Electric Car Charger

[stillp]

facilities, it's hard to see how it could be implemented (in a manner which was not easily circumnavigated) for 'home charging'.

Recording devices in vehicles.

Smart metering everywhere, with power line communication reading the load profile.

 

[JohnW2]

I agree in general. However the point of the directives is that all cars using a similar power source have a common set of rules for quoted fuel mileage, so the benefit to the motorist is not really about comparing EVs with internal combustion, but more about comparing EVs with each other.

Yes, I fully understand that, but what I'm suggesting is that this is precisely the comparison that cannot be made by 'short-journey' motorists on the basis of the 'standard figure' you are talking about. In effect, it only allows them to compare mpg achieved when using petrol, since 'fuel usage' during battery-only use is taken to be zero. In the extreme case, of motorists whose use is going to be virtually all 'battery-only', the comparison of EU-dictated mpg figures will obviously be totally meaningless.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

facilities, it's hard to see how it could be implemented (in a manner which was not easily circumnavigated) for 'home charging'.

Recording devices in vehicles.

I suppose so, but the mechanics/bureacracy of adminsitering (and policing) that, and collecting the money, would presumably be incredibly expensive.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Smart metering everywhere, with power line communication reading the load profile.

Again, I suppose so - but I wonder how many of us will still be around by the time that happens!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Read as part of the MOT, and the cost added to the bill.

 

[JohnW2]

Read as part of the MOT, and the cost added to the bill.

That's quite a clever idea! It would obviously require some new provision for the first 2 years of a car's life.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There would have to be places where owners could go and have their meter read, as most people would probably prefer to avoid paying a whole year's tax (or 3 years) in one hit. Maybe public charging points?

Maybe their own houses, in concert with smart metering?

 

[JohnW2]

There would have to be places where owners could go and have their meter read, as most people would probably prefer to avoid paying a whole year's tax (or 3 years) in one hit. Maybe public charging points?

Yes, that's all possible. The technology would, however, have to be very reliable to avoid complete chaos!

Maybe their own houses, in concert with smart metering?

Maybe, but as I wrote to stillp, I think that would be way, way, over the horizon. Even the 'first hurdle' seems far from cleared - in terms of the installations of friends, family etc., I've yet to even see a smart meter!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

I agree in general. However the point of the directives is that all cars using a similar power source have a common set of rules for quoted fuel mileage, so the benefit to the motorist is not really about comparing EVs with internal combustion, but more about comparing EVs with each other.

Yes, I fully understand that, but what I'm suggesting is that this is precisely the comparison that cannot be made by 'short-journey' motorists on the basis of the 'standard figure' you are talking about. In effect, it only allows them to compare mpg achieved when using petrol, since 'fuel usage' during battery-only use is taken to be zero. In the extreme case, of motorists whose use is going to be virtually all 'battery-only', the comparison of EU-dictated mpg figures will obviously be totally meaningless.

Kind Regards, John

Yes, that's why I suggested a "miles per kW/hr" figure might be necessary.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, that's why I suggested a "miles per kW/hr" figure might be necessary.

[I presume you mean kWh]
Yes, for the 'battery-only' part of usage. One then would need a separate figure for petrol operation (when the miles per unit energy figure will presumably be different) - and, for that, mpg would be more familiar (hence interpretable and useful) than miles per kWh (or miles per MJ).

Armed with both those figures, individual motorists could then work out the cost implications for them (hence allowing them to make between-vehicle comparisons), given the amount/pattern of their estimated usage.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

The "truth" according to an insider was the use of electric cables to get power to the motors fitted in the bogeys removed the contraints of mechanical drive shafts that had to allow for the bogeys turning on curved tracks and that was the overriding reason for going to diesel electric.

That is indeed the primary reason - going electric removes a LOT of mechanicals and it's suddenly easy to have a motor on every axle and dispense with all the gearboxes and driveshafts that would otherwise be required (multi-ratio gearbox between engine and distribution, gearbox to split drive to separate bogies, drive shaft to each bogie, gearbox to split drive to each axle, and quill shaft to each axle). Instead some electric control gear, flexible cable to the bogie, and I think a motor on each powered axle.
I wasn't aware that there was any secrecy about that.

As an aside, not that long ago I was witness to a "discussion" on a forum where the conspiracy theorists were attacking the safety of nuclear. By watching video of some of the early flask tests - specifically the one where they drive a diesel-electric loco into one at some silly speed - it was "obvious" that the loco had been "doctored". Why ? Well the engine and generator assembly didn't stop when the chassis stopped dead on impact with the flask - and it departed the loco and sailed away into the distance. This was seen as proof that they'd unbolted the engine to fudge the test.
I'm not sure they accepted that with the generator bolted directly to the engine, there's no torque reaction to deal with, and so the engine could almost just sit there with no mounting bolts to restrain it at all. It would certainly not need much restraint to keep it in place during normal use.

Battery range can be increased with well designed regenerative braking that re-charges the battery, ( as being developed in Formula 1 KERS Kinetic Energy Recovery System ). But this would be very expensive for the average family car.

Actually, it is done in most electric/hybrid vehicles already - it's a key part of the efficiency gains in stop-start town driving.

The thing I do not feel happy with is having that much power in a battery under my seat until ALL the bugs have been removed.

Indeed. But then we seem happy to have a tank full of liquid explosive with us. But have you looked at what's involved with hydrogen as a fuel ? Incredibly high pressures needed to store even a modest quantity of fuel - so if that ruptures then it will be explosively.
One of the considerations when they introduced KERS to formula 1 was the "what happens when they crash". Having a high energy battery or flywheel, in a car that's crashed, and so the safety systems potentially compromised, with the energy still stored ... and you expect people to run up to it

Yes, my question was almost rhetorical . However, I don't think it's me being silly and, even given what the manufacturers (and proponents of EVs) would like, I'surprised that an EU directive can be such as to be so 'silly' and potentially misleading.

I think it's as simple as the rules being written before electric & hybrid vehicles. They'll need to be re-written to deal with them, but until then the manufacturers will be free to work the system to come up with completely unrealistic figures to support their greenwash.

 

[stillp]

Yes, that's why I suggested a "miles per kW/hr" figure might be necessary.

[I presume you mean kWh]

 

[stillp]

Yes, my question was almost rhetorical . However, I don't think it's me being silly and, even given what the manufacturers (and proponents of EVs) would like, I'surprised that an EU directive can be such as to be so 'silly' and potentially misleading.

I think it's as simple as the rules being written before electric & hybrid vehicles. They'll need to be re-written to deal with them, but until then the manufacturers will be free to work the system to come up with completely unrealistic figures to support their greenwash.

No, it's not that simple. The Directives were written after EV and hybrid vehicles started to become available, but the guidance given to the EU staff came from the very people who were/are promoting electric vehicles and therefore have a vested interest in the greenwash.

The issue of metering the charge is interesting; I'm aware of 4 organisations that, at the moment, allow employees or visitors to charge EVs, free of cost. That's OK when there are only a few EVs, but as there prevalence increases I can't see companies giving away that expensive energy.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But have you looked at what's involved with hydrogen as a fuel ? Incredibly high pressures needed to store even a modest quantity of fuel - so if that ruptures then it will be explosively.

A hydrogen BLEVE might be spectacular.

But I think I read once that overall a hydrogen fuel tank would be much safer than petrol, because once ruptured the hydrogen would turn to gas and disperse so quickly that there would be no fire hazard, unlike pools of petrol.

LPG would worry me more than hydrogen.

 

[JohnW2]

But I think I read once that overall a hydrogen fuel tank would be much safer than petrol, because once ruptured the hydrogen would turn to gas and disperse so quickly that there would be no fire hazard, unlike pools of petrol. LPG would worry me more than hydrogen.

LPG wouldalso immediately turn to gas, wouldn't it?

I would imagine that what you say about tanks containing liquified gas may be true, provided that there is not a source of ignition around at the moment of rupture and liquid-gas-transition.

Kind Regards, John