Maybe we are not doomed after all
Comments
-
No I literally mean are electric cars in the way they work use less energy or more accurately waste less energy than petrol cars or is it much of a muchness?TheBigBean said:
You mean if the grid was entirely coal powered versus a car using petrol which would be better. Google tells me the former, but not by much.rick_chasey said:
I get the carbon emissions of electric cars hangs on the makeup of the grid it is drawing electricity from.TheBigBean said:
You would need to define what you mean. You can measure the efficiency of solar panels, for example, against the amount of sun hitting them. You could then look at transmission losses, battery losses and car losses, but it would be an exercise in complete irrelevance as there is nothing to compare against.rick_chasey said:How much more energy efficient are electric cars over petrol cars?
A more meaningful point is that there are greater losses in hydrogen fuelled cars than battery powered cars when both the electric sources are the same. The losses in the hydrogen one are quite a bit worse. Something like double from memory. But again if that hydrogen was created in Australian desert is it a relevant comparison? Probably not.
I was more asking if for an average journey with an average driver if the energy used was more or less or roughly the same.
If it’s not then all you are really doing is making the makeup of the electric grid more important - so in China currently your electric car won’t be very green.
Note that even China has a decent chunk of renewables.0 -
The electric motor will be way more efficient in terms of energy in and useful energy out.rick_chasey said:
No I literally mean are electric cars in the way they work use less energy or more accurately waste less energy than petrol cars or is it much of a muchness?TheBigBean said:
You mean if the grid was entirely coal powered versus a car using petrol which would be better. Google tells me the former, but not by much.rick_chasey said:
I get the carbon emissions of electric cars hangs on the makeup of the grid it is drawing electricity from.TheBigBean said:
You would need to define what you mean. You can measure the efficiency of solar panels, for example, against the amount of sun hitting them. You could then look at transmission losses, battery losses and car losses, but it would be an exercise in complete irrelevance as there is nothing to compare against.rick_chasey said:How much more energy efficient are electric cars over petrol cars?
A more meaningful point is that there are greater losses in hydrogen fuelled cars than battery powered cars when both the electric sources are the same. The losses in the hydrogen one are quite a bit worse. Something like double from memory. But again if that hydrogen was created in Australian desert is it a relevant comparison? Probably not.
I was more asking if for an average journey with an average driver if the energy used was more or less or roughly the same.
If it’s not then all you are really doing is making the makeup of the electric grid more important - so in China currently your electric car won’t be very green.
Note that even China has a decent chunk of renewables.
But I'd argue it is not quite a fair fight.0 -
Battery efficiency has increased massively though along with other electric car tech, such as energy return from regen braking etcJezyboy said:
The basic thermodynamics haven't, so I would guess not...bearing in mind it's about making an optimistic set of assumptions.elbowloh said:
I would think things have changed rather a lot in 8 yearsJezyboy said:
I think if you make the right (or perhaps wrong) set of assumptions they can stack up pretty similarly. Basically if you put an old inefficient coal fired power station up, assume lots of transmission losses and then compare it with a super modern efficient engine being driven at its most effective point.rick_chasey said:How much more energy efficient are electric cars over petrol cars?
At least that's my recollection from IC engines lectures 8 years ago.
Where the big benefit comes is that with the right grid, you aren't burning anything to get the electricity.
In extremely simple terms if you're method of power generation is to make some working fluid hot, then use that hot fluid to spin something, you are limited in efficiency by your hot temperature and your cold temperature. For a power station and a car engine these limits of efficiency are quite similar.
If we take a modern combined cycle gas turbine, I think you can get 60+% efficiency, if we take an F1 engine, you can get 50+%. If you take away transmission and charging losses, you can get quite close.0 -
Another example of how efficient EV cars are compared to Combustion is the heating of them. As we know inefficiency results in heat. Petrol/Diesel cars don't require extra heating measures to warm the interior of a car. Whilst EV's very much do.
0 -
-
That doesn't help with the fact that the gas turbine connected to your grid has sent 40% of the energy up the exhaust stack though.elbowloh said:
Battery efficiency has increased massively though along with other electric car tech, such as energy return from regen braking etcJezyboy said:
The basic thermodynamics haven't, so I would guess not...bearing in mind it's about making an optimistic set of assumptions.elbowloh said:
I would think things have changed rather a lot in 8 yearsJezyboy said:
I think if you make the right (or perhaps wrong) set of assumptions they can stack up pretty similarly. Basically if you put an old inefficient coal fired power station up, assume lots of transmission losses and then compare it with a super modern efficient engine being driven at its most effective point.rick_chasey said:How much more energy efficient are electric cars over petrol cars?
At least that's my recollection from IC engines lectures 8 years ago.
Where the big benefit comes is that with the right grid, you aren't burning anything to get the electricity.
In extremely simple terms if you're method of power generation is to make some working fluid hot, then use that hot fluid to spin something, you are limited in efficiency by your hot temperature and your cold temperature. For a power station and a car engine these limits of efficiency are quite similar.
If we take a modern combined cycle gas turbine, I think you can get 60+% efficiency, if we take an F1 engine, you can get 50+%. If you take away transmission and charging losses, you can get quite close.0 -
Nope, but we're talking about one type of car with another, plus the way they are powered.Jezyboy said:
That doesn't help with the fact that the gas turbine connected to your grid has sent 40% of the energy up the exhaust stack though.elbowloh said:
Battery efficiency has increased massively though along with other electric car tech, such as energy return from regen braking etcJezyboy said:
The basic thermodynamics haven't, so I would guess not...bearing in mind it's about making an optimistic set of assumptions.elbowloh said:
I would think things have changed rather a lot in 8 yearsJezyboy said:
I think if you make the right (or perhaps wrong) set of assumptions they can stack up pretty similarly. Basically if you put an old inefficient coal fired power station up, assume lots of transmission losses and then compare it with a super modern efficient engine being driven at its most effective point.rick_chasey said:How much more energy efficient are electric cars over petrol cars?
At least that's my recollection from IC engines lectures 8 years ago.
Where the big benefit comes is that with the right grid, you aren't burning anything to get the electricity.
In extremely simple terms if you're method of power generation is to make some working fluid hot, then use that hot fluid to spin something, you are limited in efficiency by your hot temperature and your cold temperature. For a power station and a car engine these limits of efficiency are quite similar.
If we take a modern combined cycle gas turbine, I think you can get 60+% efficiency, if we take an F1 engine, you can get 50+%. If you take away transmission and charging losses, you can get quite close.
With an internal combustion engine, we're not just talking about the petrol being burned in the car. We seem to be forgetting the carbon associated with extracting, refining and transporting that fuel from rig to petrol station.0 -
Can you explain that statement a bit?Jezyboy said:rick_chasey said:How much more energy efficient are electric cars over petrol cars?
Where the big benefit comes is that with the right grid, you aren't burning anything to get the electricity.
As far as I am aware we only have one grid. The idea that because you pay your energy provider for "green energy" means that the electricity you use is from renewable sources is (being polite) not correct.
0 -
Sure, I just mean a hypothetical grid that only has nuclear/wind/solar connected to it, possibly with some form of energy storage, but that doesn't really matter for the purpose of this(!)lesfirth said:
Can you explain that statement a bit?Jezyboy said:rick_chasey said:How much more energy efficient are electric cars over petrol cars?
Where the big benefit comes is that with the right grid, you aren't burning anything to get the electricity.
As far as I am aware we only have one grid. The idea that because you pay your energy provider for "green energy" means that the electricity you use is from renewable sources is (being polite) not correct.
If we really want to be pedantic, all the above have various efficiencies, and the nuclear power station is just another heat engine. But I feel its getting dull0 -
When the demand for petrol decreases as the uptake of EV's, then there must come a point where oil producers will have to close wells off.
But that's tricky.
With an excess of cheap fuel, I wonder where it will go and who would use it.
Are there stats that compare the production of CO2 through power generation and the production of CO2 through the consumption of fossil fuels in ICE powered vehicles?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
That's not stopped us before 😉Jezyboy said:
Sure, I just mean a hypothetical grid that only has nuclear/wind/solar connected to it, possibly with some form of energy storage, but that doesn't really matter for the purpose of this(!)lesfirth said:
Can you explain that statement a bit?Jezyboy said:rick_chasey said:How much more energy efficient are electric cars over petrol cars?
Where the big benefit comes is that with the right grid, you aren't burning anything to get the electricity.
As far as I am aware we only have one grid. The idea that because you pay your energy provider for "green energy" means that the electricity you use is from renewable sources is (being polite) not correct.
If we really want to be pedantic, all the above have various efficiencies, and the nuclear power station is just another heat engine. But I feel its getting dull1 -
Just a little reminder that oil is already used for a load of products other than fuel for motor vehicles.pinno said:When the demand for petrol decreases as the uptake of EV's, then there must come a point where oil producers will have to close wells off.
But that's tricky.
With an excess of cheap fuel, I wonder where it will go and who would use it.
...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I mean, you can keep on going back on the electric car too...the fuel for power plants is going to be transported and proceseed with associated losses.elbowloh said:
Nope, but we're talking about one type of car with another, plus the way they are powered.Jezyboy said:
That doesn't help with the fact that the gas turbine connected to your grid has sent 40% of the energy up the exhaust stack though.elbowloh said:
Battery efficiency has increased massively though along with other electric car tech, such as energy return from regen braking etcJezyboy said:
The basic thermodynamics haven't, so I would guess not...bearing in mind it's about making an optimistic set of assumptions.elbowloh said:
I would think things have changed rather a lot in 8 yearsJezyboy said:
I think if you make the right (or perhaps wrong) set of assumptions they can stack up pretty similarly. Basically if you put an old inefficient coal fired power station up, assume lots of transmission losses and then compare it with a super modern efficient engine being driven at its most effective point.rick_chasey said:How much more energy efficient are electric cars over petrol cars?
At least that's my recollection from IC engines lectures 8 years ago.
Where the big benefit comes is that with the right grid, you aren't burning anything to get the electricity.
In extremely simple terms if you're method of power generation is to make some working fluid hot, then use that hot fluid to spin something, you are limited in efficiency by your hot temperature and your cold temperature. For a power station and a car engine these limits of efficiency are quite similar.
If we take a modern combined cycle gas turbine, I think you can get 60+% efficiency, if we take an F1 engine, you can get 50+%. If you take away transmission and charging losses, you can get quite close.
With an internal combustion engine, we're not just talking about the petrol being burned in the car. We seem to be forgetting the carbon associated with extracting, refining and transporting that fuel from rig to petrol station.
0 -
Quite aware of that. The plastics industry is massive and from the cheap left overs from the splitting of crude oil.pblakeney said:
Just a little reminder that oil is already used for a load of products other than fuel for motor vehicles.pinno said:When the demand for petrol decreases as the uptake of EV's, then there must come a point where oil producers will have to close wells off.
But that's tricky.
With an excess of cheap fuel, I wonder where it will go and who would use it.
...seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Yes, same for both cars in manufacture, but the fuel needs are ongoing.Jezyboy said:
I mean, you can keep on going back on the electric car too...the fuel for power plants is going to be transported and proceseed with associated losses.elbowloh said:
Nope, but we're talking about one type of car with another, plus the way they are powered.Jezyboy said:
That doesn't help with the fact that the gas turbine connected to your grid has sent 40% of the energy up the exhaust stack though.elbowloh said:
Battery efficiency has increased massively though along with other electric car tech, such as energy return from regen braking etcJezyboy said:
The basic thermodynamics haven't, so I would guess not...bearing in mind it's about making an optimistic set of assumptions.elbowloh said:
I would think things have changed rather a lot in 8 yearsJezyboy said:
I think if you make the right (or perhaps wrong) set of assumptions they can stack up pretty similarly. Basically if you put an old inefficient coal fired power station up, assume lots of transmission losses and then compare it with a super modern efficient engine being driven at its most effective point.rick_chasey said:How much more energy efficient are electric cars over petrol cars?
At least that's my recollection from IC engines lectures 8 years ago.
Where the big benefit comes is that with the right grid, you aren't burning anything to get the electricity.
In extremely simple terms if you're method of power generation is to make some working fluid hot, then use that hot fluid to spin something, you are limited in efficiency by your hot temperature and your cold temperature. For a power station and a car engine these limits of efficiency are quite similar.
If we take a modern combined cycle gas turbine, I think you can get 60+% efficiency, if we take an F1 engine, you can get 50+%. If you take away transmission and charging losses, you can get quite close.
With an internal combustion engine, we're not just talking about the petrol being burned in the car. We seem to be forgetting the carbon associated with extracting, refining and transporting that fuel from rig to petrol station.0 -
Fuel needs for the grid are ongoing too?elbowloh said:
Yes, same for both cars in manufacture, but the fuel needs are ongoing.Jezyboy said:
I mean, you can keep on going back on the electric car too...the fuel for power plants is going to be transported and proceseed with associated losses.elbowloh said:
Nope, but we're talking about one type of car with another, plus the way they are powered.Jezyboy said:
That doesn't help with the fact that the gas turbine connected to your grid has sent 40% of the energy up the exhaust stack though.elbowloh said:
Battery efficiency has increased massively though along with other electric car tech, such as energy return from regen braking etcJezyboy said:
The basic thermodynamics haven't, so I would guess not...bearing in mind it's about making an optimistic set of assumptions.elbowloh said:
I would think things have changed rather a lot in 8 yearsJezyboy said:
I think if you make the right (or perhaps wrong) set of assumptions they can stack up pretty similarly. Basically if you put an old inefficient coal fired power station up, assume lots of transmission losses and then compare it with a super modern efficient engine being driven at its most effective point.rick_chasey said:How much more energy efficient are electric cars over petrol cars?
At least that's my recollection from IC engines lectures 8 years ago.
Where the big benefit comes is that with the right grid, you aren't burning anything to get the electricity.
In extremely simple terms if you're method of power generation is to make some working fluid hot, then use that hot fluid to spin something, you are limited in efficiency by your hot temperature and your cold temperature. For a power station and a car engine these limits of efficiency are quite similar.
If we take a modern combined cycle gas turbine, I think you can get 60+% efficiency, if we take an F1 engine, you can get 50+%. If you take away transmission and charging losses, you can get quite close.
With an internal combustion engine, we're not just talking about the petrol being burned in the car. We seem to be forgetting the carbon associated with extracting, refining and transporting that fuel from rig to petrol station.0 -
Coming back to this point.
You've end up in a futile discussion about something wholly irrelevant, but that for some reason receives more interest.Jezyboy said:
It's the technical/political/economic challenge of the century. It shouldn't be boring surely?
As I said upthread, the only efficiency argument worth considering is between battery storage and hydrogen. Even then, it is only relevant for cars as batteries won't run trucks or trains.Jezyboy said:
Fuel needs for the grid are ongoing too?1 -
Exactly.Jezyboy said:
Fuel needs for the grid are ongoing too?elbowloh said:
Yes, same for both cars in manufacture, but the fuel needs are ongoing.Jezyboy said:
I mean, you can keep on going back on the electric car too...the fuel for power plants is going to be transported and proceseed with associated losses.elbowloh said:
Nope, but we're talking about one type of car with another, plus the way they are powered.Jezyboy said:
That doesn't help with the fact that the gas turbine connected to your grid has sent 40% of the energy up the exhaust stack though.elbowloh said:
Battery efficiency has increased massively though along with other electric car tech, such as energy return from regen braking etcJezyboy said:
The basic thermodynamics haven't, so I would guess not...bearing in mind it's about making an optimistic set of assumptions.elbowloh said:
I would think things have changed rather a lot in 8 yearsJezyboy said:
I think if you make the right (or perhaps wrong) set of assumptions they can stack up pretty similarly. Basically if you put an old inefficient coal fired power station up, assume lots of transmission losses and then compare it with a super modern efficient engine being driven at its most effective point.rick_chasey said:How much more energy efficient are electric cars over petrol cars?
