Electric - It shouldn't need my 12 year old to tell you..
Discussion
Gangzoom (quote)
I would have thought on a forum where people care about their car rather than just look at numbers, people would understand the importance of the driving experience above and beyond all other things.
For me EVs are simply better cars its as simple as that.
(quote)
I also own a Nissan Leaf Tecna , to date done 23,000 + Miles. It's been the cheapest motoring I have ever had for over 55 years. Ev's bring Joy back into driving, instant Torque, Low brake Pad wear & service costs, No Clutch or gear ratios, No Exhaust = No Pollution, No tank of expensive flammable fuel, No replacement of DPF or Catylitic filters, smooth & near silent Drive. No Oil changes. All quoted from me, a converted Piston Head & ex-rally enthusiast !
I would have thought on a forum where people care about their car rather than just look at numbers, people would understand the importance of the driving experience above and beyond all other things.
For me EVs are simply better cars its as simple as that.
(quote)
I also own a Nissan Leaf Tecna , to date done 23,000 + Miles. It's been the cheapest motoring I have ever had for over 55 years. Ev's bring Joy back into driving, instant Torque, Low brake Pad wear & service costs, No Clutch or gear ratios, No Exhaust = No Pollution, No tank of expensive flammable fuel, No replacement of DPF or Catylitic filters, smooth & near silent Drive. No Oil changes. All quoted from me, a converted Piston Head & ex-rally enthusiast !
Edited by Modiman46 on Thursday 21st September 13:12
Modiman46 said:
Gangzoom (quote)
I would have thought on a forum where people care about their car rather than just look at numbers, people would understand the importance of the driving experience above and beyond all other things.
For me EVs are simply better cars its as simple as that.
(quote)
I also own a Nissan Leaf Tecna , to date done 23,000 + Miles. It's been the cheapest motoring I have ever had for over 55 years. Ev's bring Joy back into driving, instant Torque, Low brake Pad wear & service costs, No Clutch or gear ratios, No Exhaust = No Pollution, No tank of expensive flammable fuel, No replacement of DPF or Catylitic filters, smooth & near silent Drive. No Oil changes. All quoted from me, a converted Piston Head & ex-rally enthusiast !
Not going to totally disagree with you, but cost is not something that can be easily compared for the future. The duty the gov gets cannot be lost, so ultimately, it WILL be recovered by another means when/if ev's take over from ic'sI would have thought on a forum where people care about their car rather than just look at numbers, people would understand the importance of the driving experience above and beyond all other things.
For me EVs are simply better cars its as simple as that.
(quote)
I also own a Nissan Leaf Tecna , to date done 23,000 + Miles. It's been the cheapest motoring I have ever had for over 55 years. Ev's bring Joy back into driving, instant Torque, Low brake Pad wear & service costs, No Clutch or gear ratios, No Exhaust = No Pollution, No tank of expensive flammable fuel, No replacement of DPF or Catylitic filters, smooth & near silent Drive. No Oil changes. All quoted from me, a converted Piston Head & ex-rally enthusiast !
Edited by Modiman46 on Thursday 21st September 13:12
An ev would suit me. 7 miles to work. Would be wonderful if I could charge there (we make the bloody stuff !) but not yet.
As to no polution, that simply isn't true.
Gary C said:
So what have we learnt
Electric cars can't go as far as any type ot IC car. .... Shocker
Electric cars take quite awhile to recharge ....... Shocker
We all know this so why is there stupid challenges going on ?
Back to original post
Cells are not good enough to replace an IC and give identical overal performance. Will they in the future ? Don't know. Lots of research is taking place with many interesting areas, even redox flow cells ( now they would be good, the anion and cation are liquids and depleted charge can be drained and recharged fluids pumped in in a couple of minutes) but they have some major technical challenges to make them suitable for automotive use.
So, yes, we are going to have reduced mobility with ev, the question should be, why are we doing it.
I can no longer fly to New York supersonic, why can't I do that?Electric cars can't go as far as any type ot IC car. .... Shocker
Electric cars take quite awhile to recharge ....... Shocker
We all know this so why is there stupid challenges going on ?
Back to original post
Cells are not good enough to replace an IC and give identical overal performance. Will they in the future ? Don't know. Lots of research is taking place with many interesting areas, even redox flow cells ( now they would be good, the anion and cation are liquids and depleted charge can be drained and recharged fluids pumped in in a couple of minutes) but they have some major technical challenges to make them suitable for automotive use.
So, yes, we are going to have reduced mobility with ev, the question should be, why are we doing it.
Somebody else made the decision for me, same with EVs.
Anyway, anything's better than the diesel epidemic that we have been suffering under for too long. The number of boring, foul smelling, black smoke billowing out s
tboxes I passed today makes me lose the will to live. There, I can do angry old fool too.
GT119 said:
I can no longer fly to New York supersonic, why can't I do that?
Somebody else made the decision for me, same with EVs.
Anyway, anything's better than the diesel epidemic that we have been suffering under for too long. The number of boring, foul smelling, black smoke billowing out stboxes I passed today makes me lose the will to live.
There, I can do angry old fool too.
Name calling ?Somebody else made the decision for me, same with EVs.
Anyway, anything's better than the diesel epidemic that we have been suffering under for too long. The number of boring, foul smelling, black smoke billowing out s
tboxes I passed today makes me lose the will to live. There, I can do angry old fool too.
I was trying to get this thread on some direction without personal attacks.
The pressure is environmental and health ? the diesel issue is fairly new and all I've seen so far talks about 'linked to deaths' rather than facts, co2 is an emotive subject that we will only find out the truth it seems when it's happened?
In the bleakest interpretation of these issues, we will have to suffer a reduction in our mobility but it's really hard for most of us to know the truth when there is so much conflicting information.
Bio fuels seem to be bad due to the effect on food chain in poor countries, I do wonder what sort of mpg a car would need to have to allow sustainable bio fuel use ?
Problem I see with euro gov's banning anything but electric, is it suppresses any sort of investigation and investment into any possible better alternatives. However it dos set a marker for change as we humans are very good at the 'a few more years, then we we'll sort it out'
Frimley111R said:
However you look at it, burning fossil fuels in close proximity to humans cannot be good or even ok for health. The question is how bad but I do not think the question is or ever was 'Is it bad?'
OK. Fair point. Having worked on flue gas probes on coal powerstation chimneys, it ain't pleasant.Emissions are probably not as bad as the junk a lot of us eat though. That it probably a much more signifac6life limiting factor ?
Gas is a much purer hydrocarbon than coal so is the major factor co2?
Bio fuels seemed to be the answer at one point, but seems to have hit a wall.
Gary C said:
1. OK. Fair point. Having worked on flue gas probes on coal powerstation chimneys, it ain't pleasant.
2. Emissions are probably not as bad as the junk a lot of us eat though. That it probably a much more signifac6life limiting factor ?
1. But they're not smack bang in the town and city city centres either. And ICE engines fire up cold right outside our homes, every day possibly, right when they're at their most polluting.2. Emissions are probably not as bad as the junk a lot of us eat though. That it probably a much more signifac6life limiting factor ?
2. I totally agree with that. I've been going through a bit of a health issue lately, I want to change my lifestyle in that regard. From what I've read a really key thing is to keep weight down. If we were all to keep our weight near some sort of optimum, we'd potentially be living decades longer.
To be fair, I think the OP has a point.
We have a fairly good idea that EV is not a good environmental solution from a Co2 POV - the numbers I've looked at suggest that EV emissions are around 189 Co2 per mile or KM (can't remember which sorry), so that's a good way behind the majority of small modern cars.
Of course this depends on the energy mix powering the battery, but the 189 is based on (again I think) 2104 data. It will have come down a bit since then as we have developed more green energy. But the report author suggested it would never come down below about 70 due to the increased energy useage in making EV.
And despite our best batteries, the energy density of batteries is way way lower than most carbon based fuels. So in the type of car we know today, range is always going to be limited. Until we get much better batteries.
I can see that EV has advantages - cities, local pollution, maybe better engine torque etc, but like the OP, I struggle to see EV's replacing diesel engines anytime soon, simply from an engineering perspective.
We have a fairly good idea that EV is not a good environmental solution from a Co2 POV - the numbers I've looked at suggest that EV emissions are around 189 Co2 per mile or KM (can't remember which sorry), so that's a good way behind the majority of small modern cars.
Of course this depends on the energy mix powering the battery, but the 189 is based on (again I think) 2104 data. It will have come down a bit since then as we have developed more green energy. But the report author suggested it would never come down below about 70 due to the increased energy useage in making EV.
And despite our best batteries, the energy density of batteries is way way lower than most carbon based fuels. So in the type of car we know today, range is always going to be limited. Until we get much better batteries.
I can see that EV has advantages - cities, local pollution, maybe better engine torque etc, but like the OP, I struggle to see EV's replacing diesel engines anytime soon, simply from an engineering perspective.
Interesting, is that fall entirely due to greener electricity generation? Presumably as it's showing it within specific models its nothing to do with improved battery/motor efficiency or better manufacturing techniques
bearman68 said:
Until we get much better batteries.
One of the benefits of electric cars becoming more popular is presumably a lot more money being spent on battery research.DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
Data from scientific America, and from US Department of Energy. It might not be the UK, but it don't look like 20 tome.But those smokestacks, many attached to coal-fired power plants, are the single-largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the U.S., at two billion metric tons of CO2 per year. That source would grow as electric cars demand more and more electricity, unless tighter pollution controls are placed on power plants or electric utilities shift to less polluting sources such as solar. As it stands, a conventional Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle, which burns gasoline when its batteries are not engaged, and the all-electric Nissan Leaf produce roughly the same amount of greenhouse gas pollution: 200 grams per mile, according to data from the U.S. Department of Energy.
RizzoTheRat said:
Interesting, is that fall entirely due to greener electricity generation?
Absolutely, and that is the point! Your EV automatically greens as it's supply greens. You don't need to scrap it and buy a new car like with an ICE. When <EU6 dervs are banned from city centres, people are going to buy a new car to replace there older car.As an EV is completely agnostic to where it's electricity comes from, it's effective tailpipe emissions varies. In the US, in rich, sunny, California chances are there will be a large proportion of people buying EVs and fitting domestic solar to run that car, with a correspondingly low CO2 footprint. In some more Northern states, currently, an EV is going to be effectively more polluting than a Californian EV, but critically, still nowhere as near as polluting as an equivalent ICE.
OldDuffer said:
I propose a bet. Money-where-mouth is. Any of you battery tech advocates want to take me on?
A 'range-over-time-taken to cover it contest. First one to do 700 miles, on EV or CNG in one vehilcle. £5000 to the winner?
You in a Leaf or any other EV. Me in my old wreck or using my brother's Caddy. We can pass charging points if you like. Legal speeds. Two passengers from opposing sides to assure fair play.
Come on, no mouth and trousers, money-where-mouth is? You've wonderous battery tech and my complete misunderstanding of it on your side. I'm the idiot here.
All that Mush bull, you're going to have me for breakfast. Serious about your tech against mine? We can lodge stakes with a solicitor or similar. Serious? I am. Completely.
Come now, take me on.
I propose a more civilsed counter wager, cheapest fuel and road cost from Stanmore in North London to High Holborn, loser pays for lunch at Holborn Dining Room and Delicatessen, I will take a Leaf, you can take your Caddy. A 'range-over-time-taken to cover it contest. First one to do 700 miles, on EV or CNG in one vehilcle. £5000 to the winner?
You in a Leaf or any other EV. Me in my old wreck or using my brother's Caddy. We can pass charging points if you like. Legal speeds. Two passengers from opposing sides to assure fair play.
Come on, no mouth and trousers, money-where-mouth is? You've wonderous battery tech and my complete misunderstanding of it on your side. I'm the idiot here.
All that Mush bull, you're going to have me for breakfast. Serious about your tech against mine? We can lodge stakes with a solicitor or similar. Serious? I am. Completely.
Come now, take me on.
Edited by OldDuffer on Monday 18th September 15:57
Oh what, you aren't making that argument... well no EV advocate has made the argument you are having a fit over either
Modiman46 said:
Gangzoom (quote)
I would have thought on a forum where people care about their car rather than just look at numbers, people would understand the importance of the driving experience above and beyond all other things.
For me EVs are simply better cars its as simple as that.
(quote)
I also own a Nissan Leaf Tecna , to date done 23,000 + Miles. It's been the cheapest motoring I have ever had for over 55 years. Ev's bring Joy back into driving, instant Torque, Low brake Pad wear & service costs, No Clutch or gear ratios, No Exhaust = No Pollution, No tank of expensive flammable fuel, No replacement of DPF or Catylitic filters, smooth & near silent Drive. No Oil changes. All quoted from me, a converted Piston Head & ex-rally enthusiast !
No exhaust noise, no induction sound, no mechanical gear change, no clutch, no selecting the gear I determine as being needed. In fact, take away my purpose for even being there and driverless cars appear far more appealing to me. I enjoy using and driving a car with a petrol engine. I enjoy the interaction with a machine and attempting to get the best (performance wise) from it. The smells, sounds and feeling they evoke are what make driving something I love. I appreciate an EV might (might!) be cleaner, cheaper etc but I hope it's not a path I am going to be forced to take because my choice would be to stick with an ICE. I do fear this is a choice we may well lose eventually though.I would have thought on a forum where people care about their car rather than just look at numbers, people would understand the importance of the driving experience above and beyond all other things.
For me EVs are simply better cars its as simple as that.
(quote)
I also own a Nissan Leaf Tecna , to date done 23,000 + Miles. It's been the cheapest motoring I have ever had for over 55 years. Ev's bring Joy back into driving, instant Torque, Low brake Pad wear & service costs, No Clutch or gear ratios, No Exhaust = No Pollution, No tank of expensive flammable fuel, No replacement of DPF or Catylitic filters, smooth & near silent Drive. No Oil changes. All quoted from me, a converted Piston Head & ex-rally enthusiast !
Edited by Modiman46 on Thursday 21st September 13:12
Max_Torque said:
Absolutely, and that is the point! Your EV automatically greens as it's supply greens. You don't need to scrap it and buy a new car like with an ICE.
In some more Northern states, currently, an EV is going to be effectively more polluting than a Californian EV, but critically, still nowhere as near as polluting as an equivalent ICE.
I think the jury is out on the last statement. EV in northern states seems to be higher then ICE, especially a frugal diesel. Of course as (if) energy supply greens EV will become more green. But let's not kid ourselves that here and now, they are making a big difference to Co2 outputs. And that's without the issues of range and refilling.In some more Northern states, currently, an EV is going to be effectively more polluting than a Californian EV, but critically, still nowhere as near as polluting as an equivalent ICE.
I'm not particularly bothered one way or another re EV, but dispassionately there seems little technical advantage. (Purposely excludes tax advantages here)
Just picked up a Tesla Model S (replacing 535d) and also have an M3 Competition Pack. So have a high performance EV and high performance ICE. They both have their place and are fantastic. The Tesla is a revelation and frankly my daily driver now, it is effortless and full of gadgetry that makes my commute in/out of London much more relaxing (adaptive cruise, Autosteer, silence). Let us not lump all EVs in the same bucket. My car has a real world range of 220-230 miles, and unless you are someone doing more than that daily I would suggest that current Tesla and future EVs will easily satisfy your daily driving needs. I like the idea of not having to spend time filling up at petrol stations (for one car at least) and knowing I leave the house every day with absolutely no range anxiety. ICE cars are going to be history, only the special ones will survive...best get used to it. It isn't so bad I promise you.
Frimley111R said:
Prizam said:
We are doing it because it is apparently better for the environment... Which it just isn't!
But simply burning stuff to get around is better? You cannot be more wrong.Making that battery generates a hell of a lot of pollution, a lot more than an ICE car.
Running an ICE car does create more pollution at the point of consumption, but electricity isn't pollution free. The generation of electricity coupled with the losses involved in getting it to your home makes it NOT a lot more efficient (Per KJ) than an ICE burning petrol.
Now... in 10 years time. That battery won't be as good as it is now. And neither will the ICE. But the ICE just needs some new rings and a bit of TLC. Heck, even if it needed an entirely new engine it would pollute less than making a new battery for a Tesla.
Prizam said:
You need to look at the bigger picture.
Making that battery generates a hell of a lot of pollution, a lot more than an ICE car.
Running an ICE car does create more pollution at the point of consumption, but electricity isn't pollution free. The generation of electricity coupled with the losses involved in getting it to your home makes it NOT a lot more efficient (Per KJ) than an ICE burning petrol.
Now... in 10 years time. That battery won't be as good as it is now. And neither will the ICE. But the ICE just needs some new rings and a bit of TLC. Heck, even if it needed an entirely new engine it would pollute less than making a new battery for a Tesla.
Post some empirical evidence to support your opinion, either that or just go back to your basement. Making that battery generates a hell of a lot of pollution, a lot more than an ICE car.
Running an ICE car does create more pollution at the point of consumption, but electricity isn't pollution free. The generation of electricity coupled with the losses involved in getting it to your home makes it NOT a lot more efficient (Per KJ) than an ICE burning petrol.
Now... in 10 years time. That battery won't be as good as it is now. And neither will the ICE. But the ICE just needs some new rings and a bit of TLC. Heck, even if it needed an entirely new engine it would pollute less than making a new battery for a Tesla.
bearman68 said:
EV in northern states seems to be higher then ICE, especially a frugal diesel.
Show your working please.....(remember, the "real world" fuel economy is what matters, not what the car does over the official tests. And also remember, when it's cold, your ICE is horribly polluting (check out the emissions / CO2 from the Federal -7degC test for ref!)
I am rather skeptical that the whole EV thing will become fully mainstream at any point in the future. The drive towards EV seems entirely based on ideology and government subsidy. I remember back ten or fifteen years ago when the government decreed that ALL new housing stock would be Zero Carbon by a certain date, it was a clusterfk and got watered down until all that was left were the stupid energy ratings in the estate agents brochure, i wouldn't be surprised if the same happens with the EV.
And as the death and taxes phrase goes, i'm sure we can all be certain that if EV's do become mainstream, they will be just as expensive to run as IC cars are now, the Govt simply will not wave goodby to the £50 odd billion. When you consider petrol is only 40pence a litre before market manipulation, a common or garden petrol IC could be 5 pence a mile compared to the oft cited EV 3 pence.
Regarding the youtube video posted about the tesla battery degradation, the chaps entire argument seems to be based on a linear extrapolation of currwent data. Have tesla genuinely created a different battery technology, or are they the same as all other li-ions and have a exponential degradation curve and the chap is being disingenuous?
k and got watered down until all that was left were the stupid energy ratings in the estate agents brochure, i wouldn't be surprised if the same happens with the EV.And as the death and taxes phrase goes, i'm sure we can all be certain that if EV's do become mainstream, they will be just as expensive to run as IC cars are now, the Govt simply will not wave goodby to the £50 odd billion. When you consider petrol is only 40pence a litre before market manipulation, a common or garden petrol IC could be 5 pence a mile compared to the oft cited EV 3 pence.
Regarding the youtube video posted about the tesla battery degradation, the chaps entire argument seems to be based on a linear extrapolation of currwent data. Have tesla genuinely created a different battery technology, or are they the same as all other li-ions and have a exponential degradation curve and the chap is being disingenuous?
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff