Electric cars, why are some of their ranges so poor?

[Glaucus]

The question is how much is it going to cost to run electric cables/tracks down every main road in the country, how long will it take and how much chaos would it cause?

Nd how much and how long to change to hydrogen or any alternative, they will all take a long time and cost a huge amount.
However 1 solution solves fuel, the other solution solves fuel and congestion and will cost far less in the long run, compared to two massive upgrades.

Changing to hydrogen is not cheap or easy, it still requires massive infastructure change.
Roads are reserviced or worked on ever few years, no reason why work can not be intergrated. Or in the case of a monorail, can be built above things, maybe over railways and motorways.

 

[Amp34]

True, however most of that cost will be paid by either companies or consumers upgrading their current car.

One tech needs massive upfront costs by the government years before it is used, the other needs gradual costs and evolution over a few years as people replace their old cars with the new tech.

Monorails are slightly different and I wouldn't be majorly adverse to that, however you have cost involved in that too and i'd suggest it's not as different from rail travel in terms of cost (higher infrastructure costs to roads) and it would be chargeable by mile i'm guessing, something which most car drivers are adverse to.

Why not stick more trains on the rail we already have? Any reason we can't do that will also affect the monorails.

 

[starfighter]

Hydrogen isn't going to take off. it isn't efficient to create and hard to store. fuel cells are more plausible but quite a way off, in reality it is going to be biofuel or electricity from a battery in the near future.

The problems facing battery tech are tiny compared to the problems for all these other solutions. Rare metal is an issue but they can already use various alternatives, it's just no one has really looked because they aren't that rare yet, now everyone has a laptop and a mobile people are getting concerned and alternatives found.


Car trains would be cool. I think they will more likely work by a combination of GPS, sensors on the cars/roads and an intelligent car that can almost drive itself and this will be separate to how they are powered.

trust me, read this thread in 10 years when you are all in your electric cars that can drive on the motorway without intervention and marvel at my greatness.

 

[Kitchster_uk]

Using the figures of 2500kw/h per electric car doing 10k miles per year and the fact there are 26m cars on the UK roads, we need an additional 65bn kw/h per year, or 6 Nuclear Power Stations. At a cost of £2bn each, that's a £12bn bill at a time where all 9 current stations need replacing, and Nuclear is only 20% of the UK grid.

Of course, nobody wants a Nuclear Power Station on their nice Estuary, so we could go to wind turbines, but as it is an average of 433 turbines to the power station, which becomes 1700 as the wind only blows enough 25% of the time and we need a 10,000 wind turbines at a cost of £19bn. And people complain about the odd one or two here and there.

I'd look at the cost of the upgrade to the power grid but you get the idea...

 

[Glaucus]

True, however most of that cost will be paid by either companies or consumers upgrading their current car.

One tech needs massive upfront costs by the government years before it is used, the other needs gradual costs and evolution over a few years as people replace their old cars with the new tech.

Not at all, hydrogen needs a huge investment from government to get the infrastructure in place. As it needs so much electricity to make as well as the massive plants to actually make the hydrogen.
Companies are not going to roll it out.

As I keep saying which ever alternative we use, will need huge amounts of government spending for infrastructure. Do you want to spend loads only to upgrade it again in 10 years, or spend a little more and get the state of the art, envy of the world solution. which we can manufacture and export. Creating huge amounts of jobs and revenue for the UK.

snip

there is no getting around it, what ever the alternative to oil is it is going to be electricity based (either direct electrical, or through using electrical to make fuels like hydrogen). As well as replacing the gas power plants we have. It's just unavoidable.

 

[starfighter]

I agree it will cause an increase in the power needed for the national grid. But we already need a load of new ones anyway (nuclear power stations), a few more over a couple of decades isn't the end of the world.

The taxpayer wouldn't pay for it, you pay for your own electricity like now, assuming the government doesn't give money to power companies to clean up their waste like last time it is cheaper than all the petrol we buy.

Batteries are more of a problem than this, and even they aren't a problem really imho.

 

[Amp34]

Not at all, hydrogen needs a huge investment from government to get the infrastructure in place. As it needs so much electricity to make as well as the massive plants to actually make the hydrogen.
Companies are not going to roll it out.

As I keep saying which ever alternative we use, will need huge amounts of government spending for infrastructure. Do you want to spend loads only to upgrade it again in 10 years, or spend a little more and get the state of the art, envy of the world solution. which we can manufacture and export. Creating huge amounts of jobs and revenue for the UK.

I agree, I'd rather spend more money now and get a better system than spend more overall. However I really don't believe using cables/rails to power cars is the way to go. By the time we have fully (or even started) implementing the system it will probably be out of date and a waste of money. Monorails are a possibility, as I agreed earlier, however what tech will make it work over the top of trains?

I still firmly believe independent GPS (with sensor) driving with electric/hydrogen battery power will be the way forward. Easy to use, cheap(er) infrastructure (over the powerline suggestion) and far more independent for the driver (it would be useable on all roads not a minority. Add that to a greater public transport system (upgraded train and tram integrated infrastructure, maybe even buses..)) and more cycling/walking in town.

 

[Glaucus]

independent for the driver (it would be useable on all roads not a minority.

These mono cars are usable on all roads. The idea is you have batterys which will give it a reasonable range. You then do any long distance on a monorail. Which has the benefit of recharging the batteries at the same time. Reducing drag and all in all being far more efficient than any self contained system. Hydrogen you loose efficiency at so many stages and that assuming you can produce enough of it.
Independently driven cars will cost a fortune. These sensors are not cheap or small.

 

[Amp34]

These mono cars are usable on all roads. The idea is you have batterys which will give it a reasonable range. You then do any long distance on a monorail. Which has the benefit of recharging the batteries at the same time. Reducing drag and all in all being far more efficient than any self contained system. Hydrogen you loose efficiency at so many stages and that assuming you can produce enough of it.
Independently driven cars will cost a fortune. These sensors are not cheap or small.

Well yes they are, however they would need to run on their own power and be driven when not on the specific roads, unlike the other systems. That's what I meant. I wasn't talking about the monorail idea either, more your suggestion of cables/rails in motorways and dual carriageways.

What I would like to know is how you get round the issue of crashing, getting on and off monorail and how you pay for them (pay per mile?). In which case you are getting into the same issues trains have now and in which case why can we not use the technology that would be used on monorails on train tracks, allowing far more trains as well as more automation, creating smaller, cheaper, more regular trains (instead of a few large trains lots of small automated trains), easing congestion in carriages and reducing costs. We have these issues on trains now, why will we suddenly be able to sort them out for a monorail system running broadly the same thing?

As for independent driving, we already have intelligent cruise control which monitors the speed/distance of teh car in front and compensates, there are cars out there now that can drive on a road without human intervention, helped by GPS (what about the more accurate european system being put in place). In 30 years, which i'd suggest is a realistic estimate of when even a small percentage of drivers/cars will be able to use a small percentage of the road stock modified in the way you suggested that tehnology could easily have been modified to be cheap and good enough to be used by mainstream cars. No extra road work or buildng involved. As for the power issue in 30 years i'd guess we would have about a quarter of our motorways converted (15 ish years to plan and test then another 10 to lay it at best), in those 30 years I would expect both battery technology and Hydrogen (or any other type of fuel system) to have increased massively, just look at how far we have come in the last ten.

I think you are looking at the old fashioned tech, something that will be hugely costly and outdated in only a few years. If we could put all the stuff in place tomorrow then I would agree, it may be a good idea, but in a realistic time frame for it to actually happen, no, it would be outdated by then.

 

[Glaucus]

Well yes they are, however they would need to run on their own power and be driven when not on the specific roads, unlike the other systems. That's what I meant. I wasn't talking about the monorail idea either, more your suggestion of cables/rails in motorways and dual carriageways.

The technology for totally self drive cars is not a reality yet and would cost an poulterer fortune if it was. You are talking about 10's of thousands per car, look at the American army challenge.

Self controlled cars on monorails or major roads is available now and doable.
Europe is developing a motorway "train" when cars join, eh car controls get taken over.

What I would like to know is how you get round the issue of crashing, getting on and off monorail and how you pay for them (pay per mile?).

Computer controlled very easy to do. Road tax, like we have now but could be a lot higher as you electricity is far cheaper than oil.
The cars them-selfs would be very cheap and the entire energy cycle would be extremely efficient. This is technology that is here and now and could be implementer over the next 10-20years.

So you want to wait 20 years to get the technology then have another 20 years to implement it.
Such things have such a long build time we need to start now. it wont be outdated. It is an extremely good and efficient system. When cars really can drive themselves that can just be added to the cars and still use all the infrastructure.

 

[Amp34]

The technology for totally self drive cars is not a reality yet and would cost an poulterer fortune if it was. You are talking about 10's of thousands per car, look at the American army challenge.

Self controlled cars on monorails or major roads is available now and doable.
Europe is developing a motorway "train" when cars join, eh car controls get taken over.

Now, yes, how about in 20-30 years time? We can do it now, which means it is possible, we just need to make it affordable and more accurate, and with 20-30 years to do it in then it seems an easy task.

AFAIK the motorway train you are on about is totally different to your suggestion, that is using sensors in the cars, controlled by a "tractor" at the front of the train, which in fact is probably closer to my idea than yours.

Computer controlled very easy to do. Road tax, like we have now but could be a lot higher as you electricity is far cheaper than oil.
The cars them-selfs would be very cheap and the entire energy cycle would be extremely efficient. This is technology that is here and now and could be implementer over the next 10-20years.

So you advocate a massive increase in road tax and then free use of the power on them? So those people that pootle around the town will have to pay £1000 to drive their car once a month so those that drive their cars long distances can use the electrified roads daily for the same price? Good luck getting that through parliament. Or you could do a sliding scale, but then you may as well do a pay by mile scheme.

Why would the cars themselves be cheap? I'm guessing they will cost a similar amount/slightly more than cars today, same with the tech I suggested. Much like cruise control and electric windows etc it would trickle down from the top of the range cars as it becomes cheaper and more standard, no forcing the market or expensive dreams, just a gradual evolution. There is a reason the likes of BMW are spending a fortune on this sort of thing, long distance business drivers would love to just program their BMW in and be whisked off, without an issue.

So you want to wait 20 years to get the technology then have another 20 years to implement it.
Such things have such a long build time we need to start now. it wont be outdated. It is an extremely good and efficient system. When cars really can drive themselves that can just be added to the cars and still use all the infrastructure.

No I don't want to wait, however this sort of thing doesn't happen overnight. There are no plans AFAIK for anything like this in the UK, so that leaves at least 5 years realistically before any major plans are set in motion, then small scale trials, which would probably take another 5 years (build them and do proper testing), then another few years to plan, budget and start deploying the system, then another 10-15 years to get a reasonable amount of the infrastructure built to make it worth it for people to exchange their cars* and start using it. That is 20+ years at the earliest, by which time I can see the tech I am on about becoming pretty much mainstream.

That doesn't take into account the chaos and wasted time in traffic jams as the M25 and M1 are dug up to install the systems.

As I said before the monorail system (as a seperate entity to the road network) may work, especially if speeds could be increased over the 70 limit we have now, however I do wonder if it would be really necessary and whether the money spent by the government on that would not be better spent on creating a much more modern rail network, with closer spaced, smaller, more automated trains.**

*I'd guess there would be two sets of models sold concurrently, with the modified versions being slightly more expensive, very few people will buy the more expensive cars until they are of use.

**For example the main issues with the trains at the moment are cost, wait and congestion. Loads of 1-2 carriage trains, automatically controlled and at closer intervals would sort most of that issue out and the technology would be practically identical to the monorail system if it were introduced.

 

[Glaucus]

Now, yes, how about in 20-30 years time? We can do it now, which means it is possible, we just need to make it affordable and more accurate, and with 20-30 years to do it in then it seems an easy task.

We can't do it know, have you watched the American army competition, which has the best self controlled cars researched to date.

AFAIK the motorway train you are on about is totally different to your suggestion, that is using sensors in the cars, controlled by a "tractor" at the front of the train, which in fact is probably closer to my idea than yours.

Not entirely, If we had an electric road rather than a mono rail, I would suggest a similar system. Without the tractor.
I was assuming you meant a martial system like that rather than a full one.

So you advocate a massive increase in road tax and then free use of the power on them? So those people that pootle around the town will have to pay £1000 to drive their car once a month so those that drive their cars long distances can use the electrified roads daily for the same price? Good luck getting that through parliament. Or you could do a sliding scale, but then you may as well do a pay by mile scheme.

there's lots of ways you could do it pay per mile would be one of them. Tax at the moment is a sliding scale.
What I'm saying is as electricity is so cheap compared to oil and the much higher efficiency there is more than enough money in the system for such a infrastructure once you get it set up.

Why would the cars themselves be cheap? I'm guessing they will cost a similar amount/slightly more than cars today, same with the tech I suggested.

The cars are cheap as they are very simple to make, use normal components that are already mass produced. They can be froma couple of thousand (so cheaper than today cars, upwards. Depending what you want.
It is not the case for your system, assuming the technology was perfected all the sensors costs thousands and this would have to be fitted to every car. Rather than the sensors and control being fitted to the infrastructure.

Much like cruise control and electric windows etc it would trickle down from the top of the range cars as it becomes cheaper and more standard, no forcing the market or expensive dreams, just a gradual evolution. There is a reason the likes of BMW are spending a fortune on this sort of thing, long distance business drivers would love to just program their BMW in and be whisked off, without an issue.

This again is not the case, to be beneficial in traffic flow and congestion reduction, the entire system needs to be integrated centrally at massive cost as well as the massive cost to each car. And then you still have the fuel issue. ATM there is not much on the horizon for battery technology. which leaves hydrogen which is hard to produce or fuel cells., most of which work on bio-fuels which have their own problem.

I have no doubt such system will be possible and in relatively near future. it's just not the system we need, in the time scale we have.

 

[Amp34]

We can't do it know, have you watched the American army competition, which has the best self controlled cars researched to date.

Sorry, my bad.

What I meant to say was that yes the technology isn't very good now, but in 20-30 years it will be a lot better.

Not entirely, If we had an electric road rather than a mono rail, I would suggest a similar system. Without the tractor.
I was assuming you meant a martial system like that rather than a full one.

In which case we may be arguing for essentially similar systems. Probably using similar sensors (such as those already installed in cars with intelligent cruise control) but you are advocating sensors on the road to lead the cars around (whereas I am advocating GPS/satellite)? Or with an electric road do you still mean using a rail style track?

Yeah it may have been the marital system (this?) there was a thread on here about it a few months ago? This is the only system that looks like it is possible to run in the next 5 years that i've seen however.

there's lots of ways you could do it pay per mile would be one of them. Tax at the moment is a sliding scale.
What I'm saying is as electricity is so cheap compared to oil and the much higher efficiency there is more than enough money in the system for such a infrastructure once you get it set up.

Personally I think pay per mile would be the best bet, however I know that a lot of motorists, especially those that would use the system the most, don't agree with it (or at least thats the impression I get from this forum) and it would probably have to sit in parallel with another system (for those not using the electricity). I guess another option (just as another option) could be a zoning system, like the underground, but that would probably be a bit too complicated.

The cars are cheap as they are very simple to make, use normal components that are already mass produced. They can be froma couple of thousand (so cheaper than today cars, upwards. Depending what you want.
It is not the case for your system, assuming the technology was perfected all the sensors costs thousands and this would have to be fitted to every car. Rather than the sensors and control being fitted to the infrastructure.

Why would the cars be cheaper than they are today, especially in the beginning? That's before we start taking about choice. Today tou could technically buy a petrol car or around £5k if you really wanted, problem is people don't. If the infrastructure was put in place tomorrow I'm guessing we would still be looking at spending around £15k minimum for a car (for example that ford mentioned earlier in the thread, with an 80 mile range). It has exactly the same issue as my system, the sensors today may cost thousand, but in 10, 20, 30 years? Due to your infrastructure having to be placed over a number of years you would have to start from the other side, cars needing bigger batteries and longer ranges, slowly decreasing as the infrastructure increased (and conversely the cost of the batterys and stuff in the car decreasing). Otherwise, in 10 years time say, you would get a car that ran on electric roads and had an 80 mile range but you couldn't use it north of Luton due to the range off the M25 (for arguments sake the only bit of road upgraded at the time).

Both the electric road and monorail system would have the same problem as well.

With the sensors side of things it would probably take a similar number of years to get a reasonable amount of cars on the road with them in (or able to take advantage of an electric road), the technology would decrease in cost and filter down to lesser cars, much like cruise control and electric windows.

This again is not the case, to be beneficial in traffic flow and congestion reduction, the entire system needs to be integrated centrally at massive cost as well as the massive cost to each car. And then you still have the fuel issue. ATM there is not much on the horizon for battery technology. which leaves hydrogen which is hard to produce or fuel cells., most of which work on bio-fuels which have their own problem.

Although I agree, there may be some benefit to a centrally based system (which you would almost certainly need with an electric road as well), you would still get benefits without it, for example using the same technology that the martial system you mentioned earlier uses. As the speed and distance between cars is computer controlled you would have an almost identical system to it in fact. To the point possibly that the GPS system would not necessarily have to be used on things like motorways, just more minor roads with less traffic.

Yes there is the fuel issue with a non electric road, however you would still have the same issue for at least the next 20 years. As I mentioned before, it would take tens of years to get a reasonable amount of infrastructure in place (just look how long it takes to resurface and widen parts of the M25), until that time (in 20-30 years) your cars would need a similar number of batteries, and by that point the power issue almost certainly won't be an issue..

I have no doubt such system will be possible and in relatively near future. it's just not the system we need, in the time scale we have.

The problem is, neither is yours (in the most part). As I mentioned a few times we are looking at 20-30 years easily before we get enough of the electric road or monorail to actually be of any use.

 

[Glaucus]

Why would the cars be cheaper than they are today, especially in the beginning? That's before we start taking about choice.

As you have no complex gear box or motor, also as it is new, they would start with a very modular and factory friendly design. Compared to a normall car they are very basic mechanically and very simple to make.

The problem is, neither is yours (in the most part). As I mentioned a few times we are looking at 20-30 years easily before we get enough of the electric road or monorail to actually be of any use.

The difference is one technology is ready or near enough, the other isn't. We are talking lead time of a decade or two. So once can be started now and will be operational in a decade or two. the other you have to wait for the technology and then still have a similar lead time before it's functional.

 

[Amp34]

As you have no complex gear box or motor, also as it is new, they would start with a very modular and factory friendly design. Compared to a normall car they are very basic mechanically and very simple to make.

But again, perhaps in the future, but not now. For example the Gee whiz or whatever it is called, cheap and i'm guessing essentially what you are suggesting, it's not a big seller. The truly modern electric cars, which don't have an engine or gearbox still cost tens of thousands and still have very low ranges (so no taking more batteries out). You also still have the issue of cost. A Ford fiesta is technically fine for 99% of people who drive, however most people have much larger, more expensive cars.

Are there any cars actually being designed now that will fulfil your spec?

The difference is one technology is ready or near enough, the other isn't. We are talking lead time of a decade or two. So once can be started now and will be operational in a decade or two. the other you have to wait for the technology and then still have a similar lead time before it's functional.

Yes, long lead times as you mention, and to me that is the problem, you are looking at todays technology tomorrow (and because massive changes to infrastructure are needed we need to do that with your suggestion), by which time todays technology is yesterdays. With sensor and GPS tech the lead time isn't so great, we will probably have something resembling the finished article in an expensive car in 5 ish years, which will filter down and become much better in about 10 or so years after that, so ending up at a similar point, except your suggestion has cost tens of billions of public money and only works on 5% of the road system, the GPS/battery tech works on 100% of the road system and is paid for by people willingly buying new cars.

In fact, reading that BBC article there was a bit in there that mentioned putting sensors in the road was a no go, due to the prohibitive cost.

 

[Jonnycoupe]

Exactly, alongside generation of electricity from renewable sources.



What do you mean clean?

Generally oil production is very clean, in comparison to strip mining that goes on with a lot of these sort of elements. Generally to get these sort of elements the soil (in areas of hundreds of square km) is stripped from the underlying rock, after the vegetation and animals/insects are removed.
.

Is was more a joke/nod to the state of the Mexican Gulf at the moment.

Oil burning is very dirty, you dont burn the mined metals so you can't just compare the extraction effects.

 

[Amp34]

Is was more a joke/nod to the state of the Mexican Gulf at the moment.

Oil burning is very dirty, you dont burn the mined metals so you can't just compare the extraction effects.

Ah ok.

As for the burning, it doesn't have to be, and it's not always burnt. Either way I'd suggest as a visible impact on the environment mining can be far worse (but then you have oli sands...).

(Says the guy that is heading in to either oil and gas or mining... )

 

[!bluetonic!]

You're all thinking wrong.

We already have the tech and have done so for years.

At the funfair. On bumpercars.

Put an electric grid in the sky and a stalk running down to a 'car'.

The funfair seems to run this system off an electric generator.

The job's a gooddun..

 

[Sone]

You're all thinking wrong.

We already have the tech and have done so for years.

At the funfair. On bumpercars.

Put an electric grid in the sky and a stalk running down to a 'car'.

The funfair seems to run this system off an electric generator.

The job's a gooddun..

They pretty much do this in Vancouver for the hybrid buses.

 

[jellybeard999]

It would be a lot easier to just kill those animals and plants which cause pollution, as they contribute far more to those issues governments are obsessed with (greenhouse gases and carbon) than humans.