Has JCB saved engines?
Discussion
SpeckledJim said:
It's hardly perfected though, is it? It loses more energy to worse-than-useless heat than it does to useful power.
Look for oil. Find oil. Pull oil out of the sea. Process it. Take it to a petrol station. Store it. Move it into a car. Store it.... Throw most of it into the atmosphere as heat and noise and unpleasant gas and particles.
It's a similar level of efficiency to my wife's hobby of acquiring, storing, and disposing of fresh fruit and vegetables.
Glad it's not just mine that does that.Look for oil. Find oil. Pull oil out of the sea. Process it. Take it to a petrol station. Store it. Move it into a car. Store it.... Throw most of it into the atmosphere as heat and noise and unpleasant gas and particles.
It's a similar level of efficiency to my wife's hobby of acquiring, storing, and disposing of fresh fruit and vegetables.
J4CKO said:
Hydrogen is a lot further off for viability than BEV, drove into the office today, saw numerous Electric vehicles, An ID3, four Teslas, couple of Leafs that I noticed.
How many Hydrogen cars, er none, cant say I have ever seen one.
EV isnt MiniDisk, it is what is happening, it is well on its way, that ID3 is the first EV on the road I live on.
The batteries are getting better, the grumbling about range and charging will drop as they improve like all tech always does but the end result with be one or more electric motors powering the cars of the future.
I dont want one, no interest beyond the tech, I like engines but I can see where this is going and it isnt Hydrogen as the main fuel.
As for how will the grid cope, we are using less power than ten years ago due to efficiency improvements and lowered consumption so we managed before and all those oil companies will be hustling to get a piece of the pie as their oil goose starts looking a bit sickly for persona transport, if not aviation, plastics, shipping and road transport.
You dont have to be an "Eco Warrior" to want quieter, cleaner transport in towns and cities, and electricity can be generated from burning coal, but it can also be generated by all those wind turbines around the place, cant generate petrol from a turbine. It always makes me laugh petrolheads rattling on about the environmental damage from EV's, those poor kids int he Congo mining cobat, Damn your Greta with your electrical cars ! completely ignoring the environmental impact of oil as a fuel, all the oil spills, explosions, habitat destruction.
Hurtling round in a metal box on your own most of the time will never be environmentally sound, if you are bothered get a bicycle, touting eco issues from a massive SUV or V8 Sports car is a shaky position.
I really cant see the entire car industry doing an about turn and stopping development of EV's as a blind alley to concentrate on Hydrogen, Toyota has the Mirai, and who else has a Hydrogen car you can buy ? How many manufactures have EVs in the market or are launching them, that would be pretty much all of them.
JCB don't make cars.How many Hydrogen cars, er none, cant say I have ever seen one.
EV isnt MiniDisk, it is what is happening, it is well on its way, that ID3 is the first EV on the road I live on.
The batteries are getting better, the grumbling about range and charging will drop as they improve like all tech always does but the end result with be one or more electric motors powering the cars of the future.
I dont want one, no interest beyond the tech, I like engines but I can see where this is going and it isnt Hydrogen as the main fuel.
As for how will the grid cope, we are using less power than ten years ago due to efficiency improvements and lowered consumption so we managed before and all those oil companies will be hustling to get a piece of the pie as their oil goose starts looking a bit sickly for persona transport, if not aviation, plastics, shipping and road transport.
You dont have to be an "Eco Warrior" to want quieter, cleaner transport in towns and cities, and electricity can be generated from burning coal, but it can also be generated by all those wind turbines around the place, cant generate petrol from a turbine. It always makes me laugh petrolheads rattling on about the environmental damage from EV's, those poor kids int he Congo mining cobat, Damn your Greta with your electrical cars ! completely ignoring the environmental impact of oil as a fuel, all the oil spills, explosions, habitat destruction.
Hurtling round in a metal box on your own most of the time will never be environmentally sound, if you are bothered get a bicycle, touting eco issues from a massive SUV or V8 Sports car is a shaky position.
I really cant see the entire car industry doing an about turn and stopping development of EV's as a blind alley to concentrate on Hydrogen, Toyota has the Mirai, and who else has a Hydrogen car you can buy ? How many manufactures have EVs in the market or are launching them, that would be pretty much all of them.
