Has JCB saved engines?
Discussion
cidered77 said:
maybe not everyone in the future though.... Swanson's Law on solar, and rapidly improving battery technology is reducing the pay-off time for going off-grid all the time, and for the middle classes who are settled in their home (or, like me, just want a cool project and love tech) - more and more have the option to move largely off grid.
I say "largely", as you'd still need the grid for longer periods of bleak weather or for faults, etc - but you'd be reasonably expecting to pay a lot less for that. Grid still needs to be funded though, so those charges will get spread across a smaller number of people - including those least able to pay.
Energy patterns and how we get our energy has a lot more change than just EV to deal with - but as long as there is money to be made: that change is coming...
Solar is pretty much done. It's at its chemical max efficiency. It's a similar case with chemical batteries where much of the recent gains have stemmed from removing packaging and better management. I say "largely", as you'd still need the grid for longer periods of bleak weather or for faults, etc - but you'd be reasonably expecting to pay a lot less for that. Grid still needs to be funded though, so those charges will get spread across a smaller number of people - including those least able to pay.
Energy patterns and how we get our energy has a lot more change than just EV to deal with - but as long as there is money to be made: that change is coming...
These two systems aren't like chips, they are very simple chemical processes where we are already able to move all the available electrons pretty much.
The key for both technologies is a genuine step change to new methods of capturing and storing energy.
With batteries this is why the move into using capacitors has stemmed from but those are crude means to release energy and are really only working as buffers around chemical batteries. The chemical battery was created about 140 years ago and despite what the hype tries to say the cold reality is that this tech hasn't actually moved on in any significant way since when you contrast it to all other areas of tech. It has lagged so badly that it is now the single biggest inhibitor to human progress. Over 120 years on from the first EVs we are still having to pack massive, inefficient and heavy bricks into EVs in order to try and take advantage of the monumental superiority of the electric motor over the ICE. Just look at EVs today. Their motors are in a different league to any ICE, magnitudes superior yet the end product is hobbled all the way back to being inferior because of the immense inefficiency of our current energy storage solution.
We can look at wind farms also to see the same crippling issue of not being able to efficiently store the energy that is created. In order to even begin to store that energy we are having to resort to battery tech that is thousands of year old, water batteries.
The latest venture is to try and use wind energy to split water to give Hydrogen that can then be compressed and shipped to be converted back to electricity at the destination. A phenomenally clumsy solution to be resorting to but born out of desperation because viable modern battery tech remains almost as elusive as it has done for the last hundred years.
The truth is that chemical batteries are woeful. They represent the single largest failure of mankind to progress.
When we do finally source a viable replacement that is efficient in both energy density and packaging we will live through the fastest and biggest change in this planet that anyone has ever seen technology wise. It is an event that will be so large as to make the Internet and the smart phone mere footnotes.
It will also also be the moment that ICE cars cease to have any relevance whatsoever as the only issue with EVs is the cripplingly s
te batteries that strip all the other superior elements of the equation of their gains over ICE. And hence why EVs only exist because of command economics and cannot exist under a free market model.
I really like EVs but no one can say that in 2021 we have good battery tech or that the current battery tech is going to continue to find improvements at the same rate. Modern batteries are clunky, incompetent crap and an embarrassment to human society.
Volvolover said:
So we're all in agreement then, nowt wrong with BEV per se but we dont have the infrastructure yet ( or battery tech / energy solution ) to support full use of BEVs and untill we make that tech breakthrough we wont
The thread is about a hydrogen engine so I can't see how that's the conclusion to try and get everyone to agree to. But, not withstanding that, nope, I'm not even close to agreeing with that statement. I am however learning a lot!Volvolover said:
So we're all in agreement then, nowt wrong with BEV per se but we dont have the infrastructure yet ( or battery tech / energy solution ) to support full use of BEVs and untill we make that tech breakthrough we wont
Not quite. We do currently have the infrastructure. And that infrastructure will continue to expand ahead of the number of EVs on the road. Some people seem to think that the tax payer will be installing chargers outside their homes but that isn't going to happen. Chargers will be installed where they attract the most customers, not one car sitting there all night but only being on charge for an hour. This means car parks and destinations.
At the same time for the next few years the trend will maintain of EV users being people who have private parking and no real need of any remote charging infrastructure.
So we do have the infrastructure currently and it is still growing far quicker than EV adoption.
No one actually has to buy an EV so not being able to charge at home and not having a charger at work or the shops is non issue. Even in 2035 we don't have to buy an EV. We can simply keep the car we bought in 2024 for a decade or two if we want to swerve EVs for as long as possible.
And as for batteries, the current tech works. It's just not efficient or superior to petrol in any way other than local pollution but we can clearly see that there are £30k EVs that will last the average user all week before needing a charge or just a little top up each day.
The reality is that we could all switch to EV tomorrow if we had to. It just won't be perfect for around 30-40% of users. But there is a reason why humans are the master species and that is because even the dumbest one can adapt easily and rapidly to changed environments.
I think mr average does not want to spend more than 300 a month. That 2/3 of decent . Buy in now is not an attractive option. Far from there being many charging point, image a Tesco car park with 10 charging points then think of every car in the car park want to charge! Further most people in the market for an ev want a crossover or hatch and the ev tech leader is like grandads saloon. Etc etc
DonkeyApple said:
And as for batteries, the current tech works. It's just not efficient or superior to petrol in any way other than local pollution there is a reason why humans are the master species and that is because even the dumbest one can adapt easily and rapidly to changed environments.
Absolute bunkum, sorry!A current EV uses around 3 times less energy over it's life time to provide a faster, quieter, cheap to run, easier to drive, bigger interior space, lower maintainance passenger car than the equivalent ICE.
For most people, that's more than enough.
Max_Torque said:
Absolute bunkum, sorry!
A current EV uses around 3 times less energy over it's life time to provide a faster, quieter, cheap to run, easier to drive, bigger interior space, lower maintainance passenger car than the equivalent ICE.
For most people, that's more than enough.
Wrong. Again.A current EV uses around 3 times less energy over it's life time to provide a faster, quieter, cheap to run, easier to drive, bigger interior space, lower maintainance passenger car than the equivalent ICE.
For most people, that's more than enough.
You made the mistake of missing out the 'average' EV, because a 30 year old F150 driven over your '5.6 mile standard journey' per day will be significantly more environmentally friendly than a brand new EV. But let's not let simple facts get in the way of your pro EV posts. An old ICE, is also something no EV can match, as they are all gen 1 to gen 1.5, basically all at Betamax stages of development
And faster, Where is your i3 faster 0-30? Bigger interior space, than what?
ddom said:
Wrong. Again.
You made the mistake of missing out the 'average' EV, because a 30 year old F150 driven over your '5.6 mile standard journey' per day will be significantly more environmentally friendly than a brand new EV. But let's not let simple facts get in the way of your pro EV posts. An old ICE, is also something no EV can match, as they are all gen 1 to gen 1.5, basically all at Betamax stages of development
And faster, Where is your i3 faster 0-30? Bigger interior space, than what?
Again, more rubbish.You made the mistake of missing out the 'average' EV, because a 30 year old F150 driven over your '5.6 mile standard journey' per day will be significantly more environmentally friendly than a brand new EV. But let's not let simple facts get in the way of your pro EV posts. An old ICE, is also something no EV can match, as they are all gen 1 to gen 1.5, basically all at Betamax stages of development
And faster, Where is your i3 faster 0-30? Bigger interior space, than what?
An F150 returns 20 MPG over the EPA test procedure. 20 mpg is an energy consumption of 1.8 kWH per mile
A typical electric car consumes 0.25 kWh/ml, the new electric F150 manages 0.5 kWh/ml.
But lets not let talking crap get in the way of actual physics now shall we.
And are you suggesting that a typical EV is "slower" than a typical equivalent ICE? Really? Have you been paying attention to any thing? You'd literally have to be an actual idiot to think an EV was slower, given that in pretty much every video ever the one thing that is mentioned and shown repeatidly is that EVs are faster than the equivalent ICE.....
Of course, you are not actually suggesting that, you are just trolling me again.. Every single time i post, you troll me. It's getting very boring.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 8th June 19:53
ddom said:
Wrong. Again.
You made the mistake of missing out the 'average' EV, because a 30 year old F150 driven over your '5.6 mile standard journey' per day will be significantly more environmentally friendly
30 year old cars are an absolutely tiny % of everyday cars in industrialised countries. To the point that your point is pointless!You made the mistake of missing out the 'average' EV, because a 30 year old F150 driven over your '5.6 mile standard journey' per day will be significantly more environmentally friendly
You are conflating 2 separate things:
1. whether people should consume less and keep their vehicles for much longer;
2. whether an EV has a smaller enviro footprint than a comparable ICE car (i.e. same age, same use, used for the length of time).
Volvolover said:
Killboy said:
Volvolover said:
Why don't you tell us how many people in the UK are using it then.....
(BTW I don't disagree at all that the technology exists and in principle 'could' eventually work nationally and in a small controlled sample does work now)
I have no idea how many in total, but your mates at the National Grid should be able to tell you that. (BTW I don't disagree at all that the technology exists and in principle 'could' eventually work nationally and in a small controlled sample does work now)
Volvolover said:
So we're all in agreement then, nowt wrong with BEV per se but we dont have the infrastructure yet ( or battery tech / energy solution ) to support full use of BEVs and untill we make that tech breakthrough we wont
I think we can all agree you got about everything wrong in this thread. Let me know who disagrees Max_Torque said:
Again, more rubbish.
An F150 returns 20 MPG over the EPA test procedure. 20 mpg is an energy consumption of 1.8 kWH per mile
A typical electric car consumes 0.25 kWh/ml, the new electric F150 manages 0.5 kWh/ml.
But lets not let talking crap get in the way of actual physics now shall we.
And are you suggesting that a typical EV is "slower" than a typical equivalent ICE? Really? Have you been paying attention to any thing? You'd literally have to be an actual idiot to think an EV was slower, given that in pretty much every video ever the one thing that is mentioned and shown repeatidly is that EVs are faster than the equivalent ICE.....
Of course, you are not actually suggesting that, you are just trolling me again.. Every single time i post, you troll me. It's getting very boring.
An F150 was an easy emotive choice. Try an 90’s Toyota, mid 30’s? I actually thought you’d left, but as you’re asking what is faster than an EV, there’s quite a lot. So just refer to the last post and answer the questions, or flounce, form either way really. An F150 returns 20 MPG over the EPA test procedure. 20 mpg is an energy consumption of 1.8 kWH per mile
A typical electric car consumes 0.25 kWh/ml, the new electric F150 manages 0.5 kWh/ml.
But lets not let talking crap get in the way of actual physics now shall we.
And are you suggesting that a typical EV is "slower" than a typical equivalent ICE? Really? Have you been paying attention to any thing? You'd literally have to be an actual idiot to think an EV was slower, given that in pretty much every video ever the one thing that is mentioned and shown repeatidly is that EVs are faster than the equivalent ICE.....
Of course, you are not actually suggesting that, you are just trolling me again.. Every single time i post, you troll me. It's getting very boring.
Edited by Max_Torque on Tuesday 8th June 19:53
braddo said:
30 year old cars are an absolutely tiny % of everyday cars in industrialised countries. To the point that your point is pointless!
You are conflating 2 separate things:
1. whether people should consume less and keep their vehicles for much longer;
2. whether an EV has a smaller enviro footprint than a comparable ICE car (i.e. same age, same use, used for the length of time).
