Forum menu
it’s not strictly synthetic, it’s just alkylate and is fossil derived
Thanks, I'd misunderstood that. They say it's synthetic, but I don't think it was clear, last time I looked, that it's synthesised from fossil materials.
Greybeard
Full Member
it’s not strictly synthetic, it’s just alkylate and is fossil derivedThanks, I’d misunderstood that. They say it’s synthetic, but I don’t think it was clear, last time I looked, that it’s synthesised from fossil materia
it's splitting hairs tbh, but compared with "efuel" or "bio", it's not, though you are smashing different molecules together, normally C4-C6 in an alkylation unit to get the alkylate. in theory you could take a bio-lpg (where the C4-C6 molecules sit) and get a bio-alkylate, but it's expensive to do it.
Not sure I’d regard a gas turbine, peaking or otherwise, as a truly fast response. Not from idle anyway. Spinning reserve possibly, but then you’re burning fuel all the time. Inertia, then water, then spinning, then GT isn’t it – or have I got that wrong?
Yup, wrong. Peaking plant can be run up from idle in a couple of minutes, there's no water involved, it's essentially an aero engine.
If lithium were limited in supply then I don’t think major manufacturers would be planning to switch their production to EVs requiring lithium. Pretty sure someone would have thought of that.
If oil was limited in supply then I don’t think major manufacturers would be planning to continue their ICE production. Pretty sure someone would have thought of that.
See how silly it looks when you turn it around? And of course it's limited! It's not renewing itself so by definition it's a finite resource. There is more to the price than just scarcity of the resource, I'd have hoped that would be obvious. I'm just saying that "if it's that rare why is it so cheap" is a terrible start to base your argument on*, not to mention faith in manufacturers not just thinking with the bottom line (hint: we're talking about capitalism here).
*look at the price vs total world reserves of helium
When cars first started it was touch and go as to who would win, steam or petrol. What would the world be like now if steam had won?
I guess the gulf states would still be desert.
But the argument for doing it is that it’s an energy sink for otherwise unused renewables which will be needed for proper grid balancing.
Sure, but you're describing a battery so the question is why you'd use hydrogen instead of grid-scale lithium-based batteries.
Hydrogen undoubtedly has a role to play in some circumstances: heavy goods transport and steel production for example.
I love "turn it around" arguments, Squirrelking.
Imagaine all cars are currently EVs and someone comes up with ICE technology and then people realise they're going to be poisoned with NOx, NO2 and fine particles, have two or three times the noise pollution, greenhouse the planet 20% faster (don't quote me on the number), pollute many areas with hydrocarbons, increase cancer rates, increase the death rate due to heart and lung disease, need three pedals rather than two in most cars, have ridiculously expensive and regular service intervals, have a stinking object in your garage/on your drive, have poor performance from a standing start, have so many things to go wrong breakdowns are regular, have explosive liquids stored in all sorts of inappropriate places, have tankers spilling these substances with appalling effects on eco-systems... .
If oil was limited in supply then I don’t think major manufacturers would be planning to continue their ICE production.
It's pretty obvious why manufacturers are continuing with the status quo: there's no prospect of oil supply constraining to the point that fuel will become unaffordable in the medium term, so their existing business models will continue to make their expected return. Then there's vast quantity of sunk capital and assets that would become stranded and worthless overnight. Really, you're comparing apples with oranges by comparing an established technology and infrastructure, with an emerging alternative. The better comparison is between two competing alternatives, e.g. hydrogen vs. EV.
Yup, wrong. Peaking plant can be run up from idle in a couple of minutes, there’s no water involved, it’s essentially an aero engine.
Yes I know a GT is similar to, and often derived from an aero engine.
I think I need to explain myself more carefully.
The power balance in an integrated electrical system is maintained in a number of ways.
1) inertia or more correctly the kinetic energy in rotating generators. As you use this frequency drops.
2) water - typically hydroelectric plant designed and built for maintaining power balance and thereby frequency.
3) spinning reserve - this is stuff that is already running at system frequency and you can open the governor / throttle on
4) offline GTs - your aero engine
Now obviously any rotating plant can be 1 or 3, including a GT, but the GT specific bit is the fourth one I think. I’m pretty sure water (hydro) comes on line faster than a GT.
Nowadays you can throw in batteries, but they tend not to get the contracts due to price, CLASS (posh version of playing with voltage) and DSR / flexibility (which is yet to reach its potential)
OC6 (typically voltage controlled) load reduction is also in the mix, but down the line I think.
PS the data I’ve got, which won’t be exhaustive suggests 10 minutes startup to full load for a GT and 30 minutes for a CCGT. The latter of which I find seriously impressive. Neither are going to be good enough for fast response if those figures are anything like right.
Sure, but you’re describing a battery so the question is why you’d use hydrogen instead of grid-scale lithium-based batteries.
Because you can only charge a battery so far, after that you have to shut down the charger. By dumping the power into electrolysis you can use that energy usefully. You could equally dump into heat storage, hydro pumping and whatnot, it's not really important but if the capacity is there why not use it? When the energy is essentially free it doesn't really matter, after a certain point, how inefficient the conversion process is. Also bear in mind that petrochemicals don't begin and end with engine fuel, with synthesised feedstocks we can continue to produce other products without depleting natural resources (if properly managed, thats the key).
It’s pretty obvious why manufacturers are continuing with the status quo: there’s no prospect of oil supply constraining to the point that fuel will become unaffordable in the medium term, so their existing business models will continue to make their expected return. Then there’s vast quantity of sunk capital and assets that would become stranded and worthless overnight. Really, you’re comparing apples with oranges by comparing an established technology and infrastructure, with an emerging alternative. The better comparison is between two competing alternatives, e.g. hydrogen vs. EV.
I think you were missing my point which is to say that the price of a commodity isn't a reliable indication of its reserves. As you say the prospect of suppy constraining to the point of unaffordability in the medium term is unlikely and yet most countries have a Reserve/Production ratio of less than 20 years. Yes lithium is abundant but there doesn't seem to be anything readily accessible that breaks down reserves by known, conditional and hypothetical. Most of the worlds lithium is in concentrations too small to extract using todays technology, there's shedloads of it but unfortunately it's all in the oceans.
I love “turn it around” arguments, Squirrelking.
Imagaine...
Imagine what you like. Your argument doesn't concern me in the slightest because it's complete whataboutery, that's not the situation now, much as I would prefer it was. I'm not arguing against BEV's, I'm not arguing against lithium either, what I am arguing against is that it's some sort of limitless resource and that 100% reliance on lithium batteries is in any way sustainable. And as pointed out so many times it's not yet commercially viable to recycle it so your flip round world could be strip mined to kingdom come or poisoned with brine for all we know.
I think I need to explain myself more carefully.
Yes. Okay I get you now.
I'm just going by manufacturers figures which suggested 2-4 minutes for something that fits in an ISO container, I'd certainly hope our 3.3kV essential short break turbines at other stations started up in that time! Dunno what data you have though but it sounds a bit more substantial than mine. Saying that 6-8 minutes from hitting the bars to full load doesn't sound unreasonable once you consider load raising. Am I teaching my granny to sook eggs here?
When cars first started it was touch and go as to who would win, steam or petrol. What would the world be like now if steam had won?
Steam is an external combustion engine, they are generally still fueled by hydrocarbons of some sort. Coal or gas fired power stations using steam turbines are also an external combustion engine, but you can also use gas turbines as internal combustion engines. It's just a matter of whether it's more efficient to burn the hydrocarbons within the engine or outside it.
One criticism of electric cars is that they still require electrical generation, most of which is still fossil fuel powered. What they are doing is moving the combustion from the car engine to a remote location, but they aren't strictly carbon free. However, it is more efficient to burn the hydrocarbons in a large powerstation and use that to power elective vehicles than to have an ICE in each vehicle. Of course, some electricity comes from renewable sources, but EVs increase the demand for electricity and renewables aren't enough to meet total electricity demand, so the extra demand of EVs requires burning of fossil fuels to meet the shortfall. If EVs suddenly disappeared, fossil fuel electricity generation would decrease, but ICE vehicle fossil fuel usage would increase. This means that EVs might be reducing fossil fuel usage overall, but they are still shifting fossil fuel burning to somewhere out of sight rather than eliminating it completely.
I thought this was about lithium batteries and the melting of the polar ice caps... 😯
Am I teaching my granny to sook eggs here?
Not at all. I now a little but I don’t work for the ESO or a generator and I’m certainly no expert in that area.
Of course, some electricity comes from renewable sources, but EVs increase the demand for electricity and renewables aren’t enough to meet total electricity demand, so the extra demand of EVs requires burning of fossil fuels to meet the shortfall.
True almost all the time, but not all any more.
This website gives some interesting data. Sadly it appears to be in hour averages not half hour averages these days. We certainly spent a little time with no fossil fuel on the grid last year (just don’t ask me when).
Also the orange bit is CCGT that should be running in the 50-60% efficiency range and cars are nowhere near that. Gas boilers are though (and the rest at 90% plus for most of the stuff in use and higher still for a new one)so the question around low carbon heat is more interesting.
Of course, some electricity comes from renewable sources, but EVs increase the demand for electricity and renewables aren’t enough to meet total electricity demand, so the extra demand of EVs requires burning of fossil fuels to meet the shortfall.
True almost all the time, but not all any more.
There's a strong argument to say any additional use is causing carbon emissions at the marginal rate but other factors mitigate that to some extent. Timing and also planning the grid and generation mix over time to suit demand.
On simple timing it's to be hoped, and I think one could reasonably expect, that a fair bit of battery charging already be done at times of high renewable generation and/or lower demand, because it can, it doesn't matter to the user's convenience. I set mine to charge in the early hours of the morning, and I often have a look at our country's grid carbon usage to time charging at lowest emission times. I use the app GridCarbon. So it's not automated, but hopefully smarter charging timing devices aren't far away. To an extent they are out there already.
I accept that most of the time I charge we are still burning some gas, so marginal emissions are still gas, but certainly if you add more of me to the demand profile you don't need to add new gas stations to the supply. And we are in any case adding more low carbon generation all the time. The chances of my car being on charge at a moment there's coal on the grid are slim and that's been the case since well before I got it.
I accept that most of the time I charge we are still burning some gas, so marginal emissions are still gas, but certainly if you add more of me to the demand profile you don’t need to add new gas stations to the supply.
One of my main points was that it is still better to use an EV even if the electricity is coming from burning fossil fuels. It's just that many people seem to assume that they don't contribute at all to carbon emissions, which is not the case.
Because you can only charge a battery so far, after that you have to shut down the charger. By dumping the power into electrolysis you can use that
Except you cant. Hydrogen is an absolute PITA to store.
There is already a worldwide excess of hydrogen produced as a product of fossil fuel refining that would be going up in smoke if it wasn't for the fact it burns with a white/clear flame and no smoke.
Its fiendishly expensive to buy though inspite of that because it's even more of a PITA to transport than it is to store.
We were talking about hydrogen fuel cells being the next big thing in the 60's. Some very clever people have been trying to solve it for 60 years and we're still at the stage of "well it works, for a short range, in parralel with a battery, but it's expensive and slow".
thols2
Free Member
I accept that most of the time I charge we are still burning some gas, so marginal emissions are still gas, but certainly if you add more of me to the demand profile you don’t need to add new gas stations to the supply.One of my main points was that it is still better to use an EV even if the electricity is coming from burning fossil fuels
Not for all occasions, and not unless you ignore life cycle analysis, this is a big factor in all of the report s you read that is convientently left off. There are so many studies now that show the pay back time, even when using a hgih % of renewable electricity, does not come in until at least 50K km's, a mix grid is min 90K and then fossil grid is some 150k. Some coutries are obviously in a better position for this due to acces of hydro, wind and solar, but the vast majority are not.
So what how do you make use of that renewable electricity that you cannot transport in its current state???? You convert it into something that you can transport - liquid.
Another point to note, there is and will continue to ne a lot of waste generated by society, and the best place to put that waste is into efficient fuelling. No-one i ssuggesting that this will be the very long term answer as eventually you wont have enough waste - but thats a GOOD THING, by this point other technologies will have evolved.
