I've given up on LPG - the future is Electric.

Jonnycoupe · 20 Jan 2017 at 16:19

theone8181 said:
I think the point is more range=more batteries= more weight, possibly a case of diminishing returns. Ive not looked at the weight difference between something like a leaf and and a tesla.

That's cos few people care about weight more than purchase price. You've illustrated my point.

joeyjojo · 20 Jan 2017 at 16:46

matt_fsr said:
Just thought I'd wave a little "hi" at the massive elephant in the room here.

If we start getting a higher portion of our transport requirements covered by electrical power instead of petrol/diesel... who's going to put up all those lovely new nuclear power plants we'll need?

Right now, most of our stock is ageing, and due to be shut down withing the forseeable future. Struggling to think of the last new nuclear station we built Because wind turbines won't be fuelling the cars of the future...

I've not said anything about the long term energy mix, just that it's much more renewables+nuclear than some people think.

Also you might be surprised how renewables compare to nuclear in the mix, they're about even - 19.0% nuclear vs 19.2% wind+solar+bio+hydro. We should continue to expand both IMO, but renewables are way cheaper so they will almost certainly grow more quickly.

intermittency is a problem for some things but much less for car chargers - most people can leave it plugged in for probably 20-22 hours per day, which opens up a lot of potential for smart grids to charge when electricity is cheapest/most abundant. Not saying it's not a hard problem (what if you need it charged urgently etc.) but it's got potential.

Hawk Tuah · 20 Jan 2017 at 19:38

matt_fsr said:
...who's going to put up all those lovely new nuclear power plants we'll need?

The Chinese.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...nese-firm-to-submit-essex-nuclear-plant-plans

Hawk Tuah · 20 Jan 2017 at 19:39

Nasher said:
Yep, diminishing returns is the problem. You can't just add more and more batteries to increase range. Because friction becomes a bigger and bigger energy sucker.

There is a sweet spot which won't improve until batteries become lighter or better at storing energy. Once they crack that (and they will eventually), they will replace petrol/diesel.

Some day in the future? You mean now then.

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-ne...0-on-sale-for-18k-range-pictures-and-details/

[TW]Fox · 20 Jan 2017 at 20:28

Bug One said:
Some day in the future? You mean now then.

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-ne...0-on-sale-for-18k-range-pictures-and-details/

No, he means some day in the future.

Hawk Tuah · 20 Jan 2017 at 20:52

[TW]Fox;30423515 said:
No, he means some day in the future.

Renault / LG have doubled the capacity, yet it fits in exactly the same space. 200 mile range for £18000.

50% capacity increase in a couple of years. Some people are never satisfied.

Amp34 · 20 Jan 2017 at 21:41

joeyjojo said:
I've not said anything about the long term energy mix, just that it's much more renewables+nuclear than some people think.

Also you might be surprised how renewables compare to nuclear in the mix, they're about even - 19.0% nuclear vs 19.2% wind+solar+bio+hydro. We should continue to expand both IMO, but renewables are way cheaper so they will almost certainly grow more quickly.

intermittency is a problem for some things but much less for car chargers - most people can leave it plugged in for probably 20-22 hours per day, which opens up a lot of potential for smart grids to charge when electricity is cheapest/most abundant. Not saying it's not a hard problem (what if you need it charged urgently etc.) but it's got potential.

I asked this in the thread in SC but didn't get a reply to glaucus, but are renewables actually cheaper than nuclear t the moment?

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=30353250&postcount=68

The projected cost for Hinkley C is cheaper than the equivalent offshore wind for example. There is really little untapped hydro left in the UK, and onshore wind at that scale would be politically infeasable, so that basically leaves solar, which TBH I don't know the cost for that sort of scale.

I'm certainly not against renewables, but arguing that they are cheaper doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. I'm happy to be proved wrong with some accurate figures though.

McPhee · 21 Jan 2017 at 00:05

The Guardian said:
An unpublished report by the energy department shows that it expects onshore wind power and large-scale solar to cost around £50-75 per megawatt hour of power generated in 2025. New nuclear is anticipated to be around £85-125/MWh, in line with the guaranteed price of £92.50/MWh that the government has offered Hinkley’s developer, EDF.

The problem with wind isn't really cost. Install cost is in the same ballpark as nuclear, but with significantly lower ongoing costs. The difficulty is delivering wind power on demand. Nuclear, Coal and Gas can be cycled to meet grid demand. Wind just happens. Same goes for Solar; it's either a sunny day and you get a good amount of electricity, or it isn't, and production is negligible.

Ultimately, it's difficult to meet the country's energy needs with renewables as we need to be able to store days worth of energy just in case it's cloudy and dry with no wind. Combining renewables with nuclear is far more sensible. It's still 'green', but you've got more flexibility in the grid, don't need crazy amounts of battery banks, and you can guarantee a minimum amount of energy will always be available even if the sun stops shining, the rain stops falling, and the wind stops blowing for an extended time.

theone8181 · 21 Jan 2017 at 07:41

satchef1 said:
The problem with wind isn't really cost. Install cost is in the same ballpark as nuclear, but with significantly lower ongoing costs. The difficulty is delivering wind power on demand. Nuclear, Coal and Gas can be cycled to meet grid demand. Wind just happens. Same goes for Solar; it's either a sunny day and you get a good amount of electricity, or it isn't, and production is negligible.

Ultimately, it's difficult to meet the country's energy needs with renewables as we need to be able to store days worth of energy just in case it's cloudy and dry with no wind. Combining renewables with nuclear is far more sensible. It's still 'green', but you've got more flexibility in the grid, don't need crazy amounts of battery banks, and you can guarantee a minimum amount of energy will always be available even if the sun stops shining, the rain stops falling, and the wind stops blowing for an extended time.

What about tidal, I'd of thought that would be more consistent (yes the Swansea thing on the news reminded me

).

Skillmister · 21 Jan 2017 at 10:21

And Swansea is only the start.

Firestar_3x · 21 Jan 2017 at 11:54

Bug One said:
Some day in the future? You mean now then.

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-ne...0-on-sale-for-18k-range-pictures-and-details/

Quite interesting that Renault have decide the way forward is to give a city car 150+ mile range, i'd have thought the whole purpose of a city car is to erm, remain in the city, therefore having a 80 mile range is a total and utter non issue.

Nasher · 21 Jan 2017 at 12:10

150 mile range (probably less in the real world) then hours of charging just to move a nasty, but expensive shoebox on wheels around, is not the future :/

jonessa · 21 Jan 2017 at 12:21

Del Lardo,

How do you rate the Zoe?

My wife wants one!

Jonnycoupe · 21 Jan 2017 at 12:57

Firestar_3x said:
Quite interesting that Renault have decide the way forward is to give a city car 150+ mile range, i'd have thought the whole purpose of a city car is to erm, remain in the city, therefore having a 80 mile range is a total and utter non issue.

Just another option though isn't it as the initial Zoe is also available. City driving might be based around a once per week charge.

That's for people who want a slightly lighter car, remember the fact it's cheaper 40kWh version is not the reason

[TW]Fox · 21 Jan 2017 at 13:14

I genuinely want some sort of electric car once they become viable but for me it must perform everything my current car does as well if not better first.

I was really tempted by an ActiveHybrid5 but it just seemed like the tech wasn't quite ready when it came out.

Plugin Hybrid with range extender seems to be the way forward - commuting and city driving on electric power and then off on long trips with the petrol motor. The 530e looks interesting but it's paired with a 4 pot

lordrobs · 21 Jan 2017 at 13:21

[TW]Fox;30424873 said:
Plugin Hybrid with range extender seems to be the way forward - commuting and city driving on electric power and then off on long trips with the petrol motor. The 530e looks interesting but it's paired with a 4 pot

Does that matter for a range extender though? I thought they were designed to run like a generator at peak efficiency so any characteristics of power delivery were irrelevant?

Jonnycoupe · 21 Jan 2017 at 13:36

It's not a range extender though, it's a normal power train, unfortunately the extra cost and length of a PHEV gearbox in north south layouts is likely to prevent inline 6.

That's why the S500 hybrid is epic.

b0rn2sk8 · 21 Jan 2017 at 15:04

[TW]Fox;30424873 said:
I genuinely want some sort of electric car once they become viable but for me it must perform everything my current car does as well if not better first.

I was really tempted by an ActiveHybrid5 but it just seemed like the tech wasn't quite ready when it came out.

Plugin Hybrid with range extender seems to be the way forward - commuting and city driving on electric power and then off on long trips with the petrol motor. The 530e looks interesting but it's paired with a 4 pot

Don't forget the BMW i3. They could do with making an 'i5' following a similar concept as the 3 is a little on the small side.

Joe T · 21 Jan 2017 at 15:40

[TW]Fox;30424873 said:
I genuinely want some sort of electric car once they become viable but for me it must perform everything my current car does as well if not better first.

I think that might be a little short-sighted. When things change they arent the same as before. Henry Ford once said: "If I'd asked what people wanted, they would have said faster horses". This is basically the same.

While you gain in one area you might lose in another. You need to adapt.

[TW]Fox · 21 Jan 2017 at 16:12

Joe T said:
I think that might be a little short-sighted. When things change they arent the same as before. Henry Ford once said: "If I'd asked what people wanted, they would have said faster horses". This is basically the same.

While you gain in one area you might lose in another. You need to adapt.

This is true but currently a pure electric is just too much of a compromise. It would be absolutely ideal for my daily commute which I could conduct entirely on battery power even on a plug-in hybrid let alone a proper electric car, but my leisure usage mostly involves quite long road trips which is where the EV issue falls down to me.

Late last year for example we did about 2500 miles up to and around the Far North of Scotland - this would have been a nuisance in a pure EV.

I think EV's work best really as part of a two-car solution - EV for local, ICE for longer trips. And I think this is where the market is mostly focused hence most EV's being smaller city cars rather than larger executive cars, the Tesla being pretty much the only exception.