RE: Polestar 5 prototype charges in 10 minutes
Discussion
I bought an EV after much research and gradual debunking (to my own satisfaction), of the clickbaity BS claims, many of which that have been repeated here. In common with many EV drivers here, I have used and continue to run ICE cars.
An EV is not a drop-in replacement for an ICE vehicle and to make a direct comparison will inevitably highlight and exaggerate the importance of refuelling speed. Optimal use of an EV requires modification of behaviour and expectations. Detractors cling on to these few points and (maybe due to ignorance), conveniently ignore the other benefits: Performance, low cost, near silent operation, low maintenance costs, reduced maintenance frequency, walking out to a `full tank' every morning, blah, blah... To over state importance of refuelling speed is to minimise the many advantages of EVs. Most EV drivers have operated ICE cars in the past and yet would not go back to them for daily transport.
It's a moot point in any case - petrol will become so expensive as to render not viable as fuel for personal transport. It's merely a question of how poor one wants to become in the interim or how gracefully one wants to make the transition.
An EV is not a drop-in replacement for an ICE vehicle and to make a direct comparison will inevitably highlight and exaggerate the importance of refuelling speed. Optimal use of an EV requires modification of behaviour and expectations. Detractors cling on to these few points and (maybe due to ignorance), conveniently ignore the other benefits: Performance, low cost, near silent operation, low maintenance costs, reduced maintenance frequency, walking out to a `full tank' every morning, blah, blah... To over state importance of refuelling speed is to minimise the many advantages of EVs. Most EV drivers have operated ICE cars in the past and yet would not go back to them for daily transport.
It's a moot point in any case - petrol will become so expensive as to render not viable as fuel for personal transport. It's merely a question of how poor one wants to become in the interim or how gracefully one wants to make the transition.
GT9 said:
Terminator X said:
All tech evolves or is predicted to evolve (batteries, check. The grid, check. EV range, check) but not sustainable fuel it seems 
TX.
Like clockwork. TX.
What exactly are you hoping might evolve, come on you must have some idea by now?
The world largest e-fuel developer is targeting 5 million cars worth of fuel by 2035.
There are 1.5 billion ICEs in the world.
Are you thinking some sort of lottery system for who gets the fuel?
Maybe a 200 car drag race and winner takes all?
GT9 said:
Can you explain how a market that introduces new cars at a rate of 5% p.a. and currently has 1 million EVs in it, would allow the entire market of 33 million car owners to be driving an EV in 2024.
That appears to be a serious maths fail on you part.
The fact that EVs only work for a small % of the market currently is wholly intentional and desirable.
If that wasn't the case, there would potentially be a major problem of lack of supply, particularly of used cars.
If you are in the large majority that they don't currently work for, that's perfectly ok.
What it doesn't mean is that you should immediately write the technology off as s
t.
Just be patient.
That appears to be a serious maths fail on you part.
The fact that EVs only work for a small % of the market currently is wholly intentional and desirable.
If that wasn't the case, there would potentially be a major problem of lack of supply, particularly of used cars.
If you are in the large majority that they don't currently work for, that's perfectly ok.
What it doesn't mean is that you should immediately write the technology off as s
t.Just be patient.
Deranged Rover said:
dxg said:
And where does it store the energy so that it can do so - a massive capacitor? How how long does it take to charge *that*?
There's no way the grid will be able to supply that...
What we'll need is a load of diesel generators powering the charging points!There's no way the grid will be able to supply that...
Hoofy said:
sidesauce said:
That's one in the eye for the argument that EVs take too long to charge. Let's see what they'll complain about next...
You asked and they delivered! (See above!)Sounds like a real advance though and if the facilities catch up, then perfect.
Still need to find better ways of mining but we aren't worried about African children around these parts.
Also there's the lack of decent noise. Need to be able to install mp3s. I'd have a clipclop sound or a chufchuf sound.
rodericb said:
Be patient
Maybe you can answer the question then.What specific evolution of e-fuel do you think will alter its end-to-end efficiency (currently at about 10%) and the resulting requirements for infrastructure per car?
Specific please. Chemistry changes in the fuel to use a yet undiscovered hydrocarbon? A breakthrough in ICE engine thermal efficiency? Discovering vast natural reserves of hydrogen? Nuclear fusion?
Unless one or more of these things comes along soon, or one I haven’t thought of, then every e-fuelled car requires more than 6 times as much electricity to travel the same distance as an EV.
Not only are we talking at least 6 times as many wind turbines or solar panels but you’ve got to convert ALL that electricity to something else, either hydrogen or CO2 sucked from the air.
I genuinely don’t think you or Tx have grasped the amount of infrastructure that entails per car. For starters, it currently costs at least £50k per car, so where is all the money coming from and how are they going to recover that investment?
For the UK market, think trillions.
Secondly, how long do you think it will take to actually get planning permits, build it and commission it?
And how many existing ICEs will still be on the roads by then?
We are not talking about subtle changes to battery chemistry and manufacturing methods to incrementally increase energy density.
This is simply a case of how much electricity you require and what you do with it all.
Energy efficiency and energy density are two very different things.
markj113 said:
because 400kw chargers are just dotted around everywhere aren't they.
it's like claiming ICE can refuel in 2 seconds because formula 1 cars can.
I'm going to annoy the hell out of everyone and mention energy efficiency again.it's like claiming ICE can refuel in 2 seconds because formula 1 cars can.
As the power rating of the charger goes up so does the number of cars it can serve.
At 400 kW, assuming a theoretical 100% utilisation rate, that's enough power for over 1000 EVs to cover an average annual mileage of 7500 miles.
Sure, 100% utilisation is unrealistic, but the point stands that due the the extremely high energy efficiency of electric propulsion, the new infrastructure demands are kept to the bare minimum.
Gary C said:
jenkosrugby said:
Gary C said:
If I have to have an EV, I want one with a torque curve and gears !
Pointless maybe
but it would be fun.
If you have not driven an EV.....The instant torque is (I can assure you)...fun :-)Pointless maybe
but it would be fun.
but its not as engaging as my 911 even though it has about 600 hp less.
markj113 said:
because 400kw chargers are just dotted around everywhere aren't they.
it's like claiming ICE can refuel in 2 seconds because formula 1 cars can.
it's like claiming ICE can refuel in 2 seconds because formula 1 cars can.
Just because 400kw chargers aren't around today, doesn't mean they won't be in the future !
Got to love people basing their opinions on much higher future requirements, being measured against today's infrastructure, like nothing else will ever get built, or improve
"The Grid will never be able to cope with 30 million EV's"
ShortBeardy said:
I bought an EV after much research and gradual debunking (to my own satisfaction), of the clickbaity BS claims, many of which that have been repeated here. In common with many EV drivers here, I have used and continue to run ICE cars.
An EV is not a drop-in replacement for an ICE vehicle and to make a direct comparison will inevitably highlight and exaggerate the importance of refuelling speed. Optimal use of an EV requires modification of behaviour and expectations. Detractors cling on to these few points and (maybe due to ignorance), conveniently ignore the other benefits: Performance, low cost, near silent operation, low maintenance costs, reduced maintenance frequency, walking out to a `full tank' every morning, blah, blah... To over state importance of refuelling speed is to minimise the many advantages of EVs. Most EV drivers have operated ICE cars in the past and yet would not go back to them for daily transport.
It's a moot point in any case - petrol will become so expensive as to render not viable as fuel for personal transport. It's merely a question of how poor one wants to become in the interim or how gracefully one wants to make the transition.
I did exactly the same...did some research, figured out how much easily de-bunkable BS was available from the internet keyboard warriors, and bought an EV. It suited my needs as I can charge off road, use the cheap EV charge rates, and I don't do too many long journeys, but I do commute 56 miles per day. my cost of fuel for May was £22......which compares to well over £200 from my previous Diesel car. Its quiet, very cheap to run and very quick.An EV is not a drop-in replacement for an ICE vehicle and to make a direct comparison will inevitably highlight and exaggerate the importance of refuelling speed. Optimal use of an EV requires modification of behaviour and expectations. Detractors cling on to these few points and (maybe due to ignorance), conveniently ignore the other benefits: Performance, low cost, near silent operation, low maintenance costs, reduced maintenance frequency, walking out to a `full tank' every morning, blah, blah... To over state importance of refuelling speed is to minimise the many advantages of EVs. Most EV drivers have operated ICE cars in the past and yet would not go back to them for daily transport.
It's a moot point in any case - petrol will become so expensive as to render not viable as fuel for personal transport. It's merely a question of how poor one wants to become in the interim or how gracefully one wants to make the transition.
GT9 said:
Maybe you can answer the question then.
What specific evolution of e-fuel do you think will alter its end-to-end efficiency (currently at about 10%) and the resulting requirements for infrastructure per car?
Specific please. Chemistry changes in the fuel to use a yet undiscovered hydrocarbon? A breakthrough in ICE engine thermal efficiency? Discovering vast natural reserves of hydrogen? Nuclear fusion?
Unless one or more of these things comes along soon, or one I haven’t thought of, then every e-fuelled car requires more than 6 times as much electricity to travel the same distance as an EV.
Not only are we talking at least 6 times as many wind turbines or solar panels but you’ve got to convert ALL that electricity to something else, either hydrogen or CO2 sucked from the air.
I genuinely don’t think you or Tx have grasped the amount of infrastructure that entails per car. For starters, it currently costs at least £50k per car, so where is all the money coming from and how are they going to recover that investment?
For the UK market, think trillions.
Secondly, how long do you think it will take to actually get planning permits, build it and commission it?
And how many existing ICEs will still be on the roads by then?
We are not talking about subtle changes to battery chemistry and manufacturing methods to incrementally increase energy density.
This is simply a case of how much electricity you require and what you do with it all.
Energy efficiency and energy density are two very different things.
I don't care what anyone does with whatever they can jam into a combustion chamber and make it explode just so long as they are able to research and develop synthetic fuels and not get pounded upon by the we've-already-answered-the-question-for-you people who think they know everything about everything but are completely rusted on to batteries and electric motors and have a raging authoritarian boner that everyone must be driving an electric vehicle.What specific evolution of e-fuel do you think will alter its end-to-end efficiency (currently at about 10%) and the resulting requirements for infrastructure per car?
Specific please. Chemistry changes in the fuel to use a yet undiscovered hydrocarbon? A breakthrough in ICE engine thermal efficiency? Discovering vast natural reserves of hydrogen? Nuclear fusion?
Unless one or more of these things comes along soon, or one I haven’t thought of, then every e-fuelled car requires more than 6 times as much electricity to travel the same distance as an EV.
Not only are we talking at least 6 times as many wind turbines or solar panels but you’ve got to convert ALL that electricity to something else, either hydrogen or CO2 sucked from the air.
I genuinely don’t think you or Tx have grasped the amount of infrastructure that entails per car. For starters, it currently costs at least £50k per car, so where is all the money coming from and how are they going to recover that investment?
For the UK market, think trillions.
Secondly, how long do you think it will take to actually get planning permits, build it and commission it?
And how many existing ICEs will still be on the roads by then?
We are not talking about subtle changes to battery chemistry and manufacturing methods to incrementally increase energy density.
This is simply a case of how much electricity you require and what you do with it all.
Energy efficiency and energy density are two very different things.
jenkosrugby said:
Gary C said:
jenkosrugby said:
Gary C said:
If I have to have an EV, I want one with a torque curve and gears !
Pointless maybe
but it would be fun.
If you have not driven an EV.....The instant torque is (I can assure you)...fun :-)Pointless maybe
but it would be fun.
but its not as engaging as my 911 even though it has about 600 hp less.
rodericb said:
I don't care what anyone does with whatever they can jam into a combustion chamber and make it explode just so long as they are able to research and develop synthetic fuels and not get pounded upon by the we've-already-answered-the-question-for-you people who think they know everything about everything but are completely rusted on to batteries and electric motors and have a raging authoritarian boner that everyone must be driving an electric vehicle.
If you are going to tell me to be patient, can you at least tell me what I'm waiting for?E-fuels address only one of the 'undesirable' aspects of engine ownership.
And I mean that as someone who likes engine but can also recognise that I'm in the minority of society.
Funnily enough, I've just made a list of some these things on another thread:
CO2, NOx, CO, vibration, noise, oil consumption, servicing, tens of tons of lifetime fuel, gearboxes, exhausts, fuel pumps.
Personally I think I'd be doing myself and everyone else who likes engines a huge disservice to be pretending that simply removing CO2 from that list (at massive expense and over a half century timeframe) will make everything good again.
Some of those things fail on legislation anyway, so unless we are happy with 'some NOx' and 'some oil consumption' it's likely moot.
By all means, fight the corner for interesting petrol cars, but this idea that e-fuel will save us all is folly.
I believe the way to do that is to promote the use of EVs to replace all the mundane petrol cars and all oil-burners when they've done their time.
Strangely, BP seem to agree with that pathway.
Edited by GT9 on Wednesday 1st May 12:28
SDK said:
markj113 said:
because 400kw chargers are just dotted around everywhere aren't they.
it's like claiming ICE can refuel in 2 seconds because formula 1 cars can.
it's like claiming ICE can refuel in 2 seconds because formula 1 cars can.
Just because 400kw chargers aren't around today, doesn't mean they won't be in the future !
Got to love people basing their opinions on much higher future requirements, being measured against today's infrastructure, like nothing else will ever get built, or improve
"The Grid will never be able to cope with 30 million EV's"
https://www.building.co.uk/news/laing-orourke-and-...
Lotobear said:
Interesting dichotomy - on the one hand the EV manufacturers need to keep putting out these 'hope value' stories to maintain interest in a tech that for most simply doesn't work.
One the other hand who would actually buy one right now with this promise of the 'holy grail' just a few years down the line?
and yet the world's biggest selling car is a Tesla Model Y - sighOne the other hand who would actually buy one right now with this promise of the 'holy grail' just a few years down the line?
I'm no EV evangelist, if anyone wants my opinion i think as second cars especially in urban areas they've cracked it, and prices are coming down - get into the larger segment and the technology doesn't quite seem to keep up with the spiral of more range = more weight = less efficiency = yet more weight, etc. And ICE still looks better for now. But who cares what it think...
it's just the pathetic weaselly dog whistling tedium driven by mostly middle aged men with views informed by memes, youtubes, amplifed social media posts, social media bubbles and generally anything *other* that objective facts based analysis that makes my blood boil
why does *everything* have to become a big tribal issue, with a bit of a global government conspiracy lumped on also? It's just beyond pathetic... what's wrong with trying to look at this with even a teeny tiny bit of objectivity?!
they clearly do "work" for a great many people; they clearly aren't perfect, the probably are the future and noooo, that youtube you saw on climate change being a lie isn't true, and noooo, they don't all burst into uncontrollable fires etc etc etc yawn*
- and of course i am making a generalisation here, i have no idea what you personally do and do not believe
jenkosrugby said:
I did exactly the same...did some research, figured out how much easily de-bunkable BS was available from the internet keyboard warriors, and bought an EV. It suited my needs as I can charge off road, use the cheap EV charge rates, and I don't do too many long journeys, but I do commute 56 miles per day. my cost of fuel for May was £22......which compares to well over £200 from my previous Diesel car. Its quiet, very cheap to run and very quick.
Well said that man.All these people that blather on about range don't take into account that most people do not do 250+ miles per day or anywhere near it. Those that do are very much the exception. Average UK mileage per car is 150 per week (7400 p.a.)
Just think of all the "second" cars that only do 50 - 150 miles per week on local trips and shopping/school runs. EV are perfect for this.
As someone else pointed out earlier many people see cars as white goods these days. They don't much care about how many cylinders it has, what its 0-60 time or what kind of suspension set up it has. As long as it's reliable, gets them from A - B and looks OK that's all they really care about.
This is Petrolheads, we enthuse about cars, bhp, torque bands, 0-60 times etc. We are very much the minority and totally unrepresentative of the wider public.
Some people would do well to remember that.
GT9 said:
Maybe you can answer the question then.
What specific evolution of e-fuel do you think will alter its end-to-end efficiency (currently at about 10%) and the resulting requirements for infrastructure per car?
Specific please. Chemistry changes in the fuel to use a yet undiscovered hydrocarbon? A breakthrough in ICE engine thermal efficiency? Discovering vast natural reserves of hydrogen? Nuclear fusion?
Unless one or more of these things comes along soon, or one I haven’t thought of, then every e-fuelled car requires more than 6 times as much electricity to travel the same distance as an EV.
Not only are we talking at least 6 times as many wind turbines or solar panels but you’ve got to convert ALL that electricity to something else, either hydrogen or CO2 sucked from the air.
I genuinely don’t think you or Tx have grasped the amount of infrastructure that entails per car. For starters, it currently costs at least £50k per car, so where is all the money coming from and how are they going to recover that investment?
For the UK market, think trillions.
Secondly, how long do you think it will take to actually get planning permits, build it and commission it?
And how many existing ICEs will still be on the roads by then?
We are not talking about subtle changes to battery chemistry and manufacturing methods to incrementally increase energy density.
This is simply a case of how much electricity you require and what you do with it all.
Energy efficiency and energy density are two very different things.
Well, there is this - producing ethanol from Urea, using a copper-based catalyst, atmospheric CO2 and sunlight:What specific evolution of e-fuel do you think will alter its end-to-end efficiency (currently at about 10%) and the resulting requirements for infrastructure per car?
Specific please. Chemistry changes in the fuel to use a yet undiscovered hydrocarbon? A breakthrough in ICE engine thermal efficiency? Discovering vast natural reserves of hydrogen? Nuclear fusion?
Unless one or more of these things comes along soon, or one I haven’t thought of, then every e-fuelled car requires more than 6 times as much electricity to travel the same distance as an EV.
Not only are we talking at least 6 times as many wind turbines or solar panels but you’ve got to convert ALL that electricity to something else, either hydrogen or CO2 sucked from the air.
I genuinely don’t think you or Tx have grasped the amount of infrastructure that entails per car. For starters, it currently costs at least £50k per car, so where is all the money coming from and how are they going to recover that investment?
For the UK market, think trillions.
Secondly, how long do you think it will take to actually get planning permits, build it and commission it?
And how many existing ICEs will still be on the roads by then?
We are not talking about subtle changes to battery chemistry and manufacturing methods to incrementally increase energy density.
This is simply a case of how much electricity you require and what you do with it all.
Energy efficiency and energy density are two very different things.
braddo said:
fatboy b said:
Yet another joins the party. You people don’t get it do you?
BTW, I’m not anti ev. I just don’t think they’re the whole future. Teach me otherwise please.
But the market seems to be voting with their feet, or are you in denial over that too?
Oh please. BTW, I’m not anti ev. I just don’t think they’re the whole future. Teach me otherwise please.
But the market seems to be voting with their feet, or are you in denial over that too?
All you have to do is read a few EV threads - actually read them, not filtering out the bits you disagree with. That is all I have done.For passenger cars they are overwhelmingly the long-term answer. Not only are they the best to decarbonise the national fleet, but they will increase energy security (using less oil) and act as a huge battery for the national grid which can smooth out demand.
Car enthusiasts are a tiny minority. Most people couldn't care less about engine noise, manual gear changes, steering feel etc. They have been buying 'white goods' cars for 70+ years now. EVs will be the progression of that.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff