EV's..... not good.
Discussion
Simple stuff. Petrol cars, around 30% efficient (30 out of every 100 units of energy makes it move along). Humans, around 30% efficient. Mains electric, about12% efficiency between power-station and outlet socket. Dunno the mechanical efficiency of electric cars, but even the best batteries currently available are pretty crap, they leak electric out and go flat faster than a tank of petrol dries away certainly. Lets be generous and say they are 80% efficient which means 80% of 12% is how efficient electric cars are. Electric is made from either burning fossil fuels to make steam to drive turbines... or nuclear reaction to do exactly the same..... or various windmills and the like. The 'clean' power from the windmills is not much in the great scheme of things. It is unreliable and the NIMBY's won't let us smother the country in them for some reason. Nuclear power is lovely until the generator is worn out.... then it's a multi-thousand year nightmare. Filthy old fossil fuel is the current only practical option until we've invented ambient super-conductors and an artificial copycat of a leaf to convert carbon dioxide back into oxygen before we have to vent it into the atmosphere. So, as I said, EV's not good.
You do realise virtually every life form on this planet is here because of the Sun??
Photosynthesis is some like 10-20% efficient at converting solar energy to usable energy. Solar panels have bettered that already.
Combine solar and wind with battery storage and you have unlimited FREE power!!
The only thing 'Not good' is human stupidly....Why not look up how much energy is needed to refine oil and produce petrol, you might be surprised at the answer
Photosynthesis is some like 10-20% efficient at converting solar energy to usable energy. Solar panels have bettered that already.
Combine solar and wind with battery storage and you have unlimited FREE power!!
The only thing 'Not good' is human stupidly....Why not look up how much energy is needed to refine oil and produce petrol, you might be surprised at the answer
Edited by gangzoom on Monday 12th October 07:06
CITATION NEEDED.
(This applies to most of life).
We're fairly educated around here, if you go around spouting facts such as that, obviously with an agenda, only the gullible will believe you unless you provide adequate proof.
(This applies to most of life).
We're fairly educated around here, if you go around spouting facts such as that, obviously with an agenda, only the gullible will believe you unless you provide adequate proof.
Where do I start...
Does the OP think that it takes zero energy to drill, pump, refine and transport fuel before it goes in the tank of an IC car? Factor that into your 30% efficiency number and you are looking at something much closer to the 12% you quote for electricity production (not that I believe that number either - a quick search suggests 31% for UK production). You must compare apples to apples.
Does the OP think that it takes zero energy to drill, pump, refine and transport fuel before it goes in the tank of an IC car? Factor that into your 30% efficiency number and you are looking at something much closer to the 12% you quote for electricity production (not that I believe that number either - a quick search suggests 31% for UK production). You must compare apples to apples.
strudel said:
CITATION NEEDED.
(This applies to most of life).
We're fairly educated around here, if you go around spouting facts such as that, obviously with an agenda, only the gullible will believe you unless you provide adequate proof.
Here you go... (This applies to most of life).
We're fairly educated around here, if you go around spouting facts such as that, obviously with an agenda, only the gullible will believe you unless you provide adequate proof.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c...
The issue with EVs has nothing to do with efficiency in driving. It is all to do with:
1. Method of energy production, in technologically developing countries like the USA where predominant method of power production is coal EVs actually produce more CO2 per mile than a small ICE car.
2.Rare earth metal manufacturing, the large scale manufacture of battery and modern electric motor tech inflicts massive damage on local environments where it is produced (SE Asia & Africa mostly)
3.Rare earth metal rarity, at current usage rates we are going to run out of lithium, neodymium & others before we replace even half of the ICEs on the road, these materials should not be being wasted on large scale mass transportation
4. Geopolitical issues, rare earth metals used in EV production, predominantly Lithium are only found pretty much in 2 places; China and central Africa. China essentially owns the rights to African production leaving the resource open to price fixing and artificial market manipulation
5. Charge/Discharge cycles. Current battery tech is terrible.
Im going to wait for the next big thing, such as hydrogen (which also has many issues) before I even think of switching
1. Method of energy production, in technologically developing countries like the USA where predominant method of power production is coal EVs actually produce more CO2 per mile than a small ICE car.
2.Rare earth metal manufacturing, the large scale manufacture of battery and modern electric motor tech inflicts massive damage on local environments where it is produced (SE Asia & Africa mostly)
3.Rare earth metal rarity, at current usage rates we are going to run out of lithium, neodymium & others before we replace even half of the ICEs on the road, these materials should not be being wasted on large scale mass transportation
4. Geopolitical issues, rare earth metals used in EV production, predominantly Lithium are only found pretty much in 2 places; China and central Africa. China essentially owns the rights to African production leaving the resource open to price fixing and artificial market manipulation
5. Charge/Discharge cycles. Current battery tech is terrible.
Im going to wait for the next big thing, such as hydrogen (which also has many issues) before I even think of switching
STEVENSON-KAATSCH said:
Simple stuff. Petrol cars, around 30% efficient (30 out of every 100 units of energy makes it move along). Humans, around 30% efficient. Mains electric, about12% efficiency between power-station and outlet socket. Dunno the mechanical efficiency of electric cars, but even the best batteries currently available are pretty crap, they leak electric out and go flat faster than a tank of petrol dries away certainly. Lets be generous and say they are 80% efficient which means 80% of 12% is how efficient electric cars are. Electric is made from either burning fossil fuels to make steam to drive turbines... or nuclear reaction to do exactly the same..... or various windmills and the like. The 'clean' power from the windmills is not much in the great scheme of things. It is unreliable and the NIMBY's won't let us smother the country in them for some reason. Nuclear power is lovely until the generator is worn out.... then it's a multi-thousand year nightmare. Filthy old fossil fuel is the current only practical option until we've invented ambient super-conductors and an artificial copycat of a leaf to convert carbon dioxide back into oxygen before we have to vent it into the atmosphere. So, as I said, EV's not good.
Good heavens a new wave of mega troll has landed 
Seriously, EV's are good for the wallet. I could not give a monkeys what petrol and diesel efficiencies claim to be. You only have to look at VW to see it's a total fabrication
To put up a statement saying all EV's are bad makes you dumber than you already appear. I bought an EV because it was a FREE car and does not cost ME anything to run other than insurance.
Go and take your meds/go back to school/eat your troll food/whatever
When they send you through the crematorium you will be emitting particulates but there will be bugger all you can do to stop that
LordFlathead said:
Good heavens a new wave of mega troll has landed
Seriously, EV's are good for the wallet. I could not give a monkeys what petrol and diesel efficiencies claim to be. You only have to look at VW to see it's a total fabrication
To put up a statement saying all EV's are bad makes you dumber than you already appear. I bought an EV because it was a FREE car and does not cost ME anything to run other than insurance.
Go and take your meds/go back to school/eat your troll food/whatever
When they send you through the crematorium you will be emitting particulates but there will be bugger all you can do to stop that
So, You bought a free car, it has free fuel, maintenance free and everlasting tyres. Where do I sign upSeriously, EV's are good for the wallet. I could not give a monkeys what petrol and diesel efficiencies claim to be. You only have to look at VW to see it's a total fabrication
To put up a statement saying all EV's are bad makes you dumber than you already appear. I bought an EV because it was a FREE car and does not cost ME anything to run other than insurance.
Go and take your meds/go back to school/eat your troll food/whatever
When they send you through the crematorium you will be emitting particulates but there will be bugger all you can do to stop that
Go and see your Renault dealer..
My Jag costs me:
£25 tax pm
£260 Fuel pm
£50 insurance pm
so circa £4k a year plus last months service with Jaguar was £3500, then two new tyres £280
My Zoe costs me:
£179 pm for a new car
£0 fuel (Asda is 1 minute away with free chargers)
£0 tax
£25 insurance pm
By the time the Zoe needs tyres I will be handing it back (24 month PCP)
It is effectively free
My Jag costs me:
£25 tax pm
£260 Fuel pm
£50 insurance pm
so circa £4k a year plus last months service with Jaguar was £3500, then two new tyres £280
My Zoe costs me:
£179 pm for a new car
£0 fuel (Asda is 1 minute away with free chargers)
£0 tax
£25 insurance pm
By the time the Zoe needs tyres I will be handing it back (24 month PCP)
It is effectively free
,I agree to an extent and the money is one of the reasons I'm going EV, plus the desire to drive something different, but a Zoe is not a Jag.
I'm moving from a BMW 640d gran coupe to a tesla.
The BMW has cost
800 month in dep
50 in tax an insurance
150 in tyres and servicing (25k miles a year)
Fuel is 300
Call it roughly 1300 a month
The tesla is through the company
Lease net if tax but inclusive of bik is 1100
Maybe a bit of home charging but may be only 50 a month
I'm still better off but it's hardly free. My point is that to be fair to both sides of the argument we need to compare like for like size cars. Be interesting to see other maths
Edited to correct my ipads mind of its own!
I'm moving from a BMW 640d gran coupe to a tesla.
The BMW has cost
800 month in dep
50 in tax an insurance
150 in tyres and servicing (25k miles a year)
Fuel is 300
Call it roughly 1300 a month
The tesla is through the company
Lease net if tax but inclusive of bik is 1100
Maybe a bit of home charging but may be only 50 a month
I'm still better off but it's hardly free. My point is that to be fair to both sides of the argument we need to compare like for like size cars. Be interesting to see other maths
Edited to correct my ipads mind of its own!
Edited by JonV8V on Wednesday 14th October 15:44
LordFlathead said:
Go and see your Renault dealer..
My Jag costs me:
£25 tax pm
£260 Fuel pm
£50 insurance pm
so circa £4k a year plus last months service with Jaguar was £3500, then two new tyres £280
My Zoe costs me:
£179 pm for a new car
£0 fuel (Asda is 1 minute away with free chargers)
£0 tax
£25 insurance pm
By the time the Zoe needs tyres I will be handing it back (24 month PCP)
It is effectively free
InterestingMy Jag costs me:
£25 tax pm
£260 Fuel pm
£50 insurance pm
so circa £4k a year plus last months service with Jaguar was £3500, then two new tyres £280
My Zoe costs me:
£179 pm for a new car
£0 fuel (Asda is 1 minute away with free chargers)
£0 tax
£25 insurance pm
By the time the Zoe needs tyres I will be handing it back (24 month PCP)
It is effectively free
I did look at leccy cars a few months ago, but discounted it for two reasons. Firstly, no free chargers within 25 miles (though they are building 3.6GW of nuclear power stations within a mile!), and 2 or 4 220 mile trips a month. The joys of living in the middle on nowhere.Bought a Skoda Citigo outright eventually.
No mileage limit.
Cost £8k, assume £1,000 after 5 years, £116 a month.
Tax £0, insurance £10 a month, servicing, MOT, etc £10 a month, tyres £6 a month.
Fuel 50,000 miles at 55 mpg, £120 a month.
Zoe = £204 a month, Citigo = £262 a month, not a huge difference given my need for a longer range.
gangzoom said:
^^ I wouldn't waste time on some people.
The numbers are there for eveyone to see, if some one wants to keep on throwing money away on ICE cars let them....The government has to fund the EV grants some how
Yes I agree but wanted to see what dithering old fool (OP) would say in reply but I doubt if he can remember which site he posted on or what country he lives in The numbers are there for eveyone to see, if some one wants to keep on throwing money away on ICE cars let them....The government has to fund the EV grants some how
JonV8V said:
,I agree to an extent and the money is one of the reasons I'm going EV, plus the desire to drive something different, but a Zoe is not a Jag.
I'm moving from a BMW 640d gran coupe to a tesla.
The BMW has cost
800 month in dep
50 in tax an insurance
150 in tyres and servicing (25k miles a year)
Fuel is 300
Call it roughly 1300 a month
The tesla is through the company
Lease net if tax but inclusive of bik is 1100
Maybe a bit of home charging but may be only 50 a month
I'm still better off but it's hardly free. My point is that to be fair to both sides of the argument we need to compare like for like size cars. Be interesting to see other maths
Edited to correct my ipads mind of its own!
I was almost there with the Tesla as they are on my doorstep (BMW in West Drayton is their service centre with a supercharger) but just could not justify the £18k deposit. I would be buying a Tesla as my own personal car and the company would not contribute at that level of deposit. It was the only reason I decided it was not for me. So I am fortunate that I have a classic 928GT locked away for summer use and the Zoe is purely a commuting tool.I'm moving from a BMW 640d gran coupe to a tesla.
The BMW has cost
800 month in dep
50 in tax an insurance
150 in tyres and servicing (25k miles a year)
Fuel is 300
Call it roughly 1300 a month
The tesla is through the company
Lease net if tax but inclusive of bik is 1100
Maybe a bit of home charging but may be only 50 a month
I'm still better off but it's hardly free. My point is that to be fair to both sides of the argument we need to compare like for like size cars. Be interesting to see other maths
Edited to correct my ipads mind of its own!
I will garage the Jag (it's a diesel anyway) as I would miss it for longer distances so best of all worlds?
Slightly off topic/
I'm really hoping that insurance companies can deliver a stop start insurance policy whereby you can swap cover from an EV to other cars for summer use for example. It would be great if I could use the Zoe for winter months then use the Porsche for some summer fun or even to be able to swap cover for a weekend without having both cars on "full risk" at the same time. I seriously doubt it will happen but I think it would be a neat idea!
As the other points of your stream of consciousness have been addressed I'll have a go at the one left.
Even if it took us another 100 years to devise a more economic way of dealing with the stuff the volume produced is easily manageable. Western nations are doing the square root of f
k all to make nuclear more efficient but China and India are collectively investing hundreds of millions developing better reactor technology; I believe they'll have Gen 4 designs available commercially within a decade or so. In the mean time existing designs are the least objectionable means of keeping the lights on, inefficiencies or otherwise.
The bulk of a nuclear power station is not radioactive, the only bits that are of concern are the reactor vessel, steam generators(or turbines if a BWR) and the primary coolant circuit; the current plan with these is to seal them up for 30-40 years while the radioactivity decays a bit, dismantle, clean to remove contamination and send for scrapping. Even at this leisurely pace the site can be ready for reuse within 50 years, although some have been dismantled and the site cleared faster.
STEVENSON-KAATSCH said:
Nuclear power is lovely until the generator is worn out.... then it's a multi-thousand year nightmare.
... except it isn't; even the spent fuel isn't really, as it's mostly not spent because solid fuel reactors suck at using up the energy contained within uranium; PWRs typically consume 0.5% of the potential energy in the fuel before the rods must be removed to prevent fuel rod damage. The current fave method of dealing with it is sticking it in boxes and ignoring them, as uranium is still pretty cheap, reprocessing is quite expensive and storing un-reprocessed spent fuel rods is cheap. Nuclear power produces about 30 tonnes of spent fuel per year per GW output, which will fill about a quarter of a standard shipping container. All the spent nuclear fuel ever generated in the world would if stacked on the pitch in Wembley form a pile about 90 feet high. Coal power produces about 400,000 tonnes of ash per year per GW; if you could stack that 400,000t on Wembley's pitch the pile would be ~120 feet high.Even if it took us another 100 years to devise a more economic way of dealing with the stuff the volume produced is easily manageable. Western nations are doing the square root of f
k all to make nuclear more efficient but China and India are collectively investing hundreds of millions developing better reactor technology; I believe they'll have Gen 4 designs available commercially within a decade or so. In the mean time existing designs are the least objectionable means of keeping the lights on, inefficiencies or otherwise. The bulk of a nuclear power station is not radioactive, the only bits that are of concern are the reactor vessel, steam generators(or turbines if a BWR) and the primary coolant circuit; the current plan with these is to seal them up for 30-40 years while the radioactivity decays a bit, dismantle, clean to remove contamination and send for scrapping. Even at this leisurely pace the site can be ready for reuse within 50 years, although some have been dismantled and the site cleared faster.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff