All Electric Cars

Today the UK government announced that from 2040 no new petrol or diesel cars can be sold. Wow! Do they have any idea at all how much employment depends on the automotive industry? Or how this might go if other developed countries don't go down the same road? Sure it's a good thing to be seen to be trying to tackle air pollution but this sort of initiative has to be international or it's pointless. If Trump survives he sure won't be joining in. but what are people's experiences with all electric? Is it really practical?

 

So do I, but I'm not putting my money on it! In the end it will all depend on electric meeting users' needs but I can't be optimistic about that.

 

"cars" . What about trucks, delivery style, box trucks, light delivery and long hauler tractor trailer? And what of construction platforms. Front end loaders, dirt haulers, bull dozers? There's a lot of engine requirements for different functions. And are there plans for enough and quick enough charging stations. Diesel pump trucks come to construction sites now to fill and service most of the non-road vehicles. And what of farm production? Tractors?

Here in the US, I-10 goes coast to coast, With 2 drivers, maybe a 3 day trip. What does charging time add to that?

It would be nice to see something like panels in the doors and fenders and roofs that could be solar panels or coverings, charging backup batteries and swap over automatically before a lower threshold was reached.

Same concepts may one day be in building technology. Windows and outside skins on the exterior walls and roof could double as solar, heat, and maybe even pressure transducers to charge up large scale sky risers and maybe even feed into surrounding areas any excess.

If the scientists and engineers can build this surely we will all come!

 

Imandy Mann,
My thoughts exactly!
I could add big ships. What about airplanes? And let's not forget the environmental impacts of the many huge fossil fuel power stations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Environmental_impacts
They generate electricity... that's used to charge batteries.

FWIW...
In 2012 the UK had 35,582,650 registered vehicles. Worldwide, in 2014, there were 1,236,304,ooo passenger and commercial vehicles in use.
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.A995
https://www.statista.com/statistics/281134/number-of-vehicles-in-use-worldwide/

We can only significantly reduced air pollution if we all work together.

 

Sure, there are huge ramifications from trying to eliminate the use of fossil fuels but that isn't what the UK announcement is about. It's simply serving notice on the car industry and on all those having an interest in it that the clock is now ticking. However, should it become apparent that they would be going down that road alone, so putting themselves at a massive economic disadvantage vis-à-vis the rest of the developed world, then I think we can take it that it's pretty unlikely to happen. And that would mean, in the absence of a new international agreement about cars, that it's simply not going to happen at all until the cost of powering cars with petrol or diesel becomes prohibitively expensive. And even that is to assume that electric cars prove that they are accepted by users. Let's hope we haven't all choked to death by then

 

Or perhaps if alternative fuels become more economical and practical, and people want them and the market makes it work.

 

How about the electric bill for electric car god bad enough gas prices are at 3 dollars a gallon.

https://pluginamerica.org/how-much-does-it-cost-charge-electric-car/

From what i understand you pay a higher electric bill.Now i am not sure how they would charge you most likely a charge card.

But the electric company would be worse than the oil company's.

Some people all ready pay a electric bill that is most likely over 100 dollars is a avg us home bill from what i see.

Hell just four of my computers running 8 hours or so is about 30 dollars right there.

Just in my car alone i get up to 30 miles to the gallon.So gas millage has improved in the last 20 years.Compare that to an older car like 90's or a 2000 model that mostly got 18 to 22 miles to the gallon.

 

Did you read the article?

 

Not sure about the UK, but in the states people pay some pretty hefty taxes per gallon of gas. Supposedly for road infrastructure. I wonder how they will tax the electricity for that. Or will they try to make you recharge only at the former gas stations?

The article also seems to forget electrical shortages. Remember rolling brownouts?

 

100 years ago, that gasoline refueling infrastructure didn't exist either.

They'll figure something out. Just sayin'

That's part of an infrastructure problem we've needed to fix already.

 

Want 22 Trillion things they have not figured out yet?

With you on the electric grid fix, we really need to work on that.

 

Great input everyone. I think we all realise that we can't go on indulging ourselves carwise indefinitely and that we really do need a viable alternative that is affordable and environmentally neutral at least. Personally I simply do not believe the battery system can ever achieve the miles per charge and recharge times we need and am wondering why all the effort is going into this rather than burning hydrogen where the only by-product, as I understand it anyway, is H2O!

EDIT - hydrogen btw is the most abundant element in the universe!

 

An union electrician once said 'Hydrogen-the most volatile element, Oxygen feeds the fire, mix together and it puts the fire out!.'

 

We already have the infrastructure for distributing electricity.

 

Yes that's true but some power infrastructures are older than US and other countries.And it can not handle the extra demand for electric cars.Some areas of the worlds power lines or grid are too old and can barely handle houses let alone electric cars.

 

Is it too farfetched to have a nice little stainless steel engine that operates on Brown's molecule to charge the batteries long distance? Just fill her up at the faucet.

 

OK, its all about cars versus polution...more on the UK "plan" for electric cars: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40726868

This doesn't affect existing cars, provided they meet the MOT standards.

However, the electric cars need to perform better than their fuel equivalent. For example, it takes about 5 minutes to "recharge" my car (i.e., fill with fuel) to drive around 600 miles on a full tank - average 55 miles per gallon. Current, electric cars seem to take 4 to 8 hours to recharge to drive between 50 and 200 miles. Clearly there is a long way to go for equivalence and therefore to move polution from cities to power stations.

Perhaps we should use wireless power transfer and leech off the inductive currents from the power grid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power_transfer

Lol at "What would happen if I ran out of charge mid-drive?", often seen cars run out of fuel on the highway, and expect it will happen at about the same rate for electric cars..

Electric car use by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country

 

It would not go any where for an hour or more lol till a tow truck showed up.

Unless it's a hybrid car in which case it could use both Gas and electric.

There are hybrid cars.But like i said i don't see the point.Just in my chevy sonic i get close to 400 miles to the tank on a 11 gallon tank.And the avg full i use for a 25 mile drive is 39 miles to the gallon.

So from about 10 years ago the gas mileage has gone up drastically.Most cars that are from the 2000 or lower only got about 22 mileage to the gallon.

 

OK, so it looks like I am the expert. I live in Silicon Valley, drive a Tesla and have been a supporter of electric cars since GM made the EV1. Neighbors have Leafs.

First off, global warming may well be an extinction level event. Like the eventual asteroid that will kill us all, global warming may not be survivable by humans. Employment is a consideration compared to extinction?

The list of countries mandating zero emission cars is growing, Britain is not alone by any means. Britain, Norway, Netherlands, China and Germany should have something in place this year.

Trump is not a player in electric car adoption. Tesla will be the driving force, if the Model 3 is a good car internal combustion engines are dead in the long term. Other manufactures will have to follow.

Earthling, Hydrogen whether burned or in a fuel cell is a joke at best and a plot to continue fossil fuel use at worst. Most commercial Hydrogen is generated by hitting natural gas with high temperature steam. Which of course releases CO2 with the Hydrogen so global warming will continue. Electrolysis to separate Hydrogen from Oxygen using water is inefficient at best. Using the electric power directly in cars is 3 times as efficient and no new fueling stations are needed.

I just finished a cross country trip. Average speed 80 MPH, I get 275 - 300 miles range at that speed depending on elevation changes. But that is too much time in the car so we stop to eat, walk, see sights every two hours. Time to charge average 45 minutes. Out of a couple dozen charges we waited twice. Only twice was the car not ready when we were. Unlike your trips to the gas station where you do nothing but fill the car, we plug in and go eat. Superchargers are about every 150 miles across the US and much closer around cities. Then there are the destination chargers, most of the hotels we stayed at had chargers so we charged overnight. Is it less convenient than getting gas? Yes, but not overly so. Did I mention Tesla charges nothing for electricity at this time? $500 saved on this trip alone.
I usually charge at home, again, free as I have enough solar panels to power the house and car. Free fill-ups and never have to stop to get gas/charge because I drive less than 300 miles a day.

Maxwell, do you really drive 600 miles a day? I drove 700 - 750 miles a day on that trip, but that is a twice a year thing. Logically you would buy for 0.5% of your driving time? Or buy what works best 99.5% of the time and have some inconvenience the rest of the time?

Electric cars are much more informative about their range. Gas cars run out of gas due to poor planning or bad fuel gauge. The latter I have not seen on an electric car. Nicki (my car) actually tells me if she thinks I should slow down to arrive at my next charger with 15% or less and even pops up a map showing a suggested charging place. I very much doubt electrics will run out of fuel as much as gas cars. Most people will be like my across the street neighbor and commute. He plugs in every night and never worries. So much faster, easier and cheaper than gas stations.
Electric infrastructure is much further along than many think. Here is Tesla which is only half the picture for high speed charging.
http://superchargers-map.com/

Electric car performance? Cornering is just shy of an Audi A5 or BMW M5. But as soon as there is a straight section they disappear in the rear view mirror.

The downside of electric cars? You get what you pay for. Great cars are expensive whether gas or electric.

 

I agree with DOA You get what you pay for.

I pay for reliability and distance.

Just like computers i research all the parts be for i buy it.This is how i build great computers and sell them.

 

ELE.

Agreed.

 

@DOA Commute is 600 miles per week (120 per day) plus a small side trip to fill up. Public electric charge points are not yet widespread here and none at the work place, maybe they will be over the next 20 years. Commute is already an hour long, so don't want to add much more on top of that - maybe I should move closer... It might feasible to drive to/from work and charge overnight, assuming a minimum of 120 miles of charge and no traffic hold ups.

Looking at the local map, there are a number of charge points along the route. There seems to be at least 3 different varieties of points.

 

120 miles per day is perfect for the Model 3, 220 miles between charges. Never a stop for charge or gas. Plug in at home every night and shorten your commute time. You would have plenty of range to take side trips. If traffic stops electric cars get very efficient, they can run the air conditioning without running the motor.
Driving a commute with a self driving car takes some getting used to, but you may not mind your commute any more. I literally get in the carpool lane, set autopilot and relax for my 20 miles to San Jose. I pay attention, but the car drives MUCH better than any driver. Autopilot is getting better FAST.

 

Thanks DOA - more than I had hoped for to get some real life experience from an AEV owner/user. That's quite some endorsement of the Tesla, though if you lived in overcrowded England where driving conditions are very different from those in Ca, your experience would be very different I suspect, though not necessarily worse. We have a Tesla dealer here in Solihull, a well heeled town in the congested West Midlands conurbation, and we are starting to see a few on the local roads, though AFAIK it's not legal here yet to drive them on autopilot. I'm wondering how insurers will handle the problem of attributing fault when a self driving car has an accident with a human driven one, or worse, two auto driven cars

I guess I have to accept that this is the way things are going and perhaps be grateful that my lifespan will probably end before that of the internal combustion engine.

 

So, electric cars will save us? I mean, if it is an extinction level based event, maybe riding bikes would be more better? Sorry, just not convinced on the man made global cooling, I mean warming, oops, I mean climate crisis.

 

Flat earth was science at one point.

 

Hmmm, don't agree, go to jail?

 

One person i don't trust is Bill Nye.

He may be a great debater but nothing more than that.Nye's background has more to do with comedy than science.

 

Don't like him either, but the idea of jailing people who have a different opinion is very odd to me, especially in the realm of scientific theories.

 

When was that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

I would hardly call a man with a degree in mechanical engineering scientifically ignorant.

 

If you'll care to explain which of those ancient cultures used the scientific method to empirically determine the flatness of the Earth, you'll have made your point.

 

It seems like this is the way forward.

http://www.executivestyle.com.au/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-tesla-model-3-gxm0fv

 

The future may only be for the well-off home owners. The desirable options drive the price out of reach for many. The charging options needed for home charging to be useful would require modifications to most home's electric service which in the US has to be permitted and done by a licensed company. And for renters and multi-resident structures , the owners are going to want to re-coup their money back in spades to put out the money.

On the map linked to, it shows one station in the up t0 350 mile circuit that I use for work or family business or visits. I would have to use cross-over until the infrastructure is actually more available.

And who knows yet of repair costs or availability. Suppose it breaks down in Backtown, Alabama?

http://mashable.com/2017/08/01/tesla-model-3-true-cost-more-than-35000/#yb81PcggzsqF

 

That's how the gas automobile started.

 

Seems some folks were quite satisfied with electrics way before our time!

https://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/11/henry-fords-wife-wouldnt-drive-model-t-kept-electric-car/

Hey hey! Who would've thunk it?

 

My point was that it was pretty much proven to be round earlier than the time you linked to. So, 'science' seems to change, not always based on facts.

 

1. The world was proven round(ish) by science. Before then, it was unscientifically assumed to be flat. Your premise that science was at fault is wrong.
2. I didn't link to any specific time. I don't even know what you're talking about.
3. Science doesn't change. The conclusions reached through the use of science may change when new evidence is uncovered, when previous evidence is shown unreliable and more accurate and detailed data becomes available.

You seem to have a lot of questions and doubts about climate change. Here are some facts, if that's what you're truly looking for: https://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

How true that is! Which is why I still have my base model 1986 F250 pickup, options would have put it out of my reach. I just wish I could upgrade it as time goes on like you can the Tesla.

 

I never tried to claim science was at fault. Just our interpretation of it is. And has been over a long period of time. The earth was proven to be roundish back in the early AD time frame, then the flat earth folks came back into favor.

Many sciences have changed drastically in the last 20, 50, 100 years. Think eye care. What, back in the 1800's you could get some glasses. Now, we have Lasik, contacts, all kinds of stuff. Science is great!

What I find unusual about the warmers, is their (not meaning all folks in this forum) lack of desire to debate their science. "Man made climate crisis" is relatively new compared to many other things.

This, from your above link is a great example.

This quote from your link shows a very unscientific view towards people who do not agree. It states (without any relevance) how all climate change deniers do things, with again, no proof, no use of the scientific method. It even says the skeptics do it vigorously, and thereby insulting lazy skeptics.

See, this does not encourage 'debate' or an exchange of information, to test a scientific theory. In an offhand way, it insults people who don't agree with the current theory of the day. Remember, not too long ago, it was global cooling. Of course, then global warming, then man made climate crisis.

Just from reading that bit from your link indicates a lack of use of the scientific method. Actually, they are using unscientific methods to support a claim the people they speak of don't use scientific methods.

Let's have a bit of unscientific fun. "Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with the warmers. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports that man has little effect on the earth's temperature, and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to support global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming proponents. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say? And who paid the peer reviewed scientist for their studies?"

All changes in the above were done by me.



Have a great weekend!

 

Fred:

 

Fred, I do not believe you understand the scientific method and you seem to be unfamiliar with the function of science in general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Nonetheless, to answer your questions:

• Do their arguments have any scientific basis? Yes, they do.
• What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say? The consensus is climate change is a real problem.
  
• And who paid the peer reviewed scientist for their studies? The Illuminati? Bilderbergers? Reptilian overlords?

 

Since this has shifted to carbon emissions I checked my own house hold electronics status. I have a small amount of electronics that still makes a difference. Increases in cloud computing and data storage contribute to carbon emissions as well. All who use vehicles and pc's are double-dipping in contributing to the perceived problem of carbon.

https://www.allgreenrecycling.com/ewaste-recycling-calculator/

My status as shown above.
What's yours?

 

Interesting thoughts here.
David, EV's are not like that. Consider waking up every morning with a full tank. This makes your range needs less. On longer trips chargers can be at restaurants/hotels/museums without smelling up the place. As you said, this infrastructure will take time unless Elon gets the self charging car done really soon. Then the car will drop you off and charge itself. This would be a rough thing to do with a gas car.

Anyone else wonder how people get all upset over CO2 emissions and ignore population control? Not much point in 10% reduction in CO2 per person if you double the population.

 

Or if we ignore the oil consumption by country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consumption
Specifically the 'per capita' oil consumption.

What about the average energy or power 'per capita'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption