Discussion
Evanivitch said:
Phil. said:
If Dyson can extend the range to say 500 miles on each charge through improved battery and motor design then he will impact the market.
It won't. The EV market is dominated by cost and availability at the time. No one needs the cost or weight of a 500 mile car.I suspect Dyson is investing in battery technology (a guess), which would be a game changer for EV’s. Lighter, smaller, longer lasting batteries. If this is not feasible then I am more persuaded to go for hydrogen once the filling stations become available.
Phil. said:
I won’t be buying an EV until their range is extended well beyond current limits or there are high performance chargers freely available. A friend has just bought an iPace and 200 miles is a comfortable realistic range between charges.
I suspect Dyson is investing in battery technology (a guess), which would be a game changer for EV’s. Lighter, smaller, longer lasting batteries. If this is not feasible then I am more persuaded to go for hydrogen once the filling stations become available.
200 miles isn't difficult for the latest 60kWh cars. But their availability is slim.I suspect Dyson is investing in battery technology (a guess), which would be a game changer for EV’s. Lighter, smaller, longer lasting batteries. If this is not feasible then I am more persuaded to go for hydrogen once the filling stations become available.
Evanivitch said:
It won't. The EV market is dominated by cost and availability at the time. No one needs the cost or weight of a 500 mile car.
The big change in EVs down the line will be dealing with the huge inefficiency of carrying around a massive battery pack. We are obsessed with Range for very logical reasons at present but down the line there is a market for premium EVs with much smaller battery packs. There is a viable number of affluent suburban dwellers who could easily make a 100 mile range car work. True environmentalism would be to tax weight and stimulate a slow move to smaller or lighter cars even if they are powered by ICE.
DonkeyApple said:
The big change in EVs down the line will be dealing with the huge inefficiency of carrying around a massive battery pack.
Agree.However, until the charge network becomes better and people become more aware of their limitations I doubt we'll see that. Multi-car households will probably be happy having a smaller car and a larger car just like they are now.
DonkeyApple said:
True environmentalism would be to tax weight and stimulate a slow move to smaller or lighter cars even if they are powered by ICE.
Agree that tax on mass is a good idea. But should not be to prolong life of ICE.Edited by Evanivitch on Thursday 16th May 16:03
DonkeyApple said:
The big change in EVs down the line will be dealing with the huge inefficiency of carrying around a massive battery pack.
not really from a pure "energy wasted" perspective. The only real penalty from having a large battery is currently cost to manufacturer, there is little economy penalty (thanks to regen negating a lot of the vehicles mass) and a large, and hence highly parallel, battery is actually more efficient at "making" current because it has a lower internal resistance!But you are correct, once EVs become mainstream and people work out that they don't actually drive to scotland every-single-day, i think cheaper, small capacity EVs will become prevalent for the majority in the commuter role. My "Little battery" i3 is exactly that car, 100miles if i'm lucky in summer, and as little as 60 in winter, but my round trip commute is just 30 miles (actually more than the average commute...) and on top of that, i actually have access to charging at work (which i've never really been bothered to use......)!
jjwilde said:
Phil. said:
If this is not feasible then I am more persuaded to go for hydrogen once the filling stations become available.
https://www.topspeed.com/cars/hydrogen-cars/ke4485...
https://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/index.php/home-hyd...
https://www.electrans.co.uk/cmb-worlds-first-hydro...
so I wouldn't take the piss just yet
Max_Torque said:
not really from a pure "energy wasted" perspective. The only real penalty from having a large battery is currently cost to manufacturer, there is little economy penalty (thanks to regen negating a lot of the vehicles mass) and a large, and hence highly parallel, battery is actually more efficient at "making" current because it has a lower internal resistance!
But you are correct, once EVs become mainstream and people work out that they don't actually drive to scotland every-single-day, i think cheaper, small capacity EVs will become prevalent for the majority in the commuter role. My "Little battery" i3 is exactly that car, 100miles if i'm lucky in summer, and as little as 60 in winter, but my round trip commute is just 30 miles (actually more than the average commute...) and on top of that, i actually have access to charging at work (which i've never really been bothered to use......)!
A simple Renualt twizzy could be my daily run around leaving space for something else for longer trips, lets face it most of the time cars have 1 person in and very little luggage! and the commute isn't farBut you are correct, once EVs become mainstream and people work out that they don't actually drive to scotland every-single-day, i think cheaper, small capacity EVs will become prevalent for the majority in the commuter role. My "Little battery" i3 is exactly that car, 100miles if i'm lucky in summer, and as little as 60 in winter, but my round trip commute is just 30 miles (actually more than the average commute...) and on top of that, i actually have access to charging at work (which i've never really been bothered to use......)!
Toaster said:
jjwilde said:
Phil. said:
If this is not feasible then I am more persuaded to go for hydrogen once the filling stations become available.
https://www.topspeed.com/cars/hydrogen-cars/ke4485...
https://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/index.php/home-hyd...
https://www.electrans.co.uk/cmb-worlds-first-hydro...
so I wouldn't take the piss just yet
WestyCarl said:
I'm not smart enough to know if hydrogen is the future. However what I do think is that batteries cannot be the long term future, more a steeping stone to move us away from fossil fuels.
I agree. Batteries are too heavy, too expensive and producing them is highly damaging to the environment, for them to be adopted on a global scale in the long term. Phil. said:
I agree. Batteries are too heavy, too expensive and producing them is highly damaging to the environment, for them to be adopted on a global scale in the long term.
Can I ask what you mean by 'long term'? How long do you see EV era lasting for? It does look to me like every legacy company bar toyota are all in on electric batteries. So to justify this investment we must be talking decades no?
Presumably there will be breakthroughs in battery technology to look forward to.
Evanivitch said:
Agree that tax on mass is a good idea. But should not be to prolong life of ICE.
It would be interesting whether it did. The reality is that all these massive, premium EVs aren’t exactly eco friendly in reality. I suspect that smaller lightweight cars with light drive trains and little petrol engines could clear 100mpg easily and be more environmentally friendly than either current ICE or EV. Edited by Evanivitch on Thursday 16th May 16:03
If we don’t get to vastly cheaper batteries and very big charging infrastructures quickly enough then such a car will be an extremely obvious choice for covering the massive and most polluting bottom end of the market. The uncomfortable truth being that we could have made this change decades ago and yet here we are today with the chosen tax steer of EVs still all a bit of a non entity and toys for the affluent. It could be decades before they are cheap enough for the true masses and making a genuine impact to air quality.
sambucket said:
Can I ask what you mean by 'long term'?
How long do you see EV era lasting for? It does look to me like every legacy company bar toyota are all in on electric batteries. So to justify this investment we must be talking decades no?
Presumably there will be breakthroughs in battery technology to look forward to.
Ignore ‘long term’ and focus on ‘global scale’. There is no way battery power is going to replace fossil fuels for vehicle numbers on an equivalent scale to meet the needs of a growing global population. Either vehicle numbers per head of population will have to reduce (make travel by car more expensive) or countries will not adopt EV completely. How long do you see EV era lasting for? It does look to me like every legacy company bar toyota are all in on electric batteries. So to justify this investment we must be talking decades no?
Presumably there will be breakthroughs in battery technology to look forward to.
Just the shear mass of chemicals and minerals required to create new batteries and replace 10 year old batteries will limit the scale of EV’s and ultimately their term. We’d be swapping one cause for environmental disaster for an other.
I suppose I’m saying that the ever increasing use of a car for individual travel will have to reduce at some point whatever the fuel so it will become more expensive.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff