Are EVs really the answer in the future? I do not think so.

[Comfortably Numb]

The more I learn about what goes into the making of EVs, the less I like them. They'd be better with a smaller battery, and a small hybrid generation system to ensure you can get to your destination if you have flattened your battery. It would weigh a lot less than a full EV, and use less cobalt. A couple of litres of fossil fuel in the tank would ensure you could reach a fuel or recharging station, even if only at moped speeds. Alternatively, scrap the whole idea for now and invest in finding viable, genuinely eco alternatives.

[Comfortably Numb]

As with so much in this world, evolution is better than revolution. Hybrids as currently sold are designed to have all the performance of a pure IC car - most of which have far more power, and size/weight than necessary, and so consume far more fossil fuel than necessary. They do not have enough purely battery range, and I doubt if many plug-in hybrid owners achieve their weekly commuting without the IC engine kicking in, even at urban speeds, even if plug-in charged daily, as most only have batteries for 30 -40 miles. Most pure EVs give their owners range anxiety, although for most journeys, they are perfectly adequate with daily(nightly) down-time charging. So my idea to offer the IC engine, simply as a get-you-there facility, with a medium sized (say 70 mile range) battery, would be a good compromise/stop gap until we have developed a better, greener and less exploitative technology. Your (I presume) solution, John, of sterilisation, or self-limited procreation (as imposed by the Chinese state for many years previously) would, in fact be more effective, and perhaps leaders should start educating their populations and promoting it, now we understand how rapidly we are heading for crisis.
PS I had the snip years ago, and neither of my adult children have yet produced grand children.

[Comfortably Numb]

As regards electro-diesel rail traction, these do not generally use a battery/accumulator for traction, and are reliant for traction on network electricity, or their diesel generator/alternator. Most diesel-electrics rely entirely on the diesel generator to provide smooth, reliable, and low maintenance transmission of power to the wheels via electric motors, benefitting from simple power transmission to multiple wheels, so offer no reduction in fossil fuel use.

[Comfortably Numb]

As Australia records its hottest day ever, and forest fires release huge quantities of stored carbon, the need to get started in earnest on the journey is more urgent than ever. If we don't attempt to resolve the fundamental problem with a variety of connected strategies, including population control, we will literally waste our effort on fire fighting (or flood fighting, or just fighting over diminishing resources and food). We may have to be less precious about our beautiful upland areas in order to build more hydro-electric capacity, and lose some of our wildlife to tidal barrages. And something I thought I'd never say - more nuclear power (it doesn't generate carbon dioxide).

[Avulon]

Originally Posted by sworks

The range of an EV is down to the high voltage battery which is around 360 volts,

I'm going to stop you right there. The range of an EV is due to the energy stored in the batteries. Voltage is not energy. I suggest you take a course in basic electrical theory.

Originally Posted by sworks

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree, you can’t discount spec, the higher the spec the more expensive the car. I know an i10 won’t cover the length of the UK without a refuel and even if it did surely you would need a rest stop?

Two drivers don't require a rest stop at all. (although it's easily possible for a solo driver to complete in 15-20 hours)


While the EV options might be higher spec (although I really can't see any difference apart from the vehicle size - a requirement to make space for the batteries no doubt). My point is that specification doesn't determine the range. If you view it as a pure transport means then it doesn't really matter what the spec is. Just what the purchase cost is.


Why would anyone buy the EV unless as a second short distance commuter anyway? and at that price it's too expensive for just that. For those that like to travel (or need to commute long distance) it's not practical - so if you already have a car capable of that then why would you need the EV?

[andymc]

Originally Posted by Comfortably Numb

The more I learn about what goes into the making of EVs, the less I like them. They'd be better with a smaller battery, and a small hybrid generation system to ensure you can get to your destination if you have flattened your battery. It would weigh a lot less than a full EV, and use less cobalt. A couple of litres of fossil fuel in the tank would ensure you could reach a fuel or recharging station, even if only at moped speeds. Alternatively, scrap the whole idea for now and invest in finding viable, genuinely eco alternatives.

I discovered recently that the use of cobalt is key to reducing the levels of sulphur in fossil fuel cars. This means that in reality, ICE engines are responsible for far greater levels of cobalt mining than EVs, as the cobalt in an EV battery is not consumed and can be recovered when the battery reaches its end of life.

[sworks]

Originally Posted by Avulon

I'm going to stop you right there. The range of an EV is due to the energy stored in the batteries. Voltage is not energy. I suggest you take a course in basic electrical theory.






Two drivers don't require a rest stop at all. (although it's easily possible for a solo driver to complete in 15-20 hours)


While the EV options might be higher spec (although I really can't see any difference apart from the vehicle size - a requirement to make space for the batteries no doubt). My point is that specification doesn't determine the range. If you view it as a pure transport means then it doesn't really matter what the spec is. Just what the purchase cost is.


Why would anyone buy the EV unless as a second short distance commuter anyway? and at that price it's too expensive for just that. For those that like to travel (or need to commute long distance) it's not practical - so if you already have a car capable of that then why would you need the EV?

I think it’s best I bow out of this thread now, you say voltage is not energy, I didn’t say it was! What I was referring too is that the high voltage and low voltage systems within the car are completely separate and do different jobs nothing more nothing less. Because my post wasn’t written as a technical document doesn’t mean I need a ‘course’ With regards to taking a course in basic electrical theory as you suggest I will pass, the qualifications I have are still classed as current (pun intended)

[bl52krz]

Originally Posted by Comfortably Numb

As Australia records its hottest day ever, and forest fires release huge quantities of stored carbon, the need to get started in earnest on the journey is more urgent than ever. If we don't attempt to resolve the fundamental problem with a variety of connected strategies, including population control, we will literally waste our effort on fire fighting (or flood fighting, or just fighting over diminishing resources and food). We may have to be less precious about our beautiful upland areas in order to build more hydro-electric capacity, and lose some of our wildlife to tidal barrages. And something I thought I'd never say - more nuclear power (it doesn't generate carbon dioxide).

No it does not produce co2 ,nox, dioxides. But it does produce radiation. I know what I would rather have. Ask the people from Chernobyl.

[Comfortably Numb]

Perhaps I don't see the "right" media (pun intended!) I have never heard the slur "green meanies", other than in your posts, John. If you mean the Greens, I have always thought that Nuclear power was anathema to them. And bl52krz names one of the reasons why, one of the same reasons I never thought I'd say we may need more nuclear power, depending on how long it takes to build it TO SAFE STANDARDS. I reckon hydro-electric barrages on our major rivers might be delivered quicker, and with much less potential for environmental disaster. Undoubtedly, the human race has some difficult decisions to make, but we don't really have a lot of time to fiddle while Australia burns, and other parts of the world flood, or are demolished by increasingly violent weather extremes.

[mileshawk56]

Not much chance of any of those things happening Andrew, well maybe just a little bit? There is too much well you do something but Im not going to because etc,etc. Chris.S.