Electric Cars.

[Don Fry]

Wouldn't class much of Dysons stuff, vacuum cleaner and variants excepted, as best sellers, or even innovative, or even profit makers. And Tesla are starting to learn, that to build a mass produced car is a bit more difficult than soldering a battery to a motor.

And a poster above suggested trusting a powerful car to a smartphone app. Just sit down, sober, and think about that one. Do it in your house, with your family. Not where mine are involved.

[Erfolg]

I wonder how the cars either side of the near touching Tesla get into their cars.

I have sympathy for Sinclair, I had one of his amplifier kits, it worked a radio tuner it worked, I even had a Sinclair Spectrum, for its day it worked. All at a price that was pretty low, compared to his competitors.

I do agree that the C5, just was a good idea, although very poorly implemented. The prototypes should have killed the project dead. I guess it was the inertia of publicity and a mis placed believe in all of his ideas.

If you consider his electric bike, again the idea was good, the timing lousy, the technology just not quite there. I have now seen a fair number of electric bikes recently, today people are buying them, even at pretty high prices.

It would not surprise me that Dyson really wants to sell electric motors, or something along those lines. His problem could be that Siemens are also into the game from Aircraft such as the Airbus demonstrator, the electric Kri Kri. In addition to being involved with many of the major car makers.

[Don Fry]

Bottom line Erf, if you are an innovator, how much of your fortune would you spend on the next big thing, or be brave enough to decide that it's the next big bit coin/ dot com bubble. Your choice.

[Andrew767]

Erf

Just where do you get this stuff??

The Sinclair C5 was not poorly implemented...it was a product of it's time, using the batteries and motors that were available then.As for electric bikes, he was ahead of his time, again the available technology wasn,t ready but look at them now...if only i could afford an Orange!!...EVs are here now and they work. Let the naysayers hang on to I.C. as long as they like but they'll still be wrong in the long run. Have a look at how many manufacturers have dumped diesel just this year!...almost all of them...and they can't wait to dump petrol as well. I.C. has had it's time but it's in it's death throws now. we're going electric now whether we like it or not.

Andrew

[Don Fry]

Andrew, I love an optimist.

[Andrew767]

No Don......A realist!

Andrew

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

Andrew

I am not sure you are an optimist, I suspect rose tinted glasses perhaps, but enough of the put downs. I suspect some of your comments are meant to get a reaction.

With the advantage of hindsight, it is possible that Sinclair did not really understand the market as much as he perhaps thought. Many of his customers were prepared to live with the limitations that some of his products had. The obvious ones being the calculator, that made use of Reverse polish Notation. The marketing making a virtue of the the processor logic, rather than the sequence that all were and remain familiar with. The Sinclair watch, worked, but processor and circuit demands meant the power to the display had to be manged. Not a device that could be read without a button press. The Spectrum itself, had pretty chunky graphics, even by the standards on release, increasingly obvious as the competitors improved the graphics considerably.

The C5 was limited by the contemporary equipment capability, yet the reality should have killed the project. The performance in this case was so out of line with even the "First adopters", that the rest of us were not in the slightest bit interested.

The principle that some Diesel Plants are closing, is people will not buy them as they have been demonised. Petrol engines may also be under long term threat. It is worth noting, that the public are not rushing to buy electric vehicles either. Sales of new cars are down.

I can see that many owners of electric cars have an evangelical vigor in their commitment. Yet from a manufactures and late adopters perspective, electric cars are a work that is in progress. Although all the basic components needed for the electric car are there, the combinations and major details are some way from finalisation. Enthusiasts just cannot see that the infrastructure is not there for mass market adoption. Lack of charging facilities being one. The generators and distributes of electric power are actually saying they cannot provide the power. Hence all the talk of fudges to get around the lack of generating capacity, from feeding the grid via charged vehicles, overnight charging, energy storage systems. The sums of money and political will is massive to realise any of the ideas. Yet the two big Elephants, that enthusiasts are blind to are, who is going to pay for these concepts, you will have to be taxed much higher, to fill the hole left by Fuel duties. Logically, the user will pay, that is you. Above all it all will take time, that is other than taxation.

I am not sure that what is envisaged will reduce Co2 emissions, merely switching where and who will now generate the stuff. Then again, perhaps the biggest gain is reducing road side emissions, in cities. But nothing is that clear cut.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

The lecky used on this thread could power a trip around the world.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

All I can say is thank you to those brave souls happy to invest in systems with no standardisation yet, an infrastructure which is still very sparse and will need to be expanded massively if electric cars start to become widely adopted.

I find it a little difficult to understand some of the issues around supply of both materials for batteries and the economies of supplying sufficient electricity for widespread demand. There seem to be many inconsistencies around "green" claims when generating and transmission losses plus providing more capacity are taken into account. Liquid fuelled vehicles are becoming ever more efficient but according to information I read about a previous generation of cars, new car manufacturing produced something in the order of half the total emissions of a vehicle over its life so perhaps we should be encouraging longer lasting and refurbished vehicles rather than a wholesale replacement of existing stock?

While there are some great savings to be made by taking advantage of government grants and reduced direct taxation on fuels, how long will they last? We are already seeing reductions in support for hybrid vehicles...and the tax revenues will need to be made up from somewhere...

So sorry, I have no intention of jumping into electric vehicles at this time - charging at home, while not impossible would be awkward but for many it is simply not a possibility at this time. I can foresee many problems being caused by competition for "on street" parking slots and while a 30 minute wait at a service station may suit someone stopping for a leisurely coffee, petrol stations already get very busy with 2 minute filling times so without large overcapacity, with current range technology, longer distance travelling may soon become fraught with queuing and delays. There is also the question of replacing batteries on older cars leading to ongoing costs and impact on resale values.

My wife's new 1 litre petrol car uses less fuel than my diesel estate and doesn't perform too badly at all - and has very low emissions to boot.

I do get a little weary of being told that we must all adopt "green" electric power while there are still so many grey areas. I'm afraid that the majority of motorists will need a lot of convincing to pay more money for vehicles with these unknowns - I know I will only consider moving once costs or convenience of using liquid fuels makes it an obvious choice or I can be convinced that there are actually significant overall benefits - not simply a movement of pollution from one place to another. My long owned 63 year old Land Rover and Triumph motorbike of the same age will be with me until I'm too frail or incompetent to maintain or use them.

[Peter Christy]

And this whole argument is ignoring the enormous elephant in the room: Where is the electricity to charge all these vehicles going to come from?

Forget about charging points, its the generating capacity that will be the issue. It must be 30 or 40 years ago, I read a piece by a chap who had done some serious calculations on this. He reckoned (back then, when there were a LOT less vehicles on the road) that if all vehicles were to switch to electric overnight, we would need to build AT LEAST 35 nuclear reactors the size of Sizewell B to provide the generating capacity.

Bearing in mind how long it has taken to get Hinckley Point going (and its still years off producing any power), I see something of an issue here.....!

Perhaps a good time to invest in hiking boots? Or horses?

--

Pete

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Bob Cotsford]

David, aren't watts a measure of instantaneous power? 40KW is what - 53hp? Your calculations seem to be based on all those 31M cars running at slightly over half throttle 24 hours a day, or am I missing something? Similarly, your charge requirements then equate to a steady charge over 24 hours so I don't think things are that simple or that bad. You are correct though, the first requirement is to cut down the number of cars on the roads. I'm afraid that will have to be down to other road users though as I NEED to drive a single occupant AWD SUV in order to get my model planes in it and to negotiate the field in winter. Sorry but there it is.

The subject of electric cars was one point on the news this morning with the usual calls for the Government to step in and do something. Excuse me, but didn't we tie the Gov. up trying to extricate us from binding agreements with our neighbours in the EU, and isn't taxation (which funds HMG) a prime bone of contention with many objecting to current rates never mind the hikes that will be needed?

As I see it EVs are at the stage where the brave and bold are providing beta testing for manufacturers while the technology evolves, so praise goes to those souls currently acting as guinea pigs. If the technology matures during my lifetime I will happily embrace it, God knows I know what the effects of inhaling rubbish for decade after decade can be. I would happily have gone EV but Motability don't seem to be getting behind the concept so I'm driving a Euro 6+ motor instead.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Peter Christy]

Also, bear in mind that David's calculation didn't include commercial vehicles, most of which ARE in continuous operation.

Which ever way you slice it, the numbers simply don't add up - nor will they by 2032 (Govt latest target), unless we spend the next decade or so doing nothing but building nuclear power plants!

There's no point in building coal, gas or oil plants, as that simply moves the source of emissions. Renewables will never meet the kind of additional capacity we are talking about, and fusion power always seems to be 50 years in the future.

Mind you, we would do well to consider alternatives to uranium reactors. Thorium is simpler, safer and cheaper. Why we are building that expensive and unproven reactor at Hinckley is beyond me....

--

Pete

[Bryan Anderson 1]

Posted by David Mellor on 19/10/2018 09:37:30:

Posted by Peter Christy on 19/10/2018 08:57:06:

And this whole argument is ignoring the enormous elephant in the room: Where is the electricity to charge all these vehicles going to come from?

 

 

As of March 2018, there are approximately 38 million vehicles in the UK, of which 31 million are cars.

Looking at the cars-only situation, each car consumes on average a little over 40 kilowatts of power (whether diesel, petrol, LPG, electric or hybrid).

So the total maximum amount of power required to move our existing UK fleet of 31 million cars is 31 x 10^6 x 40 kilowatts, which equals 1,240 million kilowatts or 1,240 Gigawatts.