Have you travelled to many countries, I am not assuming, but head to South America, Africa etc and you don't generally see brand new vehicles. In that environment EV is only going to be adopted once it has evolved significantly.You are conflating 2 separate things:
1. whether people should consume less and keep their vehicles for much longer;
2. whether an EV has a smaller enviro footprint than a comparable ICE car (i.e. same age, same use, used for the length of time).
Max_Torque said:
DonkeyApple said:
And as for batteries, the current tech works. It's just not efficient or superior to petrol in any way other than local pollution there is a reason why humans are the master species and that is because even the dumbest one can adapt easily and rapidly to changed environments.
Absolute bunkum, sorry!A current EV uses around 3 times less energy over it's life time to provide a faster, quieter, cheap to run, easier to drive, bigger interior space, lower maintainance passenger car than the equivalent ICE.
For most people, that's more than enough.
Everything that you state is due to the motor and despite of the inefficient, heavy, cumbersome batteries.
It's the electric motor that delivers all the upside but the batteries are crap.
Name a branch of tech that isn't waiting for superior energy storage? There isn't one. Our reliance on chemical storage solutions is precisely the issue.
If EVs are superior why do they only exist in markets where legislation forces manufacturers to build them and customers to buy them? The answer is because the batteries are so bad that they undo all the enormous advantages of the electric motor over the ICE.
The electric motor is so superior that ICE should have disappeared through free market economics years ago. The reason this still isn't even close to happening is solely due to the battery problem.
ddom said:
An F150 was an easy emotive choice. Try an 90’s Toyota, mid 30’s? I actually thought you’d left, but as you’re asking what is faster than an EV, there’s quite a lot. So just refer to the last post and answer the questions, or flounce, form either way really.
mid 30 mpg is 1.12 kWh/ml.That means your mid 90'd toyota is using nearly 5 times more energy than an equivalent sized EV to drive each and every mile. Drive 100 miles, and that's 500 times more energy! It's also putting out tailpipe emissions that are considered catastrophic, and in fact, illegal, and it would be banned from many city centres today.
In terms of quicker, if you actually look at the performance figures
BMW M3 vs Tesla Model 3 performance. WIN for Tesla
BMW 118d vs BMW i3s. Win for i3
Range Rover sport SVR vs Tesla Model X. WIn for Tesla
Porsche Panamera V8 vs Porsche Taycan: Win for, er Porsche the 'lecy one
Rimac Nevera vs, well, anyting; WIN for Rimac
Polestar 2 vs Volve S60: WIN for polestar
EVs are quicker because they are more powerful, dont have energy and time sapping transissions, and because they get near perfect traction every time because they don't have to initally match an already spinning crank to a stationary road wheel
To suggest "EVs are slower than ICEs" is litterally the stupiest thing i have read on PH for a long while.
Killboy said:
Volvolover said:
Killboy said:
Volvolover said:
Why don't you tell us how many people in the UK are using it then.....
(BTW I don't disagree at all that the technology exists and in principle 'could' eventually work nationally and in a small controlled sample does work now)
I have no idea how many in total, but your mates at the National Grid should be able to tell you that. (BTW I don't disagree at all that the technology exists and in principle 'could' eventually work nationally and in a small controlled sample does work now)
DonkeyApple said:
If EVs are superior why do they only exist in markets where legislation forces manufacturers to build them and customers to buy them? The answer is because the batteries are so bad that they undo all the enormous advantages of the electric motor over the ICE.
Who is forcing who to make or buy EVs right now?Edited by Killboy on Tuesday 8th June 20:30
ddom said:
Have you travelled to many countries, I am not assuming, but head to South America, Africa etc and you don't generally see brand new vehicles. In that environment EV is only going to be adopted once it has evolved significantly.
Old cars in those markets are utterly irrelevant to the debate about car manufacturers moving to EVs in their key markets (incl China eventually).Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff