Perhaps Battery Powered Motorhomes.....

GeoffL

Full Member

Messages
395
Hypothesis. If you drove your Tesla to say, Heathrow, left it on a car park with no charging facilities at 10% charge left, for a month, what would be the state of the batteries on your return?
Playing "Devil's Advocate" here, but you wouldn't do that. You'd accept that the batteries would have considerably discharged by the time you planned to return and so would have stopped at a charging station not too far away from Heathrow to ensure you had enough to 'survive' the downtime. If you weren't able to do that there would probably still be sufficient energy remaining for you to limp to a nearby charging point -- Heathrow Airport is littered with them (clicky link to PDF on the subject)...
 

trevskoda

Full Member

Messages
1,928
To my comment, "Regarding affordability of new technologies; BEVs will almost kill the second-hand car market. This is because the battery pack has a limited life (5 to 10 years)":

I have to ask whether VW actually have 20 years of data for current batteries to be able to make that claim. A little research shows that the VW claim is actually that "batteries will retain 70 percent of their original capacity for 8 years or 100,000 miles." Industry standard seems to be 80%, not the 70% that VW have chosen. Also, ICEVs last a lot longer than the 8 years that VW cite as the lifetime of their EVs.

A little research suggests that Lithium Ion cells have a lifespan of between 500 and 800 charge/discharge cycles before the capacity drops below 80% of new, while Lithium Phosphate this is for up to 2000 cycles. As @Bailey62 wrote, EV owners always start with a 'full tank' -- i.e. they tend to charge after every day the car is used. So a daily driver will be subject to over 250 cycles a year, which will mean a Lithium Ion pack will have reached its theoretical end of life in a little over three years while a Lithium Phosphate pack this will be 8 years. While there are ways to extend battery life (such as not recharging unless it's really, really needed), I suspect the only way that EV owners will see 20 years of use from a battery pack will be to accept an increasingly reducing range.
Well as i said my mates VW seems to be doing as it says on the tin, i shall keep folks up to date as time goes on, he recons 7 years to full payback over price and fuel burned in a piston car.
 

GeoffL

Full Member

Messages
395
Well as i said my mates VW seems to be doing as it says on the tin, i shall keep folks up to date as time goes on, he recons 7 years to full payback over price and fuel burned in a piston car.
Might also help to know your mate's usage cycle. For example, if the battery pack he has is Lithium Ion and he only recharges once per week, those 500 to 800 cycles will take 9.5 to fifteen years. Since at 300 miles per charge equates to about 15,000 miles per year, this is certainly achievable. However, I suspect that most people would suffer from range anxiety too much for that!
 

Molly 3

Full Member

Messages
1,046
I could manage with an ev most of the time but it would be totally impractical , buying such an expensive small car for a milage of about 3000 miles a year , last covid year about 300miles .,could never financially viable.
 
Last edited:

trevskoda

Full Member

Messages
1,928
I could manage with an ev most of the time but it would be totally impractical , buying such an expensive small car for a milage of about 3000 miles a year , last covid year about 300miles .,could never financially viable.
I have seen me do that in a day, buy a moped. (y)
 

trevskoda

Full Member

Messages
1,928
Might also help to know your mate's usage cycle. For example, if the battery pack he has is Lithium Ion and he only recharges once per week, those 500 to 800 cycles will take 9.5 to fifteen years. Since at 300 miles per charge equates to about 15,000 miles per year, this is certainly achievable. However, I suspect that most people would suffer from range anxiety too much for that!
His Vdub has only 110 mile range as first model, he has solar charging at home but only does school run a 4/5 mile trips, he says money saved on service as only brakes to do.
 

nabsim

Full Member

Messages
2,477
Yes we need to move from fossil fuels but I don’t think ev is the answer for everything. I still think hydrogen a better option myself, I recently saw an advert on tv but can’t remember who it was for, I ‘think’ Toyota. It showed their cars going through a road map type progressions from petrol/diesel on to hybrid then to ev and ended up at hydrogen
 

GeoffL

Full Member

Messages
395
Yes we need to move from fossil fuels but I don’t think ev is the answer for everything. I still think hydrogen a better option myself, I recently saw an advert on tv but can’t remember who it was for, I ‘think’ Toyota. It showed their cars going through a road map type progressions from petrol/diesel on to hybrid then to ev and ended up at hydrogen
ISTR Toyota USA offering three years free fuel on their hydrogen-powered Mirai. However, there don't seem to be enough places to refuel to make that viable unless you only used the car within half its range of the nearest station!

That said, something to note is that we're not going to move from fossil fuels anytime soon. Even in an all-electric-vehicle environment, those vehicles will still be running chiefly on fossil fuels, which will just be burned remotely rather than at the point of use. Ironically, by the time you factor in production and distribution losses, the vehicles that make the most efficient use of fossil fuels are those that run on them! **

** Most efficient fossil fuel power stations are gas-fuelled, at up to 60% efficiency. Total distribution losses are 50%, so EVs are already down to the 30% efficiency of ICEs even before charging etc. losses are factored in.
 

davef

Full Member

Messages
25
There was a report yesterday of a Tesla crashing, it had 2 occupants, 1 in the rear seat and 1 in the front passenger seat, so its presumed it was in driver assist mode, took a bend too fast, went off the road and hit a tree. It burned for 4 hours and the fire brigade had to use 30,000 litres of water to put it out.
Imagine a motorway pile-up of electric cars and trucks - it would be like Krakatoa! There are a lot of problems with EVs.
 

GeoffL

Full Member

Messages
395
FWIW, I read an article about an issue with EV batteries yesterday. It seems that the push to full electrification is already causing an environmental problem from the disposal of millions (soon to billions) of batteries that nobody has figured out. From the article:
E-vehicle batteries, once having served their intended use in e-vehicles – after about 8 years – can be reused for other lower demand purposes – a so-called second life – such as a home battery. But recycling them is inevitable – and ot’s complicated, energy-intensive and expensive. Nobody knows how many are currently actually recycled, or simply just getting thrown into the landfill. We’re creating a huge, costly a mess for the next generations.
[...]
The Handelsblatt reports how Matthias Schmidt, managing director of the recycling company Erlos, “is astonished”. “Actually, his industry had expected to be inundated with batteries from recently produced electric cars only in eight or ten years,” writes the Handelsblatt. “In fact, however, thousands of tons of batteries are already ending up at waste disposal companies.”
 

Drew

Full Member

Messages
6
It's without doubt that we need to transition away from fossil fuels. They will run out, they are polluting, and they are contributing to global warming. Of that there is almost universal agreement. What we do to make a switch to another source of energy is of great debate, however we will need to find a suitable alternative.
Electric vehicles offer one choice, hydrogen powered personal transport is probably not the right solution due the many issues involved. Better, and less wasteful, methods of moving people and goods around would seem to be obvious if unsavoury.
The main issue with EVs is how to make and store energy, fossil fuels are at the end of the day just batteries by the way. So how do we make a battery to store that energy? Current thinking favours lithium ion batteries but it's not the only way being investigated.
For sure fossil fuels store energy very efficiently, but we waste huge amounts of it when we extract it 😏. Lithium ion batteries may, currently, not be as efficient as fossil fuels at storing energy but EVs are far less wasteful in using it.
One other thing to note is that in the very near future vehicle to grid will become a reality. At that point EVs become suppliers to the national grid and storage for when there is a surplus of electricity generated. That will have the effect of increasing our renewable energy percentage dramatically. As most vehicles have excess capacity for their daily needs there will be a huge reservoir of stored energy for us to use.
For sure it won't work for every vehicle, or for every journey, and we will need to change our wasteful ways and be more organised but it's only on very recent years that we have become so lazy. 😉.
 

Drew

Full Member

Messages
6
There was a report yesterday of a Tesla crashing, it had 2 occupants, 1 in the rear seat and 1 in the front passenger seat, so its presumed it was in driver assist mode, took a bend too fast, went off the road and hit a tree. It burned for 4 hours and the fire brigade had to use 30,000 litres of water to put it out.
Imagine a motorway pile-up of electric cars and trucks - it would be like Krakatoa! There are a lot of problems with EVs.
And on the same day how many ICE vehicles crashed? A few years ago a petrol tanker crashed in Rouen, France destroying a major bridge. It seems there are major issues with ICE vehicles too. It's no news when people are killed in ICE vehicles because it happens so often.
 

johnjjl

Full Member

Messages
13
And on the same day how many ICE vehicles crashed? A few years ago a petrol tanker crashed in Rouen, France destroying a major bridge. It seems there are major issues with ICE vehicles too. It's no news when people are killed in ICE vehicles because it happens so often.
I think the main point there is that it took 4 hours to put the fire out due to the batteries!
 

GeoffL

Full Member

Messages
395
And on the same day how many ICE vehicles crashed? A few years ago a petrol tanker crashed in Rouen, France destroying a major bridge. It seems there are major issues with ICE vehicles too. It's no news when people are killed in ICE vehicles because it happens so often.

I think the main point there is that it took 4 hours to put the fire out due to the batteries!
Not only did it take 4 hours to put the fire out, but there was a risk of reignition for days beyond that. There have been a lot of reports of EVs spontaneously igniting in the pounds of towing companies days after being recovered from RTCs and it's now common practice to 'quarantine' EVs for 48 hours for this reason.
 

Drew

Full Member

Messages
6
Not only did it take 4 hours to put the fire out, but there was a risk of reignition for days beyond that. There have been a lot of reports of EVs spontaneously igniting in the pounds of towing companies days after being recovered from RTCs and it's now common practice to 'quarantine' EVs for 48 hours for this reason.
A similar issue exists with mobile phones, laptops and all battery powered items. A few vehicle fires, whilst regrettable are not a reason for over reacting. Driving round with a tank full of combustible liquid isn't so safe either. Neither is driving around with an explosive gas bottle or two. But we still do it and accept the risk. I'd like to see the statistics on how many EVs involved in accidents actually catch on fire? How many fires of recovered EVs have caught on fire because of inexperienced recovery companies not handling them correctly?
Headlining a few unfortunate issues to make a point doesn't actually prove the point.
 

GeoffL

Full Member

Messages
395
It's without doubt that we need to transition away from fossil fuels. They will run out, they are polluting, and they are contributing to global warming. Of that there is almost universal agreement. [...]
Every one of those statements is at least overstated:
  • There is sufficient reserve of fossil fuels (just the reserves known) to continue using fossil fuels for several decades -- long enough to not need to hastily jump into technology far more damaging (such as lithium based batteries) or far more inefficient (such as hydrogen).
  • They used to pollute. Nowadays, not so much now that more efficient combustion and filtration are in place. 'Cleaning up' would be better achieved upgrading old fossil fuel plants than to use technologies that, in whole life terms, are far more polluting -- such as wind turbines and PVAs.
  • Even if every bit of the 33°C of global warming was due to CO2 (which it isn't), humanity's portion would only account for 0.25°C of that. So anthropogenic CO2 is actually insignificant and fossil fuels do not contribute significantly to global warming. You can check my maths at https://tinyurl.com/CO2AGW
  • There is no universal agreement. The "97% consensus" was manufactured by mendacious 'misinterpretation' of statistics so that 75 out of 10,000 magically became "97%". In a survey where approx 10,000 earth scientists were polled and 3,146 responded, the results were filtered to only include the 77 who self-identified as 'climate experts'. Of those, 75 answered 'Yes' to the question, "Do you think that human activity is a significant contributing factor?" That survey did not mention the greenhouse effect or ask whether the changes were dangerous. Further, 64% of meteorologists who responded to the same survey considered that humanity has no significant effect on climate. Hardly the 'consensus' that alarmists claim! https://tinyurl.com/ninetysevenpct
A similar issue exists with mobile phones, laptops and all battery powered items. A few vehicle fires, whilst regrettable are not a reason for over reacting. Driving round with a tank full of combustible liquid isn't so safe either. Neither is driving around with an explosive gas bottle or two. But we still do it and accept the risk. I'd like to see the statistics on how many EVs involved in accidents actually catch on fire? How many fires of recovered EVs have caught on fire because of inexperienced recovery companies not handling them correctly?
Headlining a few unfortunate issues to make a point doesn't actually prove the point.
I suspect it will be similar to the number of ICEVs that catch fire -- iow. a low proportion but still well over an average of one per day per county (see link). However, that will still be a massive number once every vehicle is an EV -- especially considering that every one of them requires specialist procedures, potentially on a per model basis, and (unlike ICEVs) has the potential for reignition until the battery is discharged (which might not be possible to do safely). Those few, unfortunate issues soon add up and actually do prove the point! https://assets.publishing.service.g...oad-vehicles-fires-dataset-guidance-sep20.pdf
 

Drew

Full Member

Messages
6
Every one of those statements is at least overstated:
  • There is sufficient reserve of fossil fuels (just the reserves known) to continue using fossil fuels for several decades -- long enough to not need to hastily jump into technology far more damaging (such as lithium based batteries) or far more inefficient (such as hydrogen).
  • They used to pollute. Nowadays, not so much now that more efficient combustion and filtration are in place. 'Cleaning up' would be better achieved upgrading old fossil fuel plants than to use technologies that, in whole life terms, are far more polluting -- such as wind turbines and PVAs.
  • Even if every bit of the 33°C of global warming was due to CO2 (which it isn't), humanity's portion would only account for 0.25°C of that. So anthropogenic CO2 is actually insignificant and fossil fuels do not contribute significantly to global warming. You can check my maths at https://tinyurl.com/CO2AGW
  • There is no universal agreement. The "97% consensus" was manufactured by mendacious 'misinterpretation' of statistics so that 75 out of 10,000 magically became "97%". In a survey where approx 10,000 earth scientists were polled and 3,146 responded, the results were filtered to only include the 77 who self-identified as 'climate experts'. Of those, 75 answered 'Yes' to the question, "Do you think that human activity is a significant contributing factor?" That survey did not mention the greenhouse effect or ask whether the changes were dangerous. Further, 64% of meteorologists who responded to the same survey considered that humanity has no significant effect on climate. Hardly the 'consensus' that alarmists claim! https://tinyurl.com/ninetysevenpct

I suspect it will be similar to the number of ICEVs that catch fire -- iow. a low proportion but still well over an average of one per day per county (see link). However, that will still be a massive number once every vehicle is an EV -- especially considering that every one of them requires specialist procedures, potentially on a per model basis, and (unlike ICEVs) has the potential for reignition until the battery is discharged (which might not be possible to do safely). Those few, unfortunate issues soon add up and actually do prove the point! https://assets.publishing.service.g...oad-vehicles-fires-dataset-guidance-sep20.pdf
We are all entitled to our opinions and can all quote from a variety of sources that make our opinions appear valid.
The facts however remain and the future will hold to account all of us.
 

GeoffL

Full Member

Messages
395
We are all entitled to our opinions and can all quote from a variety of sources that make our opinions appear valid.
The facts however remain and the future will hold to account all of us.
The quoted response was received only ten minutes after my post. FWIW, I linked four pages of mathematical argument (my own work), a video of some 16 minutes and a fifteen page government document and yet the response came back in little more time than necessary to receive a notification and rattle off some glib rhetoric...

Yep, the facts remain and it's a pity that some don't even take the time to check the facts out. I despair that humanity might be actually destroying the planet under the guise of saving it.
 

johnjjl

Full Member

Messages
13
We are all entitled to our opinions and can all quote from a variety of sources that make our opinions appear valid.
The facts however remain and the future will hold to account all of us.
All of the above merely confirms the old adage, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics!!
 

Drew

Full Member

Messages
6
All of the above merely confirms the old adage, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics!!
Indeed. The point being that we cannot continue with our profligate ways and have to find a better way to manage our planet sustainably. Using fossil fuels is not and never will be sustainable within the likely lifespan of the human race. That's an absolute fact.
Burning Fossil fuels is having a negative impact on our environment, that's an absolute fact.
Burning fossil fuels is having a negative impact on our health, that's an absolute fact.
Over consumption is having a disastrous impact on our planet, that's an absolute fact.
EVs may be part of the solution, certainly better than the alternatives currently available, but will need more development before they can make a big difference. Fortunately that's happening, 12 years ago a Nissan Leaf had less than 100 miles range and those early vehicles are now due a replacement battery. Now they have over 250 miles range and a battery life that will, in Nissan's words, outlive the vehicle. So what in another 10 years?
Climate change deniers and fossil fuel lovers will eventually go the way of the dinosaur 😏😉.
 
Top