Electric cars

[culzean]

There are a number of rapid recharge/refill technologies under development. Some involve ways of recharging batteries at incredible speeds. Some involve charged pastes or liquids, others are based on vastly improved hydrogen fuel cell technology. I’m confident that in ten years time we will look back at the current electric car fuelling tech in the same way we look at the World War 2 cars running off gas stored in a bag on the roof. That is, as a short term expedient.

The problem is that the 2030 deadline is based on political expediency and aimed at making our countries and our politicians look good on the world stage. It is driving the too rapid development of immature technologies at a pace which suits commercial interests rather than allowing a true scientific and engineering approach to a global industry transformation.

There is not enough time to develop sustainable elegant solutions so we get short termism in designs. What we are saving in driving headlong to electric will be wasted when we need to shift again to the better solutions and discard all the half way house vehicle and infrastructure designs.

Agree, with the tech changing so quickly you can understand why majority of people do not want to spend eye-watering amounts of their hard earned money on toys that will be out of date before they have finished paying for them. Most will probably go the PCP route so that they don't end up with a worthless vehicle, but the payments will probably reflect the fact that the residuals on BEV are low.   When the government has to use legal force ( as opposed to lethal force ) to make people buy something,  then there is a strong smell of rat in the air.   We have cases of organisations like the Police buying electric vehicles ( box ticked ) that are no good for anything except ferrying flat cap coppers to meetings and lunch, NHS buying electric ambulances with too short a range to be usable - all done with public money.

Attached is a PDF of a complaint to BBC about their obvious overt bias to the Climate change movement ( obviously 'taking the knee' to climate change ),  points made by the BBC are roundly refuted in the letter, using believable sources like NASA and Royal Society.

[sparky Paul]

Agree, with the tech changing so quickly you can understand why majority of people do not want to spend eye-watering amounts of their hard earned money on toys that will be out of date before they have finished paying for them. Most will probably go the PCP route so that they don't end up with a worthless vehicle, but the payments will probably reflect the fact that the residuals on BEV are low.

I think that most private buyers of vehicles are buying with PCP now anyway, regardless of the fuel.

As for the BBC having bias, they have been acting as a government mouthpiece for some considerable time!

[madasafish]

There are a number of rapid recharge/refill technologies under development. Some involve ways of recharging batteries at incredible speeds. Some involve charged pastes or liquids, others are based on vastly improved hydrogen fuel cell technology. I’m confident that in ten years time we will look back at the current electric car fuelling tech in the same way we look at the World War 2 cars running off gas stored in a bag on the roof. That is, as a short term expedient.

The National Grid and charging systems will not cope with these high speed charging systems. I suspect they will be limited to new build out of town stations with new power cabling.

Hydrogen ? Think electric cars twenty years ago. That is where hydrogen is. Unlike EVs ALL fuelling requires new stations.  So £££££$$$$$$$sssssssss

[JimSh]

Attached is a PDF of a complaint to BBC about their obvious overt bias to the Climate change movement ( obviously 'taking the knee' to climate change ),  points made by the BBC are roundly refuted in the letter, using believable sources like NASA and Royal Society.

Oh look it's Montford and Lawson again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation
Personnel
In May 2014, the GWPF listed Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist, as the director, and a board of trustees consisting of Lord Lawson (Chairman), Lord Donoughue, Lord Fellowes, Peter R. Forster (the Bishop of Chester), Martin Jacomb, Baroness Nicholson, Sir James Spooner and Lord Turnbull.[23]

Andrew William Montford has been appointed to run an inquiry into the three British Climategate-inquiries for the Global Warming Policy Foundation.[24] His report The Climategate Inquiries was published in September 2010.[25]

In 2014 The Independent described the foundation as "the UK's most prominent source of climate-change denial".

[sparky Paul]

Oh look it's Montford and Lawson again.

I didn't even notice it was GWPF again. All my earlier criticism of this body still stands, but I also avoid the BBC as a serious news outlet these days - most of it is distraction.

BTW, how has this sneaked back onto the 'Electric cars' thread?

[JimSh]

Oh look it's Montford and Lawson again.

I didn't even notice it was GWPF again. All my earlier criticism of this body still stands, but I also avoid the BBC as a serious news outlet these days - most of it is distraction.

BTW, how has this sneaked back onto the 'Electric cars' thread?

The problem with the BBC is they give equal credibility to the "think tanks" and  "lobby  groups" with dubious statistics, a fancy letter head, and some Lords of the Realm on board, as they do to the serious scientists with years of work behind them.

Agree. It's got nothing to do with electric cars.

[culzean]

Oh look it's Montford and Lawson again.

I didn't even notice it was GWPF again. All my earlier criticism of this body still stands, but I also avoid the BBC as a serious news outlet these days - most of it is distraction.

BTW, how has this sneaked back onto the 'Electric cars' thread?

The problem with the BBC is they give equal credibility to the "think tanks" and  "lobby  groups" with dubious statistics, a fancy letter head, and some Lords of the Realm on board, as they do to the serious scientists with years of work behind them.

Agree. It's got nothing to do with electric cars.

The whole reason given for electric vehicles is climate change, if climate change is not real then there is no need for electric vehicles. Does it still have nothing to do with electric cars ?

[richardfrost]

There are a number of rapid recharge/refill technologies under development. Some involve ways of recharging batteries at incredible speeds. Some involve charged pastes or liquids, others are based on vastly improved hydrogen fuel cell technology. I’m confident that in ten years time we will look back at the current electric car fuelling tech in the same way we look at the World War 2 cars running off gas stored in a bag on the roof. That is, as a short term expedient.

The National Grid and charging systems will not cope with these high speed charging systems. I suspect they will be limited to new build out of town stations with new power cabling.

Hydrogen ? Think electric cars twenty years ago. That is where hydrogen is. Unlike EVs ALL fuelling requires new stations.  So £££££$$$$$$$sssssssss

I'm not sure you have understood what I was saying. It was meant as a complete piece of thinking so taking the first paragraph on it's own does not reveal my point.

[sparky Paul]

The whole reason given for electric vehicles is climate change, if climate change is not real then there is no need for electric vehicles. Does it still have nothing to do with electric cars ?

The whole reason? I think you are wrong, it has far more to do with localised pollution than climate change.

After all, it is perfectly possible to run an ICE vehicle on zero carbon fuels if you wish, and those vehicles may still produce pollutants - for example, particulates from biodiesel. It is also perfectly possible to be running an electric car on CO₂ producing fossil fuel electricity.

It's the means by which the energy is produced that you are questioning, and Jocko started the other thread to separate this from the subject of electric cars, as it was taking over the thread.

[JimSh]

The whole reason given for electric vehicles is climate change, if climate change is not real then there is no need for electric vehicles. Does it still have nothing to do with electric cars ?

How much does it take to convince you that climate change, or whatever they are calling it now is real?

[culzean]

The whole reason given for electric vehicles is climate change, if climate change is not real then there is no need for electric vehicles. Does it still have nothing to do with electric cars ?

How much does it take to convince you that climate change, or whatever they are calling it now is real?

The fact that climate change zealots do not listen to any alternative arguments,  and anyone who proposes a different view is quickly 'canceled' ( like Prof David Bellamy was, his funding withdrawn and ditched by the media channels that had fought over getting him onto their channels before  ).  If a scientist wants plenty of funding and unfettered, unquestioned access to all media the easiest thing is to 'toe the party line'  - its like the emperors new clothes.

[culzean]

The whole reason given for electric vehicles is climate change, if climate change is not real then there is no need for electric vehicles. Does it still have nothing to do with electric cars ?

The whole reason? I think you are wrong, it has far more to do with localised pollution than climate change.

After all, it is perfectly possible to run an ICE vehicle on zero carbon fuels if you wish, and those vehicles may still produce pollutants - for example, particulates from biodiesel. It is also perfectly possible to be running an electric car on CO₂ producing fossil fuel electricity.

It's the means by which the energy is produced that you are questioning, and Jocko started the other thread to separate this from the subject of electric cars, as it was taking over the thread.

Bio diesel and biofuels in general are the worst thing ever to come out of climate change, thousands of square miles of rainforest burnt and destroyed to plant millions of acres of monocrops that support no wildlife and quickly deplete the fragile soil,  so the soil washed away and thousands of square miles of virgin rainforest have to be destroyed again for more biofuel plants- repeat as many times as needed. Climate change is all smoke and mirrors,  and the 'cure' is very often worse than the so called disease.

[richardfrost]

The whole reason given for electric vehicles is climate change, if climate change is not real then there is no need for electric vehicles. Does it still have nothing to do with electric cars ?

The whole reason? I think you are wrong, it has far more to do with localised pollution than climate change.

After all, it is perfectly possible to run an ICE vehicle on zero carbon fuels if you wish, and those vehicles may still produce pollutants - for example, particulates from biodiesel. It is also perfectly possible to be running an electric car on CO₂ producing fossil fuel electricity.

It's the means by which the energy is produced that you are questioning, and Jocko started the other thread to separate this from the subject of electric cars, as it was taking over the thread.

Bio diesel and biofuels in general are the worst thing ever to come out of climate change, thousands of square miles of rainforest burnt and destroyed to plant millions of acres of monocrops that support no wildlife and quickly deplete the fragile soil,  so the soil washed away and thousands of square miles of virgin rainforest have to be destroyed again for more biofuel plants- repeat as many times as needed. Climate change is all smoke and mirrors,  and the 'cure' is very often worse than the so called disease.

This is something I 100% agree with. Total wrong start knee jerk response, driven by big agriculture and governments.

[madasafish]

Yes - climate change is a product of people's imagination and is all lies.

The fact that average temperatures are claimed to be rising and I no longer see 1 meter deep snowdrifts in our garden in winter as I did in the 1980s and 1990 is irrelevant. It's all a product of the writings of nutters . The absence of snow and the record of higher and higher  recorded peak summer temperatures in the UK and round the world is only proof of global cooling.

 

[sparky Paul]

Bio diesel and biofuels in general are the worst thing ever to come out of climate change, thousands of square miles of rainforest burnt and destroyed to plant millions of acres of monocrops that support no wildlife and quickly deplete the fragile soil,  so the soil washed away and thousands of square miles of virgin rainforest have to be destroyed again for more biofuel plants- repeat as many times as needed.

I absolutely concur with you here, but what has that got to do with electric cars?

Climate change is all smoke and mirrors,  and the 'cure' is very often worse than the so called disease.

That's one opinion, fair enough - but on the whole, I would beg to differ. However, it has little or nothing to do with electric vehicles IMHO.