The single biggest mistake policy makers, marketing fanbois and think tanks ar making is to assume that what we do right this second, is what we should be doing in 20, 30, 40, 50 years time. The notion that you can not have a trnasition and fix other issues on the way is lost on them as it doesn't get the soundbites they need. There is also the point that convientently forgets that by buying another new vehicle, instead of keeping existing ones going is a. expensive, and very few people can do this, and we are simply not in a scoety that can dump individual transport quickly, and b. adding to the problem of more manufacturing and thus emissions. The best thing we can do at this moment, is to use up the carbon we've already removed from carbon sinks (oil mainly) in it's many guises and put it back into a circular economy.
One criticism of electric cars is that they still require electrical generation, most of which is still fossil fuel powered
That's no longer true:
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-generation-mix-quarter-and-fuel-source-gb
And as pointed out so many times it’s not yet commercially viable to recycle
Despite the fact I've linked videos about two French factories that are operating viable recycling, one with Lithium of battery grade, Squirrelking.
Do keep up guys, the world is changing, don't use yesterday's arguments today.
you could choose the car sound you like off the big silly iPad on the dash board and enjoy.
Ripe for hacking.
Imagine inflicting upon your sworn enemy, the opening strains of Yakkety-Sax with every acceleration away from traffic lights.
Delicious.
There is also the point that convientently forgets that by buying another new vehicle, instead of keeping existing ones going is expensive, and very few people can do this
I don't think it's fair to say this point is forgotten. To effect change the key personal decision making point in time is when the consumer who would buy (or otherwise support the manufacture of, by eg leasing or whatever) a new car chooses between more Vs less environmentally damaging options. This is what drives the manufacture and supply of vehicles onto the road and over time, reflecting the life of a vehicle, the mix of vehicles on the road. So discussion and policy necessarily focusses on it. That doesn't blame people for buying older fossil cars or fail to recognise that long life of the manufactured asset is important for its environmental impact. But cars of a certain age only exist if they were being built that long ago, and that doesn't excuse resistance to a change in the mix of new ones coming into use.
A lot of policy affects the same decision point. But the elephant in the room remains fuel duty, as at this budget left flat in nominal terms for 11 years. More than a decade of no rises alongside inflation in everything else AND an increased recognition of the harm AND the introduction of both more efficient ICE vehicles and viable alternatives. Yes, they've been reducing the tax on burning fossil fuels for car travel for 11 years in real terms. Seems to me the longer they leave this policy the harder it is to change.
One of the nice things about EVs from a low carbon energy system point of view, is that having a potentially huge flexible and dispatchable load makes the use of PV and wind, and the balancing thereof, easier and cheaper.
Not enough generation for the demand at the moment? Fire up extra generation? No just ask the cars to charge a little more slowly. Too much generation? Offer a deal to charge a bit more.
However that future only works properly if a good proportion of the cars are grid connected while at rest and not normally charged to 100%.
If we go down the superfast chargers and electric petrol stations route it falls over. But I don’t think we will - I bow to the mainstream EV owner’s experiences though.
I have no guilt about buying a new EV now and then, at some point down the chain it means another ICE powered old heap will go to the breakers. My asthma will benefit. I'd happily buy a second-hand EV too knowing the previous owner has probably replaced it with another EV and again I'd be pushing another ICE into the breakers at the bottom of the chain.
When cars first started it was touch and go as to who would win, steam or petrol. What would the world be like now if steam had won?
Battery cars were also in the mix. Bit milk float like, but you know, for around town, even back then in the dawn of time when there was no traffic, you didn't need a Tesla to get to your appointment at the tailors on time.
Then the oil guys did the whole FUD thing about range and speed, and battery cars lost.
Steam is an external combustion engine, they are generally still fueled by hydrocarbons of some sort. Coal or gas fired power stations using steam turbines are also an external combustion engine, but you can also use gas turbines as internal combustion engines. It’s just a matter of whether it’s more efficient to burn the hydrocarbons within the engine or outside it.
It's far more efficient to get steady state burn, such as turbines or steam engine boilers or home heating gas boilers. As I understood it.
Except you cant. Hydrogen is an absolute PITA to store.
You pressurise it and tank it, where's the problem? It's no more problematic than many other gases and certainly a hell of a lot less of a pain than CO2.
There is already a worldwide excess of hydrogen produced as a product of fossil fuel refining that would be going up in smoke if it wasn’t for the fact it burns with a white/clear flame and no smoke.
Its fiendishly expensive to buy though inspite of that because it’s even more of a PITA to transport than it is to store.
That'll be why there's 1600 miles of hydrogen transport pipelines in the US then? And hundreds of kilometers of it in Europe. But that aside, Sui once again nails it:
So what how do you make use of that renewable electricity that you cannot transport in its current state???? You convert it into something that you can transport – liquid.
And we're back to using the hydrogen as feedstock for biofuels.
We were talking about hydrogen fuel cells being the next big thing in the 60’s. Some very clever people have been trying to solve it for 60 years and we’re still at the stage of “well it works, for a short range, in parralel with a battery, but it’s expensive and slow”.
342 mile range, 111mph max speed and 0-60 in 9.2 seconds? Granted at £66k that's getting close to Model S territory but economies of scale play a large role here too.
That’s no longer true:
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-generation-mix-quarter-and-fuel-source-gb
/blockquote>Still a third gas and that's only the UK, what does the grid look like elsewhere? US, China etc.
Despite the fact I’ve linked videos about two French factories that are operating viable recycling, one with Lithium of battery grade, Squirrelking.
I have no idea what Veolia's economics look like nor what their actual output looks like. Papers don't seem too consistent either. It is viable, whether or not it is right now is another question but long term it's not really an argumemt worth having IMO.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479720304345
I have no guilt about buying a new EV now and then, at some point down the chain it means another ICE powered old heap will go to the breakers. My asthma will benefit. I’d happily buy a second-hand EV too knowing the previous owner has probably replaced it with another EV and again I’d be pushing another ICE into the breakers at the bottom of the chain.
And that's fine, nobody is asking you to feel guilty. Nobody is denying the localised benefits BEVs bring but that cannot be looked at in isolation.
However that future only works properly if a good proportion of the cars are grid connected while at rest and not normally charged to 100%.
If we go down the superfast chargers and electric petrol stations route it falls over.
Exactly why I wouldn't be relying on it.
Then the oil guys did the whole FUD thing about range and speed, and battery cars lost.
Lead-acid batteries are not competitive performance wise with petrol. Aircraft only became possible with the power to weight ratio and energy density of petrol engines. If electric vehicles were practical back in the early days, military technology would have focused on it. Petrol won because it had massively better performance than early EVs.
Exactly why I wouldn’t be relying on it.
As an individual, we don’t need you to. It’s about societal consensus choices - individuals swimming against the stream will make little difference.
We need to understand the societal choice. If the incentives are there for home charging, work charging etc, then the financial benefits will follow and most people will vote with their wallets against fast charging in favour of connected at rest.
The few that don’t? Well they’ll pay significant premiums for a less convenient arrangement. (Why is this reminding me of Brexit? Oh dear)
And on storing and transporting hydrogen, the smart money is on liquid solution based or power solution based systems rather than pressure. We’re aware of a powder based system that gets energy densities similar to diesel - not yet commercial but promising. The powder is reusable, only water as a waste product.
squirrelking
Free MemberYou pressurise it and tank it, where’s the problem?
Volume, basically. And location, but mostly volume. Not an unsolvable problem of course but solvable problems can still be very very big.
PS if it helps add a little colour, electricity networks often use small diesel generators to restore supplies to homes while they make repairs after small faults.
We’ve been trialling the use of vans carrying battery inverter units - they’ll do a house for 3 days or three houses for one day.
They more expensive than diesel generators to buy but are cheaper to run, can cope far better with domestic solar, can be used places diesel can’t and are quicker to set up than a diesel unit.
The Field Ops guys love them.
ICE ain’t dead yet, but it is dying.
However that future only works properly if a good proportion of the cars are grid connected while at rest and not normally charged to 100%.
If we go down the superfast chargers and electric petrol stations route it falls over. But I don’t think we will – I bow to the mainstream EV owner’s experiences though.
I think we will, Hyundia are launching a mainstream car this year with much faster charging 20%-80% SoC in 18mins, Ionity are installing 350kw chargers across the country, we're already on the way.
However, I think you're mixing up home / work charging with destination charging (and the poor sods who can't home /work charge). 60% of the population have a driveway apparently and you can safely assume that they will charge at home for convenience and cost. I also think chargers at work will become normal for the big employers. So whether superfast DC chargers and electric petrol stations happen or not, in my mind it's separate to home / work AC charging and it's potential to be used to balance the grid.
If we go down the superfast chargers and electric petrol stations route it falls over. But I don’t think we will – I bow to the mainstream EV owner’s experiences though.
Indeed. Going somewhere to "fill up", whether that's 10 minutes of smelly expensive diesel or 45 of expensive fast charging and a crap coffee (compulsory stw coffee snobbery!), is not a particularly attractive proposition compared with sleeping through the night in your own bed while your car quietly charges on the cheap. So I think those stations will only account for a small minority of charging.
Doesn't work for terraced houses yet but that's not an unsolvable problem in the timescales one would expect we'll take to get to that level of BEV fleet.
The Lithium mine images are a bit misleading. Most lithium comes from the Lithium Triangle in South America (About 75% of the world's reserves are there) and it is mostly not mined at all but evaporated in salt ponds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Production
Veolia
The unit recycling to battery grade isn't Véolia. I linked to the replay a while back.
As an individual, we don’t need you to. It’s about societal consensus choices – individuals swimming against the stream will make little difference.
We need to understand the societal choice. If the incentives are there for home charging, work charging etc, then the financial benefits will follow and most people will vote with their wallets against fast charging in favour of connected at rest.
The few that don’t? Well they’ll pay significant premiums for a less convenient arrangement. (Why is this reminding me of Brexit? Oh dear)
That's a lot of joined up thinking. It's do-able, certainly, but yet to come to fruition. Can imagine the backlash when people get their "free" charging taken away from them too. But as already alluded to that's the choice between everyday and destination charging, I'd pay a bit more if I could charge my car fast and continue a journey after a rest break.
And on storing and transporting hydrogen, the smart money is on liquid solution based or power solution based systems rather than pressure. We’re aware of a powder based system that gets energy densities similar to diesel – not yet commercial but promising. The powder is reusable, only water as a waste product.
Yup, liquid solutions are the key as I've said. That powder sounds interesting though.
The unit recycling to battery grade isn’t Véolia. I linked to the replay a while back.
Not on this thread, do you have it handy without making me fight the horrific search system? Bearing in mind I don't speak a word of French.
TES has a site, Recupyl near Grenoble and is opening a new factory with the technology in Singapore:
Google translate to get to English.
I don't think that's the one I saw on TV though, the name doesn't ring any bells.
When cars first started it was touch and go as to who would win, steam or petrol.
Or electric
Porsche's first cars were electric - they were making them in the 1890s
The earliest land speed records were set by electric cars too
I’d pay a bit more if I could charge my car fast and continue a journey after a rest break.
Of course you would. And so would everyone else. But given a decent EV will do well over 100 miles on a “tank” (Edukator, educate us) and average mileage is 30-40 miles a day (tops - some folk reckon 20), how often are you going to pay 3 or 4 times more to fill up. And if your smart the differential will be more than 3-4 times.
The range angst:
1/ how low can you run the battery? That depends on charge infrastructure and how reliable it is. In Germany I'm happy to run down to 10-15% but in France it's more like 20% because there are fewer chargers, further between and I never rely on just one being useable.
2/ how fast to you want to drive? With 20kWh chargers going faster than the trucks, 93kmh, is pointless because less time on the road will mean more time on the charger. Even with 5kWh chargers we only drive at 110kmh.
3/ the types of roads. Main roads are limited to 80kmh in France, we need a break before the battery needs charging. We've only been using the Zoé to go up and down to the ski resort since December (heater on eco)) and the dispmay says 12.0 kW/100km with a predicted range of about 380km. But the average speed isn't even 50kmh because of road and traffic conditions. However returning from the coast on the autoroute which is about 120km at the 130 limit empties the battery, on main roads we do the return trip on 2/3 battery.
4/ Britain often has the worst weather conditions for an EV: cold, wet and humid which means extra tyre drag, the heater/demister flat out (it's shit), headlights, wipers... in SW France those conditions are rare. Users on this forum get much less range in Winter than we do.
So how long is your piece of string? How do you drive? Are you prepared to drive slower and take more breaks? The longest trip we've done is Pau-Berlin which is about 2000km. The French leg was slow, the German part not much dofferent to when we've used an ICE car. We're never in a hurry.
In conclusion we plan long trips with less than 280km between charges and drive as necessary to get that.
ICE vehicles will become the equivalent of horses for transport - a niche leisure activity for rich folk.
A BMW 3 series has 30,000 parts a Tesla only 7,000.
Maintenance on an EV is tyres and brakes no oil, radiator, starters etc.
They are faster
Range is a non issue
They have more space inside as they don't need the engine block
They are cheaper to run
The economics are all in favour even with out the environmental advantages.
And battery tech and power generation is only going to get better.
I'm intending to cling on to my current petrol and diesel cars as long as I can.
Because as thewanderer says, the alternatives including electric, will only get better and better.
Some electric options at the moment feel a bit half baked.
Some electric options at the moment feel a bit half baked.
What's that in?
What’s that in?
Tesla.
Maintenance on an EV is tyres and brakes no oil, radiator, starters etc.
Only if you're an idiot.
I presume you've never had the pleasure of an electric motor bearing failure. Even with full alignment in good conditions they still fail and that's before you start introducing dynamic loads and salt water ingress. It's a very simple regime but they do need maintained.
how often are you going to pay 3 or 4 times more to fill up. And if your smart the differential will be more than 3-4 times.
In conclusion we plan long trips with less than 280km between charges and drive as necessary to get that.
So taking, say 30%, off for winter thats 187km which is 116 miles. Most trips that's fine but if we wanted to visit my wifes family that's really pushing it (47 - 54 miles each way to Cuumbernauld, 59-66 to Stirling). Now that's not a problem as such since we're talking about stuff in a future where infrastructure has improved. Even right now I can get a recharge at Comrie if I went there.
But when it comes to the grid it's more about when you need the power rather than if you need it. You're still relying on having enough resource available to feed a grid hiccup right now. Unless every public and workplace parking space has a charge point (that you want to charge folk handsomely to use) that's not going to happen and from around 0800 - 1900 your resource isn't going to be fully guaranteed because a lot of the the cars will be away from the home. Even if they were I'm sure everyone is going to be thrilled if they come out to find less charge than they they had when they left it or just not plug it in out of abandonment anxiety, you know thats going to be a thing regardless of facts). There are [url= https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54841528 ]better things[/url] out there for grid support and outsourcing it to the consumer is just asking for trouble IMO. There is a reason operators are paid well for maintaining grid backup systems. Not when they are used, just so they are there on demand. If you can't meet that demand then the grid is in trouble.
Why not have that hydrogen production? We're probably going to need it anyway as feedstock since plastics and other petrochemical products aren't going anywhere soon so why not have an amount on standby for contingencies like this? I just don't see the sense in writing off an entire process because of a very narrow application and not looking at the bigger picture. Forget about transporting it and other whataboutery, it's already possible to pipe it and anyway it makes sense to produce it where it's needed so won't need to go far before it gets converted anyway. Ineos aren't building a power plant in Dundee, they're building it in Grangemouth where the fuel is and so it would be the same for electrolysis, you would build it next to the synthesiser. If you can run a turbine off that why not?
Only if you’re an idiot.
Maintenance not breakages.
Maintenance not breakages.
And if you don't maintain motors you're an idiot. They need inspected and overhauled just like any other moving part, just because they don't have reciprocating parts and fluids to change doesn't mean they are maintenance free.
EDIT: Belief that motor don't need maintenance is up there with lifetime gearbox oil in marketing bullshit that makes engineers cry (but mechanics a lot of money).
How much weight would be required for a petrol range extender, to kick in occasionally.
I’m thinking bmw i3 type of thing.
Obviously you’re not wanting a v6 in there, but a small petrol generator type thing that could be slotted in when you think you’re going to need it.
It would kick in only when required and always run at set revs/full efficiency.
That does away with a lot of anxiety.
I’m also thinking that cars need to get a lot smaller, or more specifically, lighter.