Electric cars

mancity1

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 Aug 2005
Messages
10,604
Location
Melbourne
Not on the nights when the wind doesn't blow, no. What do you propose, days off for everyone who cannot go to work in the morning when it wasn't windy overnight?
Turbines need replacing on average every 5 years , useless to try and recycle them , become extremely inefficient when the wind blows over 70km per hour and require back up when they freeze over or stall.

they also need a lot of dispatchable replacement.

Not better for bird life and the environment and yes when the thermals are fine operate per Kwh generation of electricity producing less Co2 than fossil fuels but without nuclear or hydro use up much more energy and to generate that electricity.

As for solar farms and panels don't get me started.

We will have to build a hell of a lot of massive ugly batteries if we want 30 per cent of the worlds electricity generated from renewable energy and counting bio mass as renewable well ............

Inefficient , intermittent , yes less Co2 into the atmosphere than fossil fuels notwithstanding how much coal and gas you have to burn to make most of their componentry but in our climate hear in OZ for example they become so inefficient in hot weather ( 5 months of the year in most parts ) you usually have to shut them down if they don't shut down due to current and voltage differential on their own (LOL).
 

Pingu the Penguin

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 Sep 2009
Messages
2,861
Looking to buy an electric. But torn between that and a hybrid. Kind of new when it comes to electric cars. Looking for more economic value. Should one go for a used or new? And hybrid or electric. Purpose is more long distance journeys. Tend to use cycle for local use. Any tips would be great.

Rented a golf vw electric. Brilliant and quick.
I’ve got an Audi etron. Leased. Chose that because the quoted range (200miles) was enough to do a regular there and back jaunt i do

in reality I get 155miles in the real world and while it was cold over winter that dropped to 120

even fast charging on motorways takes a good while, and home charging is very slow

The tech will improve no doubt but if you need lengthy journeys then get a hybrid

the etron is a lovely car tho and the acceleration is immense!
 

Pingu the Penguin

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 Sep 2009
Messages
2,861
Been researching over the last month or so and at the moment for our own mileage the sums just don't stack up. We kind of like the Kia Rio electric at £30,000 after government discount, but the mileage range still isn't there at 180 or 280 for the mid-range £34,000 version.

Our current vehicle takes a 53 litre tank @£63 with a possible range of 650 plus miles plus, whereas a home charge x 2 would be around the £20 for the same mileage. However factor in annual mileage excluding hollibobs and it would take around 7 years to claw back the extra auntie.

Very interested in this tech if I live long enough, but at the moment unless you are a business driver the fiscals don't make sense. As someone mentioned the battery range is getting greater with the reliability ratio improving by the month.

Kia say their batteries only lose 1 % over three years which makes for very good reading and with a 7 year warranty what is there not to like. Also the overall lack of maintenance is particularly appealing.

Electric cars are coming along nicely for the joe soap but we feel they are not just quite there yet. Not read the full thread as I have just stumbled across it, but will do when more sober.
I’d be interested to know if those range quotes are evenly vaguely accurate
 

Alan Harper's Tash

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 Dec 2010
Messages
5,841
Not on the nights when the wind doesn't blow, no. What do you propose, days off for everyone who cannot go to work in the morning when it wasn't windy overnight?
Tidal power should have been the answer. No idea why that marina near Swansea was scrapped.
 

Chippy_boy

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 Aug 2008
Messages
27,381
Location
Downstairs
Turbines need replacing on average every 5 years , useless to try and recycle them , become extremely inefficient when the wind blows over 70km per hour and require back up when they freeze over or stall.

they also need a lot of dispatchable replacement.

Not better for bird life and the environment and yes when the thermals are fine operate per Kwh generation of electricity producing less Co2 than fossil fuels but without nuclear or hydro use up much more energy and to generate that electricity.

As for solar farms and panels don't get me started.

We will have to build a hell of a lot of massive ugly batteries if we want 30 per cent of the worlds electricity generated from renewable energy and counting bio mass as renewable well ............

Inefficient , intermittent , yes less Co2 into the atmosphere than fossil fuels notwithstanding how much coal and gas you have to burn to make most of their componentry but in our climate hear in OZ for example they become so inefficient in hot weather ( 5 months of the year in most parts ) you usually have to shut them down if they don't shut down due to current and voltage differential on their own (LOL).
Also they tell us that electric cars are more environmentally friendly, producing less CO2.

I have to say I find that extremely difficult to believe. Extremely difficult.

First of all you have all the mining of the Lithium, the manufacturing of the batteries and shipping it all over the globe. Not to mention the environmental cost of disposing of all the batteries

But putting all of that to one side, the basic physics of it makes it hard to add up. Every schoolboy knows that conversion of any form of energy to another form is lossy - it's never 100% efficient. It's often only 50% in fact, unless special energy recovery techniques are used.

And since half of our power generation comes from burning fossil fuels, you just have to look at how does digging coal out of the ground, make its way to turning the wheels of an electric car?

It goes something like

Chemical energy
Heat energy(burning the coal)
Potential energy (pressuring steam)
Kinetic energy (moving steam)
Kinetic energy (moving turbine)
Electrical energy (generated from the alternators at the power station)
High voltage electricity ( for long distance transmission)
Lower voltage electricity (at substation)
Chemical energy (in your EV battery)
Potential energy (in the car's motors)
Kinetic energy at the wheels.

Vs

Burn the fuel in the car to drive the wheels.

The latter is massively more inherently efficient. The former wastes lots energy (as heat) at every conversion.

I think EVs are the biggest con going but the whole industry has emperor's New clothes about it and no-one has the bottle to call it out for being a sham.

(Not to mention the fact that the poor sod motorist contributes diddly squat to overall CO2 output anyway. The VAST majority of which comes from heating and industrial use.)

The only solid justification for EVs is inner city air quality.
 
Last edited:

Two Gun Bob

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 Apr 2010
Messages
10,815
Location
Life is a web spun of ghosts dreams and illusions.

mancity1

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 Aug 2005
Messages
10,604
Location
Melbourne
Also they tell us that electric cars are more environmentally friendly, producing less CO2.

I have to say I find that extremely difficult to believe. Extremely difficult.

First of all you have all the mining of the Lithium, the manufacturing of the batteries and shipping it all over the globe. Not to mention the environmental cost of disposing of all the batteries

But putting all of that to one side, the basic physics of it makes it hard to add up. Every schoolboy knows that conversion of any form of energy to another form is lossy - it's never 100% efficient. It's often only 50% in fact, unless special energy recovery techniques are used.

And since half of our power generation comes from burning fossil fuels, you just have to look at how does digging coal out of the ground, make its way to turning the wheels of an electric car?

It goes something like

Chemical energy
Heat energy(burning the coal)
Potential energy (pressuring steam)
Kinetic energy (moving steam)
Kinetic energy (moving turbine)
Electrical energy (generated from the alternators at the power station)
High voltage electricity ( for long distance transmission)
Lower voltage electricity (at substation)
Chemical energy (in your EV battery)
Potential energy (in the car's motors)
Kinetic energy at the wheels.

Vs

Burn the fuel in the car to drive the wheels.

The latter is massively more inherently efficient. The former wastes lots energy (as heat) at every conversion.

I think EVs are the biggest con going but the whole industry has emperor's New clothes about it and no-one has the bottle to call it out for being a sham.

(Not to mention the fact that the poor sod motorist contributes diddly squat to overall CO2 output anyway. The VAST majority of which comes from heating and industrial use.)

The only solid justification for EVs is inner city air quality.




Converts to
Excellent summary but for a range of reasons EV are here to stay and over time as technology improves the cost of production will come down.

I say you shouldn't subsidize one for the other and how are governments going to replace the tax or excise without taxable solutions.

bit like the free pass given to renewables at present which as its rolled out increases the cost to the consumer not forgetting its reliability.

We haven't even looked at transmission lines and phasing to accommodate batteries.

Look at California and the bushfires each year not because of climate change but the faulty infrastructure required to support renewables something the left is not talking about and as for wind turbines many species of birds in the US for example are on the brink as they erect more noisy turbines that no one wants to live near.

Agriculture , deforestation and transportation combines produces far more greenhouse gas than electricity generation and how you are going to replace fertilizer still is the no brainer in quality of food to lengthen our lives is an interesting debate.

you could on and on , yes the days of mass dirty brown coal will eventually wind down but you need dispatchable reliable affordable replacement.

We missed to boat on nuclear her in oz and where we would be in cancer treatment without it god only knows but better late than never.

Ideally we here in oz given our climate and population distribution we should move to 60 per cent nuclear , 20 per cent fossil and 20 per cent renewable ( including hydro ) IMO for the 22nd century.

Battery storage is just not viable until massive improvements in technology and delivery are achievable.

As for EV I know the vast majority of Australians won't be driving one in 2050 because they cannot afford them and an ever increasing number of Australians have no off street parking.

maybe they should research car implosion and extraction like they had on the Jetsons so when you look at the matchbox version it turns into a normal sized version (LOL).

its basically ideology IMO.

I laugh at the likes of Tim Flannery who back in the late nineties said parts of Sydney would be under water from rising sea levels and rainfall would reduce by 80 per cent if we didn't close down our coal fired power stations by 2010.

Well he got one thing right it is under water today because of the heaviest falls in some parts for 20 years.

I am sick of the likes of AL Gore and his agenda to make him and his mates rich off the back of ideology.

A bloke whose family made their fortune from selling tobacco and sold his media interests to a company that is only on air because of oil.

A complete an utter hypocrite of the worst kind.

At least Megan and Harry only want to make themselves heard through virtue signalling and other relatively harmless endeavours like playing the victim compared to massive divide between rich and poor that climate change " responses " will only increase.
 

BimboBob

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 Jul 2008
Messages
34,347
Location
Listen, Can you smell something?
Electric cars are hardly environmentally friendly are they.

You'll never claim back the carbon footprint used in their production for one. The land is being raped to produce components for the batteries. Plus the shipping/ flights to get it all to manufacturing.

This is without adding in the rape of the world to produce the electricity needed to charge them up.

They also, being batteries, won't last very long. What happens then? Buy another? What happens to the old one?

Madness. Total madness.

And yet, year on year, more gullible fuckwits join the bandwagon.

If you want to save the planet buy a pushbike, get a job nearer home, don't fly away on holiday and stop making unnecessary trips.

Or keep your car for more than three years. Run it until it drops. Far better for the environment than any battery alternative.

But if you want to pay lip service then hydrogen will probably be the way forward. A water based fuel system, what's not to like?

Or we go back to steam cars. Very popular this time last century.
 

Don't have an account?

Register now!
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.