How many EV trucks have you seen out on the roads?
Vintagejock said:
More than likely. Eventually battery powered trucks will surely have to carry more weight in batteries than actual payload. And of course for all the eco warriors, how do you generate the electricity in the first place?
Where do you think hydrogen comes from? Gas reforming or electricity.Using a fuel cell, and accounting for losses in pumping and storing hydrogen at intense pressure, you're at nearly 30% efficiency.
And then they want to burn it! You're down to like 15% system efficiency from generating the electricity (assuming Renewables, even worse again if thermal) to output.
J4CKO said:
Hydrogen is a lot further off for viability than BEV, drove into the office today, saw numerous Electric vehicles, An ID3, four Teslas, couple of Leafs that I noticed.
How many Hydrogen cars, er none, cant say I have ever seen one.
EV isnt MiniDisk, it is what is happening, it is well on its way, that ID3 is the first EV on the road I live on.
The batteries are getting better, the grumbling about range and charging will drop as they improve like all tech always does but the end result with be one or more electric motors powering the cars of the future.
I dont want one, no interest beyond the tech, I like engines but I can see where this is going and it isnt Hydrogen as the main fuel.
As for how will the grid cope, we are using less power than ten years ago due to efficiency improvements and lowered consumption so we managed before and all those oil companies will be hustling to get a piece of the pie as their oil goose starts looking a bit sickly for persona transport, if not aviation, plastics, shipping and road transport.
You dont have to be an "Eco Warrior" to want quieter, cleaner transport in towns and cities, and electricity can be generated from burning coal, but it can also be generated by all those wind turbines around the place, cant generate petrol from a turbine. It always makes me laugh petrolheads rattling on about the environmental damage from EV's, those poor kids in the Congo mining cobalt, Damn your Greta with your electrical cars ! completely ignoring the environmental impact of oil as a fuel, all the oil spills, explosions, habitat destruction.
Hurtling round in a metal box on your own most of the time will never be environmentally sound, if you are bothered get a bicycle, touting eco issues from a massive SUV or V8 Sports car is a shaky position.
I really cant see the entire car industry doing an about turn and stopping development of EV's as a blind alley to concentrate on Hydrogen, Toyota has the Mirai, and who else has a Hydrogen car you can buy ? How many manufactures have EVs in the market or are launching them, that would be pretty much all of them.
hydrogen as a combustion fuel will have no impact on passenger cars where BEV is already a clearly growing and better solution for system efficiency. The only possible area is ultra low cost city cars where the battery cost is too high but this is not clear.How many Hydrogen cars, er none, cant say I have ever seen one.
EV isnt MiniDisk, it is what is happening, it is well on its way, that ID3 is the first EV on the road I live on.
The batteries are getting better, the grumbling about range and charging will drop as they improve like all tech always does but the end result with be one or more electric motors powering the cars of the future.
I dont want one, no interest beyond the tech, I like engines but I can see where this is going and it isnt Hydrogen as the main fuel.
As for how will the grid cope, we are using less power than ten years ago due to efficiency improvements and lowered consumption so we managed before and all those oil companies will be hustling to get a piece of the pie as their oil goose starts looking a bit sickly for persona transport, if not aviation, plastics, shipping and road transport.
You dont have to be an "Eco Warrior" to want quieter, cleaner transport in towns and cities, and electricity can be generated from burning coal, but it can also be generated by all those wind turbines around the place, cant generate petrol from a turbine. It always makes me laugh petrolheads rattling on about the environmental damage from EV's, those poor kids in the Congo mining cobalt, Damn your Greta with your electrical cars ! completely ignoring the environmental impact of oil as a fuel, all the oil spills, explosions, habitat destruction.
Hurtling round in a metal box on your own most of the time will never be environmentally sound, if you are bothered get a bicycle, touting eco issues from a massive SUV or V8 Sports car is a shaky position.
I really cant see the entire car industry doing an about turn and stopping development of EV's as a blind alley to concentrate on Hydrogen, Toyota has the Mirai, and who else has a Hydrogen car you can buy ? How many manufactures have EVs in the market or are launching them, that would be pretty much all of them.
Hydrogen in long distance trucks and off highway where the average power output of the engine is very high for long periods makes sense as BEV does not currently work (at least for 10-15 years).
Fuel cells are still needing a lot of work, burning hydrogen can be done more easily with less changes on a vehicle and it is likely that the batteries will have advanced sufficiently to replace many hydrogen applications rather than fuel cell.
FNG said:
SpeckledJim said:
Digga said:
xstian said:
A EV capable of 300 miles is great, but if the batteries weigh 1/2 ton it pretty wasteful if the car only does 15 miles a day for 95% of the time.
An ICE doing the same mileage barely warms up. In fact modern diesels, with AdBlue and DPF have a nasty habit of putting condensation into their oil at those sorts of sustained, short journey profiles.Add in the indisputable fact that, however 'clean' the creation of the energy is or is not, an EV gives out zero tailpipe emissions and, due to regenerative braking, a lot less brake dust too.
I'd say for cars, EV is a good future bet, but not so for HGVs.
The weight of an EV is only a fraction as important as the weight of an ICE.
The weight of an ICE is always hampering its efficiency, whereas the weight of an EV sometimes hampers its efficiency, and sometimes increases regeneration, depending on whether you're slowing or not.
I think I read the impact of an incremental kg on an EV is only about 30% of the impact of an incremental kg on an ICE.
It's not the same equation for anything that carries load as its main purpose, whether that's people or goods.
Haulage, public transport, heavy industry etc need rapid fill times, and need not to be carrying 10 tons of batteries at the expense of payload if they could carry 2 tons of fuel cell and fuel tanks and a much smaller battery.
A heavy ICE car is always bad news. It costs more energy to get it up to speed, and then if you brake, you swap that energy to a large amount of heat in the brakes.
Whereas a heavy EV isn't so bad. Yes, it costs more energy to get up to speed, but on slowing down, the weight counts in your favour, rather than against you, as a heavy car will be able to recover more energy than a light car will.
A heavy battery is usually bad news, and sometimes good news. Whereas a heavy ICE is always bad news.
SpeckledJim said:
FNG said:
SpeckledJim said:
Digga said:
xstian said:
A EV capable of 300 miles is great, but if the batteries weigh 1/2 ton it pretty wasteful if the car only does 15 miles a day for 95% of the time.
An ICE doing the same mileage barely warms up. In fact modern diesels, with AdBlue and DPF have a nasty habit of putting condensation into their oil at those sorts of sustained, short journey profiles.Add in the indisputable fact that, however 'clean' the creation of the energy is or is not, an EV gives out zero tailpipe emissions and, due to regenerative braking, a lot less brake dust too.
I'd say for cars, EV is a good future bet, but not so for HGVs.
The weight of an EV is only a fraction as important as the weight of an ICE.
The weight of an ICE is always hampering its efficiency, whereas the weight of an EV sometimes hampers its efficiency, and sometimes increases regeneration, depending on whether you're slowing or not.
I think I read the impact of an incremental kg on an EV is only about 30% of the impact of an incremental kg on an ICE.
It's not the same equation for anything that carries load as its main purpose, whether that's people or goods.
Haulage, public transport, heavy industry etc need rapid fill times, and need not to be carrying 10 tons of batteries at the expense of payload if they could carry 2 tons of fuel cell and fuel tanks and a much smaller battery.
A heavy ICE car is always bad news. It costs more energy to get it up to speed, and then if you brake, you swap that energy to a large amount of heat in the brakes.
Whereas a heavy EV isn't so bad. Yes, it costs more energy to get up to speed, but on slowing down, the weight counts in your favour, rather than against you, as a heavy car will be able to recover more energy than a light car will.
A heavy battery is usually bad news, and sometimes good news. Whereas a heavy ICE is always bad news.
FNG said:
SpeckledJim said:
FNG said:
SpeckledJim said:
Digga said:
xstian said:
A EV capable of 300 miles is great, but if the batteries weigh 1/2 ton it pretty wasteful if the car only does 15 miles a day for 95% of the time.
An ICE doing the same mileage barely warms up. In fact modern diesels, with AdBlue and DPF have a nasty habit of putting condensation into their oil at those sorts of sustained, short journey profiles.Add in the indisputable fact that, however 'clean' the creation of the energy is or is not, an EV gives out zero tailpipe emissions and, due to regenerative braking, a lot less brake dust too.
I'd say for cars, EV is a good future bet, but not so for HGVs.
The weight of an EV is only a fraction as important as the weight of an ICE.
The weight of an ICE is always hampering its efficiency, whereas the weight of an EV sometimes hampers its efficiency, and sometimes increases regeneration, depending on whether you're slowing or not.
I think I read the impact of an incremental kg on an EV is only about 30% of the impact of an incremental kg on an ICE.
It's not the same equation for anything that carries load as its main purpose, whether that's people or goods.
Haulage, public transport, heavy industry etc need rapid fill times, and need not to be carrying 10 tons of batteries at the expense of payload if they could carry 2 tons of fuel cell and fuel tanks and a much smaller battery.
A heavy ICE car is always bad news. It costs more energy to get it up to speed, and then if you brake, you swap that energy to a large amount of heat in the brakes.
Whereas a heavy EV isn't so bad. Yes, it costs more energy to get up to speed, but on slowing down, the weight counts in your favour, rather than against you, as a heavy car will be able to recover more energy than a light car will.
A heavy battery is usually bad news, and sometimes good news. Whereas a heavy ICE is always bad news.
xstian said:
covmutley said:
Apparently big money is currently betting that cars will be EV and bigger stuff will be hydrogen or gas powered.
Battery tech is still improving and we are already at the stage where cars can do over 300 miles and charge in less than half an hour.
Yes it needs a few years for that tech to filter down but it's happening. That's why manufacturers are saying they will be EV ahead of the ban, which I doubt will ever happen, as it wil just be niche manufacturers left producing hobby/enthusiasts cars.
And how do you generate electricity? Well increasingly from solar and wind. There's a lot more of that in the pipeline
It all going to depend on the tech and cost. A EV capable of 300 miles is great, but if the batteries weigh 1/2 ton it pretty wasteful if the car only does 15 miles a day for 95% of the time. If they are just going to use hydrogen for big stuff, where does that leave large vans that need a 2 ton payload and 4x4 that tow all day on motorways? EV will either have to shed its weight or hydrogen will have to filter down and then it will come down to cost. Battery tech is still improving and we are already at the stage where cars can do over 300 miles and charge in less than half an hour.
Yes it needs a few years for that tech to filter down but it's happening. That's why manufacturers are saying they will be EV ahead of the ban, which I doubt will ever happen, as it wil just be niche manufacturers left producing hobby/enthusiasts cars.
And how do you generate electricity? Well increasingly from solar and wind. There's a lot more of that in the pipeline
Plus instead of energy being generated to power batteries, you're now using energy to create hydrogen, losing some of that energy to inefficiency in the hydrogen producing process, and then losing a lot of that in the inefficiency of the engine itself.
Plus, where can you buy hydrogen right now? I'm guessing we're all thinking you just use the existing petrol station infrastructure but I'm pretty sure you can't just empty the station's tanks of petrol and fill them with hydrogen. You'll a rebuild of the station, that also takes lots of energy, to add a safe hydrogen storage infrastructure. I'd wager that's a lot more energy than adding a supercharger. Hydrogen is dangerous stuff.
Plus, then you're burning tons of energy in your hydrogen powered lorries to transport hydrogen from the manufacturing plant to the petrol / hydrogen stations.
Plus.... quite a few owners can charge their EVs at home. Not everyone can, but a huge portion can. You can't refill your hydrogen car from home so now you also have added miles and time spent travelling to stations to fill up. You'll get an energy saving from EVs with that too. There's a good chance a proportion of EVs will never need go anywhere other than home to recharge in their lifetime.
We'll see how it plays out but I don't think hydrogen is like LPG, i.e. it might look like a simple conversion of existing technology, but it isn't. I think it's at least as radical a change as EVs are when the supporting infrastructure changes are considered.
buggalugs said:
SpeckledJim said:
Look for oil. Find oil.
Get bogged down in 100 years of wars and politics in areas of the world we wouldn't give two hoots about if it wasn't for the oil they were sat on and the money they get from sitting on it...Occasionally crash a floating box of millions of litres of the stuff into hard things and have a bit of vexation mopping it up.
kiseca said:
I would think the inefficiency of carrying around all that weight - something that has never bothered drivers on average in the past because most are happy to drive around alone in 1.7 ton BMWs big enough to carry 5 people - is offset by the fact that ICE also carries around its energy store - and yes a 100l tank of petrol weighs a lot less than the equivalent range in batteries, but a hydrogen tank is going to weigh a lot more than a petrol one - and then also offset by the inefficiency of the engine itself. Unless hydrogen ICE is for some reason much more energy efficient than fossil fuel ICE, then you're carrying around at any given moment 60% more fuel than you're actually going to put to good use.
Plus instead of energy being generated to power batteries, you're now using energy to create hydrogen, losing some of that energy to inefficiency in the hydrogen producing process, and then losing a lot of that in the inefficiency of the engine itself.
Plus, where can you buy hydrogen right now? I'm guessing we're all thinking you just use the existing petrol station infrastructure but I'm pretty sure you can't just empty the station's tanks of petrol and fill them with hydrogen. You'll a rebuild of the station, that also takes lots of energy, to add a safe hydrogen storage infrastructure. I'd wager that's a lot more energy than adding a supercharger. Hydrogen is dangerous stuff.
Plus, then you're burning tons of energy in your hydrogen powered lorries to transport hydrogen from the manufacturing plant to the petrol / hydrogen stations.
Plus.... quite a few owners can charge their EVs at home. Not everyone can, but a huge portion can. You can't refill your hydrogen car from home so now you also have added miles and time spent travelling to stations to fill up. You'll get an energy saving from EVs with that too. There's a good chance a proportion of EVs will never need go anywhere other than home to recharge in their lifetime.
We'll see how it plays out but I don't think hydrogen is like LPG, i.e. it might look like a simple conversion of existing technology, but it isn't. I think it's at least as radical a change as EVs are when the supporting infrastructure changes are considered.
All the above being good reasons why the thread has been highlighting that BEV is the right solution for cars. JCB however... less so.Plus instead of energy being generated to power batteries, you're now using energy to create hydrogen, losing some of that energy to inefficiency in the hydrogen producing process, and then losing a lot of that in the inefficiency of the engine itself.
Plus, where can you buy hydrogen right now? I'm guessing we're all thinking you just use the existing petrol station infrastructure but I'm pretty sure you can't just empty the station's tanks of petrol and fill them with hydrogen. You'll a rebuild of the station, that also takes lots of energy, to add a safe hydrogen storage infrastructure. I'd wager that's a lot more energy than adding a supercharger. Hydrogen is dangerous stuff.
Plus, then you're burning tons of energy in your hydrogen powered lorries to transport hydrogen from the manufacturing plant to the petrol / hydrogen stations.
Plus.... quite a few owners can charge their EVs at home. Not everyone can, but a huge portion can. You can't refill your hydrogen car from home so now you also have added miles and time spent travelling to stations to fill up. You'll get an energy saving from EVs with that too. There's a good chance a proportion of EVs will never need go anywhere other than home to recharge in their lifetime.
We'll see how it plays out but I don't think hydrogen is like LPG, i.e. it might look like a simple conversion of existing technology, but it isn't. I think it's at least as radical a change as EVs are when the supporting infrastructure changes are considered.
As for infrastructure. Time will come fairly soon when heavy goods will need to move away from diesel ICE, lest the car ICE ban from 2030 be a completely useless gesture that has little overall impact.
EV doesn't work for a truck limited to 40T payload, when the tractor cab is suddenly 12T of that weight, due to the batteries needed to offer a meaningful range. The recharging time doesn't bear thinking about either.
So FCEV is ideal - the truck unit can provide enough space for the tanks; a fuel cell is highly scalable so obtaining the required power output is fairly simple; the vehicle's payload is retained. Cost of the tractor unit is higher, but then again far fewer moving parts or service downtime.
The relevance? Once the road haulage fleet starts to need hydrogen, the infrastructure will follow quickly. Starting at motorway service stations to supply the needs of the majority of HGVs on the main routes, then expanding from there depending on demand. I'd expect a good number of petrol stations to not need to convert to hydrogen for decades, and they may be fast charging stations and never supply hydrogen.
Government has commissioned research and has put up funding to study what's needed and when. The supply of infrastructure and vehicles is a complex chicken / egg mix, but IMO there will be a way through it because the economy needs it to happen if the Government is serious about zero emissions and mandates a zero ICE HGV future.
cossey said:
hydrogen as a combustion fuel will have no impact on passenger cars where BEV is already a clearly growing and better solution for system efficiency. The only possible area is ultra low cost city cars where the battery cost is too high but this is not clear..
But then you're going to have crazy expensive hydrogen costs, because you're going to need something approaching 6 times the amount of electricity input into hydrogen to get the same output as an electric car.I suspect that for JCB the BEV vs. hydrogen argument has additional factors.
They only cut the Perkins umbilical back in 2005 and they’ve shovelled money into ICE building plants ever since – so they’re lumbered with relatively new facilities and a powertrain engineering/work force that is 100% piston-engine focused.
If they’re going to produce their own ‘environment option’ they have to work to their existing human & capital assets, so they can do hydrogen or… hydrogen.
Ironically a lot of construction, highways & engineering plant would be better suited to BEV; as a matter of course, such plant has a small operating radius and a fair amount of standing time - plus temporary project power adaptions are the norm already.
They only cut the Perkins umbilical back in 2005 and they’ve shovelled money into ICE building plants ever since – so they’re lumbered with relatively new facilities and a powertrain engineering/work force that is 100% piston-engine focused.
If they’re going to produce their own ‘environment option’ they have to work to their existing human & capital assets, so they can do hydrogen or… hydrogen.
Ironically a lot of construction, highways & engineering plant would be better suited to BEV; as a matter of course, such plant has a small operating radius and a fair amount of standing time - plus temporary project power adaptions are the norm already.
SpeckledJim said:
The point I was trying to make was slightly different.
A heavy ICE car is always bad news. It costs more energy to get it up to speed, and then if you brake, you swap that energy to a large amount of heat in the brakes.
Whereas a heavy EV isn't so bad. Yes, it costs more energy to get up to speed, but on slowing down, the weight counts in your favour, rather than against you, as a heavy car will be able to recover more energy than a light car will.
A heavy battery is usually bad news, and sometimes good news. Whereas a heavy ICE is always bad news.
You are right but i see moving the weight not as the main problem. For me its more the massive amount of resources needed to put a 600kg+ battery in every car. Lets not forget, that is the equivalent of 3/4 of the weight of a Golf 1 and maybe needs a replacement after 10/15 years because it ages by itself.A heavy ICE car is always bad news. It costs more energy to get it up to speed, and then if you brake, you swap that energy to a large amount of heat in the brakes.
Whereas a heavy EV isn't so bad. Yes, it costs more energy to get up to speed, but on slowing down, the weight counts in your favour, rather than against you, as a heavy car will be able to recover more energy than a light car will.
A heavy battery is usually bad news, and sometimes good news. Whereas a heavy ICE is always bad news.
When investing in stock markets one of the first things you learn is to diversify your money by not only buying shares of a single company. If one company goes downhill, you have other companys that can maybe compensate the loss.
I just don't understand why we are not doing that with our future mobility and look into more than one solution.
Maybe energy density of batteries in 10 years is not better than today?
Maybe we find a way to produce a lot of CO2 neutral synthetic fuels with little energy?
Nobody knows and just picking one solution and hoping for the best seems wrong.
Edited by ae2006 on Wednesday 2nd June 10:25
ae2006 said:
SpeckledJim said:
The point I was trying to make was slightly different.
A heavy ICE car is always bad news. It costs more energy to get it up to speed, and then if you brake, you swap that energy to a large amount of heat in the brakes.
Whereas a heavy EV isn't so bad. Yes, it costs more energy to get up to speed, but on slowing down, the weight counts in your favour, rather than against you, as a heavy car will be able to recover more energy than a light car will.
A heavy battery is usually bad news, and sometimes good news. Whereas a heavy ICE is always bad news.
You are right but i see moving the weight not as the main problem. For me its more the massive amount of resources needed to put a 600kg+ battery in every car. Lets not forget, that is the equivalent of 3/4 of the original Golf and maybe needs a replacement after 10/15 years because it ages by itself.A heavy ICE car is always bad news. It costs more energy to get it up to speed, and then if you brake, you swap that energy to a large amount of heat in the brakes.
Whereas a heavy EV isn't so bad. Yes, it costs more energy to get up to speed, but on slowing down, the weight counts in your favour, rather than against you, as a heavy car will be able to recover more energy than a light car will.
A heavy battery is usually bad news, and sometimes good news. Whereas a heavy ICE is always bad news.
When investing in stock markets one of the first things you learn is to diversify your money by not only buying shares of a single company. If one company goes downhill, you have other companys that can maybe compensate the loss.
I just don't understand why we are not doing that with our future mobility and look into more than one solution.
Maybe energy density of batteries in 10 years is not better than today?
Maybe we find a way to produce a lot of CO2 neutral synthetic fuels with little energy?
Nobody knows.
A commuter-Golf might only need a 25kWh battery, and be lighter and cheaper to buy as a result (with a bigger boot maybe?) A rep-Golf might need a 150kWh battery, and so be heavy and expensive (but completely 'useful').
If both are on offer, and a few in between, in what's otherwise the same car, then it's up to the customer to choose the one that suits them best.
ae2006 said:
SpeckledJim said:
The point I was trying to make was slightly different.
A heavy ICE car is always bad news. It costs more energy to get it up to speed, and then if you brake, you swap that energy to a large amount of heat in the brakes.
Whereas a heavy EV isn't so bad. Yes, it costs more energy to get up to speed, but on slowing down, the weight counts in your favour, rather than against you, as a heavy car will be able to recover more energy than a light car will.
A heavy battery is usually bad news, and sometimes good news. Whereas a heavy ICE is always bad news.
You are right but i see moving the weight not as the main problem. For me its more the massive amount of resources needed to put a 600kg+ battery in every car. Lets not forget, that is the equivalent of 3/4 of the original Golf and maybe needs a replacement after 10/15 years because it ages by itself.A heavy ICE car is always bad news. It costs more energy to get it up to speed, and then if you brake, you swap that energy to a large amount of heat in the brakes.
Whereas a heavy EV isn't so bad. Yes, it costs more energy to get up to speed, but on slowing down, the weight counts in your favour, rather than against you, as a heavy car will be able to recover more energy than a light car will.
A heavy battery is usually bad news, and sometimes good news. Whereas a heavy ICE is always bad news.
When investing in stock markets one of the first things you learn is to diversify your money by not only buying shares of a single company. If one company goes downhill, you have other companys that can maybe compensate the loss.
I just don't understand why we are not doing that with our future mobility and look into more than one solution.
Maybe energy density of batteries in 10 years is not better than today?
Maybe we find a way to produce a lot of CO2 neutral synthetic fuels with little energy?
Nobody knows.
I'd like to see cars designed for a huge range of battery sizes. Which also opens the same model up to a wider range of price-bands.
A commuter-Golf might only need a 25kWh battery, and be lighter and cheaper to buy as a result (with a bigger boot maybe?) A rep-Golf might need a 150kWh battery, and so be heavy and expensive (but completely 'useful').
If both are on offer, and a few in between, in what's otherwise the same car, then it's up to the customer to choose the one that suits them best.
Kudos to JCB but hydrogen ICE is nothing new
The problem is that producing the fuel is inefficient and storing and distribution is expensive.......this needs to come down before its viable
Having said that, i see the future of vehicles that aren't town cars ( so i mean long range private transport, vans, lorries etc as either Hydrogen ICE or Synthetic fuel ICE with BEV being prevalent in towns, cities and for short hop family transport (95% of journeys)
We will never have an infrastructure to support all private cars being BEV
The problem is that producing the fuel is inefficient and storing and distribution is expensive.......this needs to come down before its viable
Having said that, i see the future of vehicles that aren't town cars ( so i mean long range private transport, vans, lorries etc as either Hydrogen ICE or Synthetic fuel ICE with BEV being prevalent in towns, cities and for short hop family transport (95% of journeys)
We will never have an infrastructure to support all private cars being BEV
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff