Electric Van

[TheDeuce]

RicksAlfas said:

TheDeuce said:

Synthetic fuel is an improvement and great for those that run ICE vehicles in the future, but I'm talking about the incoming bans that rule out any solution other than BEV/HFC for new vans.

I'm sure the deadlines will move/flex slightly nearer the time. If not 2029 will be a bumper sales year! Payload is paramount for vans especially when keeping under the 3.5t limit so the weight of batteries is a major issue.

I also suspect the ICE ban might become a "fossil fuel" ban so manufacturers will continue to make engines but they will be powered by synthetic fuels. There is nothing wrong with an ICE. The problem is what's going in it and coming out.

I was saying the above years ago, it seemed fairly predictable that as the bans loomed exceptions would be made and loopholes introduced.

The problem with that theory is that they actually acted to bring the bans forward five years! That behaviour is at odds with taking a flexible approach.

Things can and do change however, so I guess we have to wait and see. I support BEV and the bans in spirit, but I do think the rules as defined are very crude and absolutely don't offer a practical solution for certain usage cases.

[Munter]

TheDeuce said:

Munter said:

TheDeuce said:

Synthetic fuel is an improvement and great for those that run ICE vehicles in the future, but I'm talking about the incoming bans that rule out any solution other than BEV/HFC for new vans.

A busy van driver covering diverse routes is going to be a stuck if they need to add 200 miles of range in their lunchbreak bit happen to be nowhere near a 100kw + charger. It's not really an issue for personal transport cars because it's not a big deal to take a detour to get to a charger or take a longer break at a slower charger. If you're at work however, and busy, it's going to be a problem.

For that a lot of people are putting money into this kind of hydrogen generation: https://www.edfenergy.com/media-centre/news-releas...

Various versions on the same idea being trialled all over the place. Can't see any of them and the required infrastructure being ready in time for the deadlines set mind you.

Anything that requires an infrastructure is hamstrung unless a majority of cars actually need that infrastructure. Forcing everyone to go BEV sooner or later will easily support the required charger infrastructure. But installation of thousands of hydrogen pumps and delivery trucks to keep them topped up if the only vehicles that use the stuff are a tiny % that really can't make do with a simpler BEV..? I don't see that happening either.

The suggestion is of the infrastructure problem might be solved using the current gas supply network (so no tankers). Which just requires everyone to have their gas boilers modified/replaced to burn the 80/20 gas/hydrogen mix. This kind of idea: https://www.energynetworks.org/newsroom/britains-g... Presumably some genius device...as yet unexplained, will strip the hydrogen out of the 80/20 mix and make it ready for putting into vehicles at the company depot/a.n.other filling station.

I'm only picking up bits of the whole idea from people on the water treatment side. So the fine details...not clear. However big £££ is being spent on water treatment plants to provide the water to make the hydrogen to go someplace, in some way, at some point.

[Evanivitch]

Munter said:

The suggestion is of the infrastructure problem might be solved using the current gas supply network (so no tankers). Which just requires everyone to have their gas boilers modified/replaced to burn the 80/20 gas/hydrogen mix. This kind of idea: https://www.energynetworks.org/newsroom/britains-g... Presumably some genius device...as yet unexplained, will strip the hydrogen out of the 80/20 mix and make it ready for putting into vehicles at the company depot/a.n.other filling station.

I'm only picking up bits of the whole idea from people on the water treatment side. So the fine details...not clear. However big £££ is being spent on water treatment plants to provide the water to make the hydrogen to go someplace, in some way, at some point.

The pressure required to put a meaningful amount of hydrogen into a vehicle is far, far greater than what is available from the gas mains.

And the idea of stripping hydrogen from the mains, well that leaves you with methane. What will you do with that? Putting it back in is complex of you're also trying to extract at the same point.

There is a lot of work going into hydrogen generation, but it has little to do with transport. We need clean hydrogen for a wide variety of chemical processes including fertiliser and potentially steel production.

[TheDeuce]

Evanivitch said:

Munter said:

The suggestion is of the infrastructure problem might be solved using the current gas supply network (so no tankers). Which just requires everyone to have their gas boilers modified/replaced to burn the 80/20 gas/hydrogen mix. This kind of idea: https://www.energynetworks.org/newsroom/britains-g... Presumably some genius device...as yet unexplained, will strip the hydrogen out of the 80/20 mix and make it ready for putting into vehicles at the company depot/a.n.other filling station.

I'm only picking up bits of the whole idea from people on the water treatment side. So the fine details...not clear. However big £££ is being spent on water treatment plants to provide the water to make the hydrogen to go someplace, in some way, at some point.

The pressure required to put a meaningful amount of hydrogen into a vehicle is far, far greater than what is available from the gas mains.

And the idea of stripping hydrogen from the mains, well that leaves you with methane. What will you do with that? Putting it back in is complex of you're also trying to extract at the same point.

There is a lot of work going into hydrogen generation, but it has little to do with transport. We need clean hydrogen for a wide variety of chemical processes including fertiliser and potentially steel production.

There would indeed need to be separation plant at each extraction/fuelling point, it would have to return the methane. It would also have to pressurise the extracted hydrogen. That's a lot of kit and all adds further to to pound and environmental costs - compared to electricity which is already everywhere.

We would also end up with most of the hydrogen being burned via gas stoves etc, literally everything attached to the gas grid would be burning through hydrogen. That shouldn't be a problem in many cases but there will be a lot of kit condemned because if it wasn't designed to be hydrogen gas safe, it may not prove to be safe.

Sounds a bit mickey mouse to me!

[Fast Bug]

RicksAlfas said:

I'm sure the deadlines will move/flex slightly nearer the time. If not 2029 will be a bumper sales year! Payload is paramount for vans especially when keeping under the 3.5t limit so the weight of batteries is a major issue.

GVW limit for BEV on a standard driving licence is actually 4.25t, I'm surprised more manufacturers haven't added more batteries or upped the payload to allow for this.

[Evanivitch]

Fast Bug said:

RicksAlfas said:

I'm sure the deadlines will move/flex slightly nearer the time. If not 2029 will be a bumper sales year! Payload is paramount for vans especially when keeping under the 3.5t limit so the weight of batteries is a major issue.

GVW limit for BEV on a standard driving licence is actually 4.25t, I'm surprised more manufacturers haven't added more batteries or upped the payload to allow for this.

Not quite.

You need additional training.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes...

It's only about 5 hours and quite cheap but does require certification.

https://lgvinstructorregister.com/afv-training/tra...

[tamore]

by 2030 batteries will be up at around 1000W⋅h/kg so the payload thing will eventually swing into the favour of BEV vans.

the temptation will be to put massive capacity packs in though, which will need charging tech yet to show itself if it's to be refuelled as quick as a diesel van (10 mins)

[Fast Bug]

Evanivitch said:

Fast Bug said:

RicksAlfas said:

I'm sure the deadlines will move/flex slightly nearer the time. If not 2029 will be a bumper sales year! Payload is paramount for vans especially when keeping under the 3.5t limit so the weight of batteries is a major issue.

GVW limit for BEV on a standard driving licence is actually 4.25t, I'm surprised more manufacturers haven't added more batteries or upped the payload to allow for this.

Not quite.

You need additional training.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes...

It's only about 5 hours and quite cheap but does require certification.

https://lgvinstructorregister.com/afv-training/tra...

My mistake, I thought it had changed to no additional training required. Maybe that kicks in next year with changes in the EU review?

[Mikehig]

TheDeuce said:

Evanivitch said:

Munter said:

The suggestion is of the infrastructure problem might be solved using the current gas supply network (so no tankers). Which just requires everyone to have their gas boilers modified/replaced to burn the 80/20 gas/hydrogen mix. This kind of idea: https://www.energynetworks.org/newsroom/britains-g... Presumably some genius device...as yet unexplained, will strip the hydrogen out of the 80/20 mix and make it ready for putting into vehicles at the company depot/a.n.other filling station.

I'm only picking up bits of the whole idea from people on the water treatment side. So the fine details...not clear. However big £££ is being spent on water treatment plants to provide the water to make the hydrogen to go someplace, in some way, at some point.

The pressure required to put a meaningful amount of hydrogen into a vehicle is far, far greater than what is available from the gas mains.

And the idea of stripping hydrogen from the mains, well that leaves you with methane. What will you do with that? Putting it back in is complex of you're also trying to extract at the same point.

There is a lot of work going into hydrogen generation, but it has little to do with transport. We need clean hydrogen for a wide variety of chemical processes including fertiliser and potentially steel production.

There would indeed need to be separation plant at each extraction/fuelling point, it would have to return the methane. It would also have to pressurise the extracted hydrogen. That's a lot of kit and all adds further to to pound and environmental costs - compared to electricity which is already everywhere.

We would also end up with most of the hydrogen being burned via gas stoves etc, literally everything attached to the gas grid would be burning through hydrogen. That shouldn't be a problem in many cases but there will be a lot of kit condemned because if it wasn't designed to be hydrogen gas safe, it may not prove to be safe.

Sounds a bit mickey mouse to me!

Agreed. Extraction systems would also be needed for every gas-fired power station to remove the hydrogen as the turbines are not designed for it. That's more expense and complication and leaves the problem of what to do with the extracted hydrogen
Then there are all the other issues, mentioned on here many times already, such as metal embrittlement, leakage problems etc.

[RicksAlfas]

Evanivitch said:

Not quite.

You need additional training.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes...

It's only about 5 hours and quite cheap but does require certification.

https://lgvinstructorregister.com/afv-training/tra...

Do you need an operator’s licence as well?
That’s the big hurdle for businesses going over 3.5t.

[TheDeuce]

RicksAlfas said:

Evanivitch said:

Not quite.

You need additional training.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes...

It's only about 5 hours and quite cheap but does require certification.

https://lgvinstructorregister.com/afv-training/tra...

Do you need an operator’s licence as well?
That’s the big hurdle for businesses going over 3.5t.

I'd have thought with vehicle safety ever improving that it would be reasonable to just increase the 3.5t limit for all drivers so long as the van is EV. That way manufacturers could offer options of far larger batteries which could go a long way towards making BEV vans practical for those that do long distance and/carry heavy loads.

Seems like an obvious solution that would promote the shift to EV. Otherwise there's going to be a lot of old diesel vans on the road post ban! I'm sure they'll be heavily taxed but no van is as expensive as one that can't get the job done.

[blank]

RicksAlfas said:

Evanivitch said:

Not quite.

You need additional training.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes...

It's only about 5 hours and quite cheap but does require certification.

https://lgvinstructorregister.com/afv-training/tra...

Do you need an operator’s licence as well?
That’s the big hurdle for businesses going over 3.5t.

It gets a bit complicated:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

Edited by blank on Monday 27th June 21:18

[EVLATECOMER]

RicksAlfas said:

I'm sure the deadlines will move/flex slightly nearer the time. If not 2029 will be a bumper sales year! Payload is paramount for vans especially when keeping under the 3.5t limit so the weight of batteries is a major issue.

I also suspect the ICE ban might become a "fossil fuel" ban so manufacturers will continue to make engines but they will be powered by synthetic fuels. There is nothing wrong with an ICE. The problem is what's going in it and coming out.

The 3.5T limit was increased to 4.25T for electric vans, both for Cat B licence holders and also staying out of operator licence regs.

[TheDeuce]

RicksAlfas said:

I'm sure the deadlines will move/flex slightly nearer the time. If not 2029 will be a bumper sales year! Payload is paramount for vans especially when keeping under the 3.5t limit so the weight of batteries is a major issue.

I also suspect the ICE ban might become a "fossil fuel" ban so manufacturers will continue to make engines but they will be powered by synthetic fuels. There is nothing wrong with an ICE. The problem is what's going in it and coming out.

I can't see the bans slipping, drawing a line in the sand is crucial for the industry to take it seriously and adapt in the required timeframe. The bans have in fact been moved forwards which shows the intent.

There's plenty wrong with ICE, even with synthetic fuel it's still very inefficient and it still causes concentrated air pollution. It's simply not true to claim that synthetic fuel solves the problem of what come out of the exhaust.

There are some improvements but also some forms of pollution increase: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&a...

And overall it's still far cleaner in every way to retire ICE manufacturer and sale.

[RicksAlfas]

TheDeuce said:

RicksAlfas said:

I'm sure the deadlines will move/flex slightly nearer the time. If not 2029 will be a bumper sales year! Payload is paramount for vans especially when keeping under the 3.5t limit so the weight of batteries is a major issue.

I also suspect the ICE ban might become a "fossil fuel" ban so manufacturers will continue to make engines but they will be powered by synthetic fuels. There is nothing wrong with an ICE. The problem is what's going in it and coming out.

I was saying the above years ago, it seemed fairly predictable that as the bans loomed exceptions would be made and loopholes introduced.

The problem with that theory is that they actually acted to bring the bans forward five years! That behaviour is at odds with taking a flexible approach.

Things can and do change however, so I guess we have to wait and see. I support BEV and the bans in spirit, but I do think the rules as defined are very crude and absolutely don't offer a practical solution for certain usage cases.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

TheDeuce said:

I can't see the bans slipping, drawing a line in the sand is crucial for the industry to take it seriously and adapt in the required timeframe. The bans have in fact been moved forwards which shows the intent.

There's plenty wrong with ICE, even with synthetic fuel it's still very inefficient and it still causes concentrated air pollution. It's simply not true to claim that synthetic fuel solves the problem of what come out of the exhaust.

There are some improvements but also some forms of pollution increase: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&a...

And overall it's still far cleaner in every way to retire ICE manufacturer and sale.

I can see why you are called TheDeuce!

[RicksAlfas]

EVLATECOMER said:

The 3.5T limit was increased to 4.25T for electric vans, both for Cat B licence holders and also staying out of operator licence regs.

OK thanks.

[Rob.]

I would loved to have bought an electric van, as I do 100 miles a day and get free charging at work.

However, I realised pretty quickly that the electric van options currently available are utterly useless for any use case that wasn't just short trips at low speed.

[Luke.]

Rob. said:

I would loved to have bought an electric van, as I do 100 miles a day and get free charging at work.

However, I realised pretty quickly that the electric van options currently available are utterly useless for any use case that wasn't just short trips at low speed.

Google Arrival. Game changer.

[TheRainMaker]

Luke. said:

Rob. said:

I would loved to have bought an electric van, as I do 100 miles a day and get free charging at work.

However, I realised pretty quickly that the electric van options currently available are utterly useless for any use case that wasn't just short trips at low speed.

Google Arrival. Game changer.

They look really good, still can't replace our crafters at the moment though

The range is way behind what our current vans will do.

I think sometimes ICE is just a better solution, at this point in time.

[Fast Bug]

TheRainMaker said:

I think sometimes ICE is just a better solution, at this point in time.

For 90% of commercial vehicle applications it is.