The figure you want is 40kWH (KiloWatt Hours) not 40 kW. This is the battery capacity that gives over 100 miles on a single charge. The following numbers assume that every car totally discharges and charges that capacity every single day (annual mileage 36500 so extremely pessimistic).

The energy (GWH) of 1250 GWH might be replenished off-peak over, say, 12 hours. The power needed is 1240 / 12 = 124GW from our hard pressed power stations. Still a large figure but not as unreachable as your figure implies. Factor in an average mileage per car of 10000 miles and the figure is down to about 34GW.

 

Edited By Bryan Anderson 1 on 19/10/2018 13:01:18

[Rich too]

Posted by David Mellor on 19/10/2018 09:37:30:

Posted by Peter Christy on 19/10/2018 08:57:06:

And this whole argument is ignoring the enormous elephant in the room: Where is the electricity to charge all these vehicles going to come from?

A better answer might be to have less cars.....

Edited By David Mellor on 19/10/2018 09:51:22

Perhaps that's the point...

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Chris Bott - Moderator]

One of the biggest issues with generating and supplying electricity is that it is difficult to store, so generating capacity has to match max demand.

Once enough of us have electric cars it wouldn't be beyond the wit of man to use all "plugged in" cars as an enormous national storage bank.

Given the right incentive each of us could chose to allow a percentage of our batteries to be discharged into the grid at times of peak demand.

For example, my wife drives 5 miles to work and 5 miles home. She could plug in a car at home overnight and the charge could help feed the peak tea time demand before trickle charging overnight. Or she could plug it in at work and top up from excess solar or wind capacity.

With enough cars, this would reduce the required generation capacity to a point where it needs to match the average demand rather than the peak.

[kc]

The answer to the problem of too many vehicles is simple......

....have less people. Tax people having children instead of paying them! solves the housing problem in future etc, etc. People overlook the fact that this is what improved the Chinese economy in a generation.

For an easier solution try hybrid cars - my Toyota Auris Hybrid uses half the petrol my old Toyota Carina did on the same journeys with what seems the same engine basically ( plus the hybrid bits) Or try having people living near to their work and children walking to the nearest school.

[Peter Christy]

The problem is that we are currently unable to supply our peak demand, and only just manage our average demand. We rely on "top-ups" from France to cover peak demand, and can only get those when not needed by the French for their own supplies.

Even Hinckley won't solve the current problem - it will merely stop it getting worse so quickly (and at considerable cost!) - and that is before we start adding masses of EVs into the mix.

If we really do want to be IC free by 2032 (or 2040 - makes little difference) we need to be building masses of infrastructure NOW, or else it will all come to nought.

And the chances of that happening in the present political climate? About zero, I reckon!

Its all very well Government / MPs setting targets, but unless they provide the necessary infrastructure, it simply isn't going to happen.

Me? I shall simply try to keep my "re-cycled" cars going for as long as possible....!

--

Pete

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Jeez what a thread

We want, and once we've got, we want more, we then lecture others on the size of their family, whilst ours want homes and cars, that's o.k though ? We have transport systems that are profit making and expensive/unreliable, do we care ? nope got me a car ain't I.

I could go on and on and on, bit like my year 2000 Honda.

Anyone know where I can buy a cheap Unicorn, I hear they don't eat much and are good with kids.

[Bryan Anderson 1]

The problem of our (everyone's) electricity supply is that demand is not constant. It has peaks and troughs that are not matched to the capabilities of either nuclear or large-scale carbon-fired power stations. We have to waste power during the night. I used to live within a few miles of a coal-fired power station. A common occurrence was a very loud roaring noise as it blew off excess steam because demand had fallen.

These old stations get damaged if they are allowed to cool down. So off-peak charging is a boon. Small-scale, local gas turbines would be more reactive and, possibly, get rid of the NIMBY syndrome, especially if their waste heat could also be harnessed.

The push to smart meters is not what the government says. The ultimate goal is to allow dynamic pricing to "encourage" you to only use power when it is available. They may even switch your power off (as soon as they can manage it) if they have a problem. This is the future and it might make electricity cheaper or, more likely, enhance company profits.

Telsa have already installed Li-Ion batteries in Australia to quickly switch between charging and discharging in order to iron out demand problems. They have proved to exceed the promises made and saved a lot of money. As mentioned above, tens of millions of EVs with the capability to be used as either sources or sinks would also helps. It just needs the will and some infrastructure.

[Peter Christy]

Posted by Bryan Anderson 1 on 19/10/2018 14:30:12:

.....It just needs the will and some infrastructure.

and time! The latter is running out - if it hasn't already - and there is no sign of the political will necessary to provide the infrastructure!

We're all doomed!

But I'm re-assured by the prediction made in the 19th century (I believe), that by the mid 20th century, London would have been buried under tons of horse manure! (and not the sort emanating from the Houses of Parliament!)

--

Pete