Electric Car Drivel

[Doggit]

Look the sensible ones amongst us are still waiting for that position, so how the heck do you think you'll jump the queue. Having tried a Prius which has regenerative brakes, and I suspect most electric cars have them as well.

Now on a more sensible note. If Virgin can dig up the road to install cable TV, why can't the government now dig up the roads again, and install chraging points in the kerb every 10 feet.

But we aren't going to get pure electic cars in 2040, just electric cars with a very miniscule petrol engine that will recharge the batteries. That'll give the government time to make all the infrasturcture changes to be able to recharge every car that isn't on a private drive.

 

[flameport]

why can't the government now dig up the roads again, and install chraging points in the kerb every 10 feet.

They or a utility company could, provided it was paid for.
The real problem is generating the electricity to charge millions of cars.

 

[Doggit]

I suspect by 2040, there will be sufficient capacity of one type or another. I wouldn't be too surprised if they start dropping in mini nuclear starions by then. Attitudes will have changed, and more people will accept things we'd shie away from now.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Actually, aesthetics were only part of the issue, if you'd read up on the situation, you'd have found it was due laws that Blair government introduced to commit us to almost unatainable reductions in CO2 levels by 2050.

I thought you were talking about the cladding, not the insulation.

And whilst you might try and impress us with big sounding words,

What on earth are you on about?

I will politely let you beleive what you do without resorting to swearing at you, if you'll be polite enough to do the same.

Polite?

To someone who through utter boneheaded stupidity decides that man-made climate change is not happening, and therefore by the same failings opposes anything done to combat it?

I think not.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I suspect by 2040, there will be sufficient capacity of one type or another.

Please tell us what evidence leads you to suspect that.

 

[JohnW2]

But we aren't going to get pure electic cars in 2040, just electric cars with a very miniscule petrol engine that will recharge the batteries.

Do you mean 'completely' recharge the batteries, on a regular basis - or just for 'emergency use' to get one to a charging point?

If the former (i.e. all of the electrical energy used to run the car coming from burning petrol in its engine), then I can't see that as being particularly environmentally-friendly, unless you've found a way of changing the laws of physics.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There is a case to be made for IC engines which are locked into running at a constant, their most efficient, rate.

 

[Doggit]

Actualy John, I'd never considered the difference. I realised the benefit of a predominantly electric car that has a small engine for recharging it a long time ago, it never occured to me that the engine would only be used in an emergency; but on refelction, is there really much of a difference. As long as the petrol engine can produce enough to recharge the batteries, then some people will plug the car back in at night, and others will just carry on driving. Vauxhall are developing a car that is primarily electric, with a small engine to recharge the battery, but it's only got a 55km range before the engine kicks in, so they've got a way to go before it's properly viable.

But this wouldn't be about changing the laws of physics, more about developing new battery and charging technologies.

 

[Doggit]

I thought you were talking about the cladding, not the insulation

I believe the cladding and the insulation were a one piece unit. The insulation was to the rear of the panel, then there was an airgap, and a pretty piece of cladding at the front.

To someone who through utter boneheaded stupidity decides that man-made climate change is not happening, and therefore by the same failings opposes anything done to combat it?

The diffrence between us BAS, is that I beleive in climate change, whilst you atribute climate change to man made global warming, or AAP as you so happliy throw about. But please show me where I have ever said that nonthing should be done about either scenario. I insulate everything to the nth degree; I only run my van when I've got to, and will happily walk when I can; I turn the heating down to cut down on emmisions, and will happliy suggest people turn off their engines when just sitting there on the phone. I recycle whenever and whatever I can, and can be considered a PITA for doing so, so you're just making assumptions that I'm doing nothing.

 

[motorbiking]

I think we can expect motors to be about 50% more efficient, cells to be about half the weight and energy density to double.

That would enable an EV with a 50kw cell to weigh about 1 tonne, and have a 500 mile range and produce about 600bhp. That pretty much quarters the demand we'd see today. Of course we'd have a rather large landfill of dead 18650 cells from all the earlier generation cars. I guess this is where things like the power wall come in.

That could allow old cells coupled to a few solar panels, to provide booster stations almost anywhere.

 

[JohnW2]

There is a case to be made for IC engines which are locked into running at a constant, their most efficient, rate.

Yes, that will result in an increase in efficiency and a degree of reduction in emissions. However, if all the power produced by the vehicle is generated (even 'optimally efficiently') by local burning of petrol, the environmental advantage would surely be fairly limited, wouldn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Actualy John, I'd never considered the difference. I realised the benefit of a predominantly electric car that has a small engine for recharging it a long time ago, it never occured to me that the engine would only be used in an emergency; but on refelction, is there really much of a difference.

I would have thought there was a big difference.

The 'emergency' usage would hopefully on be occasionally invoked, and only for short periods of time (to charge the battery enough to get to a proper charging facility), and therefore would be of little consequence.

On the other hand, if the on-board 'small IC engine' was the only method used for routine charging, then all of the energy used to run the car would be coming from local burning of petrol. As I've just discussed with BAS, this means that the only environmental advantage would be that the 'charging engine' could be run at constant optimal speed, reducing emissions to some extent. However, other than that (I would think relatively small) reduction in petrol used and emissions created, the situation would ("per the laws of physics") be essentially the same if the petrol engine was being used to generate electricity (which was then used to 'turn the wheels') as if the petrol engine was being used to directly to 'turn the wheels'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I believe the cladding and the insulation were a one piece unit.

No.

The insulation was to the rear of the panel, then there was an airgap, and a pretty piece of cladding at the front.

It was the cladding that burned.

The diffrence between us BAS, is that I beleive in climate change, whilst you atribute climate change to man made global warming

Yes.

And so many people who know so much about it also make that attribution.

And so many people with absolutely no expertise in it decide, through utter boneheaded stupidity, that the huge majority of experts must be wrong.

, or AAP as you so happliy throw about.

ACC - Anthropogenic Climate Change.

I used the term once - not sure if that counts as "throwing about". But surely you can't have a problem with it?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, other than that (I would think relatively small) reduction in petrol used and emissions created, the situation would ("per the laws of physics") be essentially the same if the petrol engine was being used to generate electricity (which was then used to 'turn the wheels') as if the petrol engine was being used to directly to 'turn the wheels'.

I think the "other than that" is more than "relatively small", but I don't have any relevant data. And of course you cannot use an engine locked into that mode to directly turn the wheels.

 

[JohnW2]

I think the "other than that" is more than "relatively small", but I don't have any relevant data. And of course you cannot use an engine locked into that mode to directly turn the wheels.

You may well be right. Indeed, I suspect you probably are - otherwise I imagine that we would not have seen such widespread use of diesel-electric locomotives in our rail system - since, again, the primary advantage of that seems to be the fact that the diesel engine can be run under relatively optimised conditions.

However, I imagine that, particularly as time progresses, any of these systems which use on-board burning of fossil fuel to generate electricity to run the vehicle are going go be increasingly inferior to charging EV batteries from the National Grid, since the proportion of grid electricity derived from fossil fuels is presumably going to progressively reduce over time.

Kind Regards, John