enthusiast, so discussion on that table is mostly 5 blokes arguing against one... of course the ratio of people arguing positive points for EVs versus people arguing negative points for EVs doesn't matter because a point is a point regardless of how many people make it. The bloke making the negative points notices how the 5 making positive points seem to switch the aspect of EVs being discussed whenever he makes a point which none of the 5 seem to want to answer directly. If this table were to ask other tables for opinion on EVs most of the tables would either be disinterested (so not even bother to change the subject they were talking about to start talking about EVs) or would say they wouldn't want to swap their vehicle to an EV, or even if they did buy an EV they'd still want to own an ice. Since EVs only have 0.3% of the vehicle market we would expect there to have to be 1665 people in the pub for there even to be 5 people in the pub who currently had an EV anyway, and then it turns out even most of those 5 pro EV people still own an ice car themselves. So much for 'if when in the pub every other person tells you you are wrong then walks away, it's not usually because you have a superior argument'. Try joining a discussion on cars in a real pub and persuading people they need to get rid of their ices to buy an EV! lol. In the pub EV enthusiasts are in the tiny minority and even in that tiny minority most won't even get rid of their own ices to buy an EV.

Max_Torque said:

SimonYorkshire said:

because I think EVs will remain a niche for a long time

Can we make sure we capture this ^^ and revisit it in, oh, say, 2 years time......... ;-)

I too would like to see such 'capture' facility on forum. I'd be happy for you to submit my claim there. I could submit pro EV claims and implied claims such as:
Not many people will have concerns about switching from a car with 300 mile range to an EV with 70 mile range because people only drive 20 miles per day anyway.
Ability to charge in 8 hours at home is more convenient than ability to charge in 2 mins on any forecourt, most people will agree with this and it's implications.
But if you do need/want to charge an EV away from home you'll easily be able to find a charging station along your route that will charge your battery to erm 80% capacity (due to battery tech limitations) in 45 minutes (due to battery tech and grid limitations).
In fact scrub the above entries, some say an EV will be able to charge to 100% in a couple of minutes for 300 mile range.
And some say it wouldn't take many changes to the grid to have sites all over the place each capable of charging (say) 10 EVs simultaneously to 300 mile range capability in just minutes (you know, like is easily possible with ice forecourts and has been the commonplace for many years).
Battery capacity will grow by 7% per year.
Batteries only degrade by 10% capacity after 300000miles.
Batteries will become vastly cheaper (and this won't affect the worth of EVs with older tech inferior batteries that were expensive when bought, thus won't imply devaluation).
Even if EVs do become mainstream they will continue to be as cheap to run.
Charging points / stations will have massive multiple megawatt hour underground storage batteries that balance the load on the grid.
But grid as it currently stands could cope with everyone running an EV which they charge at home at night.
And grid as it stands could cope with the few people who do need to charge during the day even at ultra fast 2 minute charge rates even for EVs with 300 mile range
Hevac systems in EVs will perform just as well as hevac systems in ice cars, without affecting range much. Even though in an ice car hevac systems usually have both the ac and the heater on at the same time.
etc

[kambites]

Except the majority of those aren't actually quotes are they; they're hyperbole you've just made up.

[rscott]

kambites said:

Except the majority of those aren't actually quotes are they; they're hyperbole you've just made up.

You're not suggesting Mr LPG might be spouting nonsense, are you?

[kambites]

rscott said:

kambites said:

Except the majority of those aren't actually quotes are they; they're hyperbole you've just made up.

You're not suggesting Mr LPG might be spouting nonsense, are you?

Perish the thought.

[SimonYorkshire]

kambites said:

Except the majority of those aren't actually quotes are they; they're hyperbole you've just made up.

I said claims and implied claims. If you don't agree I can find a pro EV claim or implied claim that matches one of my quotes above, tell me which one and I'll quote the post I refer to.

kambites said:

rscott said:

kambites said:

Except the majority of those aren't actually quotes are they; they're hyperbole you've just made up.

You're not suggesting Mr LPG might be spouting nonsense, are you?

Perish the thought.

Show me where I'm wrong then.

[pherlopolus]

SimonYorkshire said:

Show me where I'm wrong then.

I am sure this has happened enough already, you just take in stuff you don't like the sound of and ignore it, or spin it with stuff that is plainly wrong to suit your own needs. Then you write posts everyone is getting fed up of reading due to their length.

Whatever you or anyone else writes won't make a blind bit of difference to the future. But you are just blasting out fake news that you can't even be bothered to research properly.

You seem hell bent on proving wrong the one person who is working on stuff that we won't see in dealers for quite a few years, and used to work on the dead end technology that is Lpg. And rather than seeing it as an opportunity to embrace new technology and actually learn something, you argue that the manufacturers and the government have got it all wrong.

From you posts you appear to have a very closed mind, which is a shame as you actually seem to be quite clever.

[SimonYorkshire]

pherlopolus said:

SimonYorkshire said:

Show me where I'm wrong then.

I am sure this has happened enough already, you just take in stuff you don't like the sound of and ignore it, or spin it with stuff that is plainly wrong to suit your own needs. Then you write posts everyone is getting fed up of reading due to their length.

Whatever you or anyone else writes won't make a blind bit of difference to the future. But you are just blasting out fake news that you can't even be bothered to research properly.

You seem hell bent on proving wrong the one person who is working on stuff that we won't see in dealers for quite a few years, and used to work on the dead end technology that is Lpg. And rather than seeing it as an opportunity to embrace new technology and actually learn something, you argue that the manufacturers and the government have got it all wrong.

From you posts you appear to have a very closed mind, which is a shame as you actually seem to be quite clever.

Youre implying I've been wrong 'enough already' but again haven't said where. Above I posted a list of pro EV claims which I said have been made and which I implied I see as being incorrect, yet you haven't argued that all the claims in the list are correct - Is this because you agree with me that such claims are incorrect? Or, by ignoring my list have you just done exactly what you just accused me of doing which is ignoring points you;d rather not answer?

I really don't need to do any research to see common sense shortfalls in the technology that mean some pro EVs expectations won't be possible for the foreseeable future.

It also seems that quite often when I've posted about a particular aspect of the subject, the one person you refer to as 'working on stuff we wont see in dealers for quite a few years' doesn't reply directly to my points but instead chooses to ignore my EV points and focus instead on LPG, of which he is now highly critical but of which not so very long ago he was working on as steadfastly as he is now working on EVs - It seems he might believe and promote whatever his current firm is working on at the time, so, like I said before, you don't know that if fusion is invented and ice vehicles can economically run on hydrogen (and his boss starts working on hydrogen) if he will suddenly be equally critical of EVs as he is LPG and start promoting H cars.

I don't argue manufacturers and government got anything wrong. EVs currently comprise a very small market share, there will be lots of scope for more EVs in upcoming years without many problems but the 'without problems' is only the case because of some of the compromises that are inherent with EVs such as short range and long charge times. Still there will be plenty of buyers, but even at a fast take-up rate it will be a long time before EVs comprise a significant proportion of vehicles on the road and it is only when a significant proportion is reached that some of the problems I discuss such as infrastructure and taxation are realised - during which time manufacturers will make a pretty penny out of EVs granted and government can continue to be unconcerned about numbers of EVs granted. Some of my other points however discuss aspects of the EV vehicles themselves, which undeniably have less range and take far longer to refuel(charge) than an ice tank takes to fill. If/when/as these negative aspects of EVs are solved this will simultaneously bring about problems with the first type of problem I mention in this paragraph, i.e. an EV with 300 mile range (implying a 100+kwh battery) that can recharge in 5 minutes will require a 1.2megawatt charge speed, so this would present infrastructure problems, while the 100kwh implication will always be true if the vehicle is to be the same size as a current EV because the electric motors are already near 100% efficient and the cars are already aerodynamic - the only possible gain comes from fitting a higher capacity battery that allows a higher speed of charge but this will bring about infrastructure problems which (as almost a side argument) I say could not easily be overcome.

Not fair to say I have a closed mind, I know EV numbers will rise, it's just that I point out the negatives for EV owners of today and I point out other problems (such as infrastructure, not just of local electricity wiring but extending all the way back through substations to power generation) that will have to be overcome if the EVs themselves are to be as convenient as an ice. 'Convenient' of course is a subjective word. Pro EV people think it more convenient to charge at home overnight than to have ability to refuel at a wider range of places in just a few minutes. The development of tech seems to me to be slow enough that a lot of people will prefer ices for a long time, but granted hybrids also have batteries and electric motors and hybrids don't have many of the pure EV drawbacks at all, and I do see hybrids taking off big time especially in the coming absence of new diesels.

You will at least nod with some of my points, or at least your 'working on stuff we won't see in dealers for quite a long time' sentence implies you do. What won't we see in dealers for quite some time, and how will those developments be of advantage to EV users?

Edited by SimonYorkshire on Friday 6th October 19:53

[catso]

[anonymous-user]

catso said:

Your holiday snaps don't exactly look very appealing..........

[Dempsey1971]

Would this make a difference?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-494...

I'd be very happy to recharge in 5 mins.

[SimonYorkshire]

Dempsey1971 said:

Would this make a difference?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-494...

I'd be very happy to recharge in 5 mins.

5 Minute charging would make a hell of a difference, it would cure the long charge time problem with EVs but even this wouldn't cure the short range problem or finding somewhere to charge problem. The 5 minute charge time would bring it's own problems - the charge rate necessary to charge an EV battery in 5 minutes would have to be massive. For instance, a Leaf with only 100 mile range (if driven slowly) has a 30kwh battery. To charge this battery in 5 minutes would need an electricity supply of 360kw, which is as much as the combined average 'moment in time' electricity usage rate of about 800 houses or as much as the combined total electricity that 15.5 houses could use before every house had it's main 'incoming supply' fuse blown. So you wouldn't be charging in 5 minutes at home. So where would you charge in 5 minutes? Not at even the fastest Tesla supercharger, because they are only 50kw. If there comes a day when a car can charge in 5 minutes, if the charging place is some type of forecourt or car park charging multiple EVs at the same time at this fast charge rate, the problem then is getting enough power to the forecourt / carpark to charge those cars at this fast charge rate at the same time.

[RobDickinson]

SimonYorkshire said:

5 Minute charging would make a hell of a difference, it would cure the long charge time problem with EVs but even this wouldn't cure the short range problem or finding somewhere to charge problem. The 5 minute charge time would bring it's own problems - the charge rate necessary to charge an EV battery in 5 minutes would have to be massive. For instance, a Leaf with only 100 mile range (if driven slowly) has a 30kwh battery. To charge this battery in 5 minutes would need an electricity supply of 360kw, which is as much as the combined average 'moment in time' electricity usage rate of about 800 houses or as much as the combined total electricity that 15.5 houses could use before every house had it's main 'incoming supply' fuse blown. So you wouldn't be charging in 5 minutes at home. So where would you charge in 5 minutes? Not at even the fastest Tesla supercharger, because they are only 50kw. If there comes a day when a car can charge in 5 minutes, if the charging place is some type of forecourt or car park charging multiple EVs at the same time at this fast charge rate, the problem then is getting enough power to the forecourt / carpark to charge those cars at this fast charge rate at the same time.

Your, again,are full of st.

Tesla superchargers are 120kw
DC level 3 will be 240kw
not so far off that 360kw.

Oh and yet-a-fking-gain you dont need that kind of fast charging at home because people sleep and cars can charge then.

[SimonYorkshire]

RobDickinson said:

SimonYorkshire said:

5 Minute charging would make a hell of a difference, it would cure the long charge time problem with EVs but even this wouldn't cure the short range problem or finding somewhere to charge problem. The 5 minute charge time would bring it's own problems - the charge rate necessary to charge an EV battery in 5 minutes would have to be massive. For instance, a Leaf with only 100 mile range (if driven slowly) has a 30kwh battery. To charge this battery in 5 minutes would need an electricity supply of 360kw, which is as much as the combined average 'moment in time' electricity usage rate of about 800 houses or as much as the combined total electricity that 15.5 houses could use before every house had it's main 'incoming supply' fuse blown. So you wouldn't be charging in 5 minutes at home. So where would you charge in 5 minutes? Not at even the fastest Tesla supercharger, because they are only 50kw. If there comes a day when a car can charge in 5 minutes, if the charging place is some type of forecourt or car park charging multiple EVs at the same time at this fast charge rate, the problem then is getting enough power to the forecourt / carpark to charge those cars at this fast charge rate at the same time.

Your, again,are full of st.

Tesla superchargers are 120kw
DC level 3 will be 240kw
not so far off that 360kw.

Oh and yet-a-fking-gain you dont need that kind of fast charging at home because people sleep and cars can charge then.

The one thing I got wrong above is that Tesla superchargers can charge at 120kw, not 50kw as I said.

Every other point I said was correct, you didn't at all acknowledge or reply to anything else I said and I expect as usual you'd rather sweep those other points under the carpet.

For example - My post talked mainly about Leafs, you can't charge a Leaf at a Tesla charger. What is the fastest charger you'll find for a Leaf?
If 2 Teslas both pull up at a Tesla supercharger site they won't both be charging at 120kw, they will each charge at 70kw. If 4 Teslas pull up to charge at a Tesla supercharger site they will each charge at 35kw. And so on and so on. Because of contention ratio being a necessity because the site power supply could not handle more than a total of 140kw charge.

So on the one hand if you own an EV you don't want anyone else to be charging on the same site at the same time as you, or your charge time increases, so it's better for EV owners if there are fewer EVs on the road. On the other hand there is less incentive to build EV charging stations if there are fewer EVs on the road. So if you're an EV driver which scenario do you prefer?

The worst scenario is during the rise in EV numbers when a similar number of charging stations have to serve an increasing number of EVs - You pull up at a charging station and may have to wait before you can even get on a charger to start charging, and when you do get on the charger if there's someone else charging on the same site at the same time your charge time becomes longer than you expected.

Will you be charging a Leaf on a Tesla supercharger or DC level 3 charger then? If current EVs are not compatible with DC level 3 chargers, how do you expect that will affect the value of those cars if future cars are compatible with DC level 3? Where is your nearest DC level 3 charger? If a few cars charge on the same DC level 3 charging site at the same time, will they all be able to charge at 240kw? It would still take a Tesla 25 minutes to charge from near flat to full even on a DC level 3 charger eh? Every petrol pump, every diesel pump, every LPG pump in the land is 5 times faster than even the future DC level 3 charger will be, 10 times faster than every 120kw Tesla supercharger (that other EVs can't use) is, 24 times faster than a 'fast' 50kw charger, 170 times faster than a 'double speed' charger you'll usually charge an EV at away from home, 340 times faster than plugging into a domestic plug socket. Which is why it would take a Tesla over 33hours to charge from near flat to full from a domestic plug socket.

You are full of st for sweeping all of that under the carpet.

[Ares]

Interesting to see wireless charging is now an option on the Hybrid BMW 5 series (530e?).

Plate in your garage (or drive), park over it, fully charges in 3.5 hours IIRC.

[The Mad Monk]

SimonYorkshire said:

I am going for the PH record for the longest reply to every post

He may well get the prize.

[mp3manager]

SimonYorkshire said:

The worst scenario is during the rise in EV numbers when a similar number of charging stations have to serve an increasing number of EVs - You pull up at a charging station and may have to wait before you can even get on a charger to start charging, and when you do get on the charger if there's someone else charging on the same site at the same time your charge time becomes longer than you expected.

The worst scenario is that milk float owners think that a charging station is in fact a parking space.



I predict fist-fights in the street.

[pherlopolus]

SimonYorkshire said:

Will you be charging a Leaf on a Tesla supercharger or DC level 3 charger then? If current EVs are not compatible with DC level 3 chargers, how do you expect that will affect the value of those cars if future cars are compatible with DC level 3? Where is your nearest DC level 3 charger? If a few cars charge on the same DC level 3 charging site at the same time, will they all be able to charge at 240kw? It would still take a Tesla 25 minutes to charge from near flat to full even on a DC level 3 charger eh? Every petrol pump, every diesel pump, every LPG pump in the land is 5 times faster than even the future DC level 3 charger will be, 10 times faster than every 120kw Tesla supercharger (that other EVs can't use) is, 24 times faster than a 'fast' 50kw charger, 170 times faster than a 'double speed' charger you'll usually charge an EV at away from home, 340 times faster than plugging into a domestic plug socket. Which is why it would take a Tesla over 33hours to charge from near flat to full from a domestic plug socket.

You are full of st for sweeping all of that under the carpet.

No one is sweeping it under the carpet, it's just irrelevant in the grand scheme of things to 95% of people. I have to stop every 100-120 miles for a break anyway, so would only need to charge about 50%. I usually stop for at least 20 mins so even using TODAYS tech it's a none issue to my journey times.

You also make assumptions that issues wont be overcome.

How about wireless charging? so each set of traffic lights gives you a bit of charge, or each parking space gives you some charge when you park.

You assume most people will charge when empty, which just isn't how EV drivers will think.

All your arguments are generally irrelevant or wrong.

[mcm87]

SimonYorkshire said:

The one thing I got wrong above is that Tesla superchargers can charge at 120kw, not 50kw as I said.

Every other point I said was correct, you didn't at all acknowledge or reply to anything else I said and I expect as usual you'd rather sweep those other points under the carpet.

For example - My post talked mainly about Leafs, you can't charge a Leaf at a Tesla charger. What is the fastest charger you'll find for a Leaf?
If 2 Teslas both pull up at a Tesla supercharger site they won't both be charging at 120kw, they will each charge at 70kw. If 4 Teslas pull up to charge at a Tesla supercharger site they will each charge at 35kw. And so on and so on. Because of contention ratio being a necessity because the site power supply could not handle more than a total of 140kw charge.

So on the one hand if you own an EV you don't want anyone else to be charging on the same site at the same time as you, or your charge time increases, so it's better for EV owners if there are fewer EVs on the road. On the other hand there is less incentive to build EV charging stations if there are fewer EVs on the road. So if you're an EV driver which scenario do you prefer?

The worst scenario is during the rise in EV numbers when a similar number of charging stations have to serve an increasing number of EVs - You pull up at a charging station and may have to wait before you can even get on a charger to start charging, and when you do get on the charger if there's someone else charging on the same site at the same time your charge time becomes longer than you expected.

Will you be charging a Leaf on a Tesla supercharger or DC level 3 charger then? If current EVs are not compatible with DC level 3 chargers, how do you expect that will affect the value of those cars if future cars are compatible with DC level 3? Where is your nearest DC level 3 charger? If a few cars charge on the same DC level 3 charging site at the same time, will they all be able to charge at 240kw? It would still take a Tesla 25 minutes to charge from near flat to full even on a DC level 3 charger eh? Every petrol pump, every diesel pump, every LPG pump in the land is 5 times faster than even the future DC level 3 charger will be, 10 times faster than every 120kw Tesla supercharger (that other EVs can't use) is, 24 times faster than a 'fast' 50kw charger, 170 times faster than a 'double speed' charger you'll usually charge an EV at away from home, 340 times faster than plugging into a domestic plug socket. Which is why it would take a Tesla over 33hours to charge from near flat to full from a domestic plug socket.

I don’t want to get pulled into the wider argument but Tesla supercharges aren’t limited to 120kw per location. The 120kw is per pair of stalls.

If 6 cars arrive at a 12 stall location all 6 will have the full 120kw available to them as long as they don’t both use a paired stall (they’re labelled 1A, 1B, 2A etc...). If they pair then the first car gets priority and as the first tapers off at higher levels of charge the second ramps up to keep the full 120kw used.

This has resulted in some locations having insufficient power available (South Mimms?) but they get around this by having battery storage onsite to act as a buffer to keep the full 120kw available for as many cars as possible.

[manracer]

mcm87 said:

SimonYorkshire said:

The one thing I got wrong above is that Tesla superchargers can charge at 120kw, not 50kw as I said.

Every other point I said was correct, you didn't at all acknowledge or reply to anything else I said and I expect as usual you'd rather sweep those other points under the carpet.

For example - My post talked mainly about Leafs, you can't charge a Leaf at a Tesla charger. What is the fastest charger you'll find for a Leaf?
If 2 Teslas both pull up at a Tesla supercharger site they won't both be charging at 120kw, they will each charge at 70kw. If 4 Teslas pull up to charge at a Tesla supercharger site they will each charge at 35kw. And so on and so on. Because of contention ratio being a necessity because the site power supply could not handle more than a total of 140kw charge.

So on the one hand if you own an EV you don't want anyone else to be charging on the same site at the same time as you, or your charge time increases, so it's better for EV owners if there are fewer EVs on the road. On the other hand there is less incentive to build EV charging stations if there are fewer EVs on the road. So if you're an EV driver which scenario do you prefer?

The worst scenario is during the rise in EV numbers when a similar number of charging stations have to serve an increasing number of EVs - You pull up at a charging station and may have to wait before you can even get on a charger to start charging, and when you do get on the charger if there's someone else charging on the same site at the same time your charge time becomes longer than you expected.

Will you be charging a Leaf on a Tesla supercharger or DC level 3 charger then? If current EVs are not compatible with DC level 3 chargers, how do you expect that will affect the value of those cars if future cars are compatible with DC level 3? Where is your nearest DC level 3 charger? If a few cars charge on the same DC level 3 charging site at the same time, will they all be able to charge at 240kw? It would still take a Tesla 25 minutes to charge from near flat to full even on a DC level 3 charger eh? Every petrol pump, every diesel pump, every LPG pump in the land is 5 times faster than even the future DC level 3 charger will be, 10 times faster than every 120kw Tesla supercharger (that other EVs can't use) is, 24 times faster than a 'fast' 50kw charger, 170 times faster than a 'double speed' charger you'll usually charge an EV at away from home, 340 times faster than plugging into a domestic plug socket. Which is why it would take a Tesla over 33hours to charge from near flat to full from a domestic plug socket.

I don’t want to get pulled into the wider argument but Tesla supercharges aren’t limited to 120kw per location. The 120kw is per pair of stalls.

If 6 cars arrive at a 12 stall location all 6 will have the full 120kw available to them as long as they don’t both use a paired stall (they’re labelled 1A, 1B, 2A etc...). If they pair then the first car gets priority and as the first tapers off at higher levels of charge the second ramps up to keep the full 120kw used.

This has resulted in some locations having insufficient power available (South Mimms?) but they get around this by having battery storage onsite to act as a buffer to keep the full 120kw available for as many cars as possible.

The owners were talking about this when I popped by the Tesla Factory in Fremont. They said it's a not an issue really though, because has been said above, EV owner mindset isn't to wait until empty before a recharge.