We are a tiny polluter next to the US and China, India etc. as are cars actually, most is from shipping and industry.
Last edited:
Is the end of Battery EVs coming?
- Thread starter Resident
- Start date
We are a tiny polluter next to the US and China, India etc. as are cars actually, most is from shipping and industry.
Whatever they choose, if the public don't/won't buy their products then they've only one option.
One did not need a crystal ball to see that BEV's are an unpopular solution for a problem that is so wildly overhyped.
Unless of course one is a climate nutter who will worry oneself to death over whatever the media tell them to, then in that case keep buying them whilst you still can.
Why on earth would manufacturers go for hydrogen when it'll require 3-4x electricity usage of BEVs? Seriously, what do we gain from that? Even with expected advances in hydrogen technology, the well-to-wheel efficiency isn't expected to improve much, and will still require 2.5-3.5x the electricity of BEVs. Considering a lot of detractors of BEVs say "tHe GrId IsN't GrEeN aNyWaY", how on earth do you rationalise tripling energy requirements?
That's on top of this:
That's on top of this:
- Fuel cells that need to be kept above 15C, meaning your car will be "running" and using H2 most of the year in the UK. (EDIT: This may no longer be true to a full degree, but fuel cells below 0C will still need "warming up" before they can be started, which will likely require a decent-sized battery onboard to run a resistive heater)
- Extremely flammable and volatile gas, that can leak out of the most microscopic holes meaning extremely high standards of storage tanks (read: expensive. If you already think BEVs are expensive...)
- Another round of starting infrastructure from scratch. BEVs are strangled by lack of charging infrastructure, do people honestly expect that expensive hydrogen refuelling stations will magically pop up at a greater rate? A fill will still take 10+ minutes, it still won't be as quick a stop as petrol.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,720
I know...... China in their defense are hugely investing in clean energy however..... I would not be surprised if by 2030 their energy is cleaner than ours. WE do need to stop importing cheap plastic junk from there however..... even IF we had a clean grid, we dont get to polish our halos and blame China when they are in effect producing a load of our junk. (I am not saying boycott them, most of my stuff is probably made in China)
Last edited:
Soldato
- coz people without home charging can get it.
- coz it doesn't require a massive battery full of scarce metals.
- coz it allows "petrol" stations to continue operating.
- coz it's still an improvement over fossil fuels.
- coz the cars are lighter, better for tyre pollution, road wear.
- coz the range is better, easier sell.
- coz it isn't gonna depreciate like a mofo as battery tech improves.
Last edited:
Soldato
The future of personal transport are horses.
Run on renewable energy, create barely any greenhouse gases, 1 horsepower.
No sure you even need a driving licence or insurance?
Run on renewable energy, create barely any greenhouse gases, 1 horsepower.
No sure you even need a driving licence or insurance?
nor pay council tax right?
Soldato
A horse is approx. 6 to 15 horsepower believe it or not
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,720
so much nonsense here
-People without home charging - ok i agree infrastructure does need to improve (but not as much as hydrogen infrastructure needs to improve.)
-What rare earth metals are in car batteries (please answer me this i challenge you)
-If petrol stations can transition to H2, why not to EV charging
-Its doubtful an improvement over fossil fuels unless the hydrogen is green
-Tyre and road wear???? no just no!!! From personal experience my EV has done 47000 miles and still on factory tyres. Tyres were an advisory on my MOT with 3mm left.
-Range is better.... how much range do you need if the charging infrastructure is ok (and again why assume H2 infrastucture will be great but EV charging cant be improved)
-Battery tech will improve but so long as the car you have does what you need, why is it suddenly not fit for purpose just because another car can go further or charge faster? (again how big and how fast do you need) - also wont H2 cars also improve?
Last edited:
We've got cars on the drive which will do 600 miles, probably a bit over, on a tank, while not an every day need if you are doing a long trip up north (or vice versa), etc. it is far far more convenient to have that kind of range even if EV infrastructure was significantly better.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,720
iirc the mirai has around 300 -350 mile real world range and takes 10 mins to fill (and costs over £100 to fill)
IF 600 mile range is your minimum then H2 fails just as badly as electric.
yes i agree having to charge a car is inconvenient.... but so is having asthma attacks in inner cities due to crap air quality. IMO a tiny amount of inconvenience is not too much to ask for cleaner air. and note any rules coming in will only be for new cars.... IF a person really wants to keep driving a diesel they can, probably for another 25 years.... by which point technology will be far better. its only buying new which needs to be stopped imo
Last edited:
Soldato
This is a very good. Shows you the challenges of nuclear power and what's being built right now.
Personally not proposing hydrogen is the future, but even my current weekly driving would be pain in the rear with pure battery even with a vastly improved charging infrastructure unless vehicle ranges were about twice on average what they are now.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,720
indeed which is why everyone should be pressuring governments, councils and who ever to improve the infrastructure. The range will and is improving. We are still over a decade off new ICE cars not being sold (now the government caved on 2030) compare the number of chargers out there today to 10 (actually 11) years ago.
Last edited:
Soldato
rude
consider the charging speed required for all the terraced house / flat dwelling people to go to their local "petrol" station to charge up. currently they're in and out of a petrol station in a couple of mins. but if it takes 30 mins for arguments sake, then the same number of cars/hour can't be done unless there's a lot more chargers, but people don't want to spend that sort of time at a petrol station, so it's completely unappealing and they just won't choose the ev.
I said scarce not rare. The point being that they're expensive because there aren't enough of them. We don't control the supply.
in a future where ev charging is fast, maybe. but at current charging speeds you'd need a lot more chargers than petrol pumps to serve the same rate of customers per hour, or you'd just have to price much higher to make up for it.
water comes out the back, so people don't inhale death. seems better to me.
tyre wear leaves particles behind which pollutes the air and waterways. heavier vehicle = more tyre wear.
roads wear out the heavier the vehicle too, more potholes.
need and want are different.
we all know most people don't drive far most journeys so they could have a 10 year old LEAF and be fine with it.
but they don't FEEL fine with it, because it's much less range than they're used to, so they don't buy it.
I agree that the car shouldn't depreciate quickly because it isn't much worse than it was previously.
Depreciation stats disagree. used EVs are depreciating very quickly, partly because of inflated new prices, partly because of fast technological advancement.
Last edited:
So as much as 120 horsepower in V8 configuration? I mean, that'll get you down the road well enough
Soldato
You do over 200 miles a day?