At least that's my recollection from IC engines lectures 8 years ago.
Where the big benefit comes is that with the right grid, you aren't burning anything to get the electricity.
In extremely simple terms if you're method of power generation is to make some working fluid hot, then use that hot fluid to spin something, you are limited in efficiency by your hot temperature and your cold temperature. For a power station and a car engine these limits of efficiency are quite similar.
If we take a modern combined cycle gas turbine, I think you can get 60+% efficiency, if we take an F1 engine, you can get 50+%. If you take away transmission and charging losses, you can get quite close.
With an internal combustion engine, we're not just talking about the petrol being burned in the car. We seem to be forgetting the carbon associated with extracting, refining and transporting that fuel from rig to petrol station.
It's just earlier in the thread, the only talk was of the fuel for electric cars and no mention of the petroleum industry0 -
I meant to add my second point to this. The Government is going to see a massive drop in tax take from this, not to mention VED. That shortfall will be recouped from somewhere else. Think car charging will remain cheap? Or a real road tax?pinno said:When the demand for petrol decreases as the uptake of EV's, ...
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Theoretically all sounds ok.elbowloh said:
If you google, there are a few car reviews where they have done london to scotland pretty easily using the cars own systems to tell them where to stop and charge. Someone even did over 1000 miles to Aviemore and back. I'm sure she doesn't do it that regularly.TheBigBean said:Model 3 ranges. It won't make it without charging on a motorway in cold weather. Yes, she could stop for a charge, but then she has to find a working available charger. I understand why she would hesitate if she wants to do this regularly.
City - Cold Weather 270 mi
Highway - Cold Weather 205 mi
Combined - Cold Weather 235 mi
City - Mild Weather 410 mi
Highway - Mild Weather 265 mi
Combined - Mild Weather 330 mi
Surely you're not suggesting she drives to scotland without any rest stops?
There are tesla charging stations at pretty much every motorway service station.
Except when you turn up in your electric car expecting a fast charge of 20 minutes and you find there are three chargers at the station and 6 other cars already waiting. Your 20 Minute coffee stop turns into an hour or more wasted. And apart from the lost time, your station now must provide facilities for a lot more people to sit around and wait. You need more indoor space, heated, with extra facilities. You can guarantee that in time the service station operators will look to maximise their revenue from the opportunity of having a lot more people spending a lot more time on site.
They’ll build new stuff, places for kids to play, and ways to make you spend money while you wait for your car to charge. And all of THAT development and extra activity will offset the “saving” from your electric car.
With a relative handful of electric vehicles in use now, it’s not perhaps a major issue. But if you want say, half the vehicles out there to be electric just have a think about the infrastructure impact.
It may be irrelevant in a place as miniscule (physically) as the UK, where dependence on those fast chargers is less, but in rest of the world where big distances are the norm it’s a real problem.
I used to quite regularly drive Sydney to Melbourne (or Brisbane) which is roughly 1000km. It was achievable easily in 11 hours, in daylight. Stopping at least once or maybe twice with the risk of an added hour or more each stop would have made that trip an overnight stay for sure. There goes the cost and environmental benefit, never mind the inconvenience. And there’s no way justifying having two vehicles to manage both requirements makes any sense whatsoever.
Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
The practical solution is to do what I did while living in cities. Use public transport (EV in this case) when possible, hire a car when not. Assuming it's an infrequent requirement.Wheelspinner said:...And there’s no way justifying having two vehicles to manage both requirements makes any sense whatsoever.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
The environmental impact of x million cars in Australia is a lot less than the 27m cars in the UK...Wheelspinner said:
Theoretically all sounds ok.elbowloh said:
If you google, there are a few car reviews where they have done london to scotland pretty easily using the cars own systems to tell them where to stop and charge. Someone even did over 1000 miles to Aviemore and back. I'm sure she doesn't do it that regularly.TheBigBean said:Model 3 ranges. It won't make it without charging on a motorway in cold weather. Yes, she could stop for a charge, but then she has to find a working available charger. I understand why she would hesitate if she wants to do this regularly.
City - Cold Weather 270 mi
Highway - Cold Weather 205 mi
Combined - Cold Weather 235 mi
City - Mild Weather 410 mi
Highway - Mild Weather 265 mi
Combined - Mild Weather 330 mi
Surely you're not suggesting she drives to scotland without any rest stops?
There are tesla charging stations at pretty much every motorway service station.
Except when you turn up in your electric car expecting a fast charge of 20 minutes and you find there are three chargers at the station and 6 other cars already waiting. Your 20 Minute coffee stop turns into an hour or more wasted. And apart from the lost time, your station now must provide facilities for a lot more people to sit around and wait. You need more indoor space, heated, with extra facilities. You can guarantee that in time the service station operators will look to maximise their revenue from the opportunity of having a lot more people spending a lot more time on site.
They’ll build new stuff, places for kids to play, and ways to make you spend money while you wait for your car to charge. And all of THAT development and extra activity will offset the “saving” from your electric car.
With a relative handful of electric vehicles in use now, it’s not perhaps a major issue. But if you want say, half the vehicles out there to be electric just have a think about the infrastructure impact.
It may be irrelevant in a place as miniscule (physically) as the UK, where dependence on those fast chargers is less, but in rest of the world where big distances are the norm it’s a real problem.
I used to quite regularly drive Sydney to Melbourne (or Brisbane) which is roughly 1000km. It was achievable easily in 11 hours, in daylight. Stopping at least once or maybe twice with the risk of an added hour or more each stop would have made that trip an overnight stay for sure. There goes the cost and environmental benefit, never mind the inconvenience. And there’s no way justifying having two vehicles to manage both requirements makes any sense whatsoever.
Hang on, that's bollox: there's 20m registered cars in Australia! What?
So, out of a population of 25m, there are 20m cars and in the UK, there are 27m cars and a population of 66m.
Basically, you lot need to use public transport more, you lazy feckers.
...and what's with Toyota's?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Charging wont stay cheap or free. Its already being bought by conglomerates of motor manufacturers, prob some oil companies. If they tie in to owning the petrol station/charger units/cafe they can mine that data and generate revenue. So car owner X in their eg Ford charges their car at a suitable charger using a card that Ford have ownership in. Ford now know where you were and for how long. tie that into some kind of points/loyalty system with the on site cafe you can see what the spend was. Govt will just add their percentage to charging once fuel duty drops.0
-
Most people can get away with just charging at home for the majority of trips. It will be interesting how the cost of electricity to properties will change though. Doing it at night is obviously a positive for the grid.amrushton said:Charging wont stay cheap or free. Its already being bought by conglomerates of motor manufacturers, prob some oil companies. If they tie in to owning the petrol station/charger units/cafe they can mine that data and generate revenue. So car owner X in their eg Ford charges their car at a suitable charger using a card that Ford have ownership in. Ford now know where you were and for how long. tie that into some kind of points/loyalty system with the on site cafe you can see what the spend was. Govt will just add their percentage to charging once fuel duty drops.
0 -
Loads of people don't have driveways.focuszing723 said:
Most people can get away with just charging at home for the majority of trips. It will be interesting how the cost of electricity to properties will change though. Doing it at night is obviously a positive for the grid.amrushton said:Charging wont stay cheap or free. Its already being bought by conglomerates of motor manufacturers, prob some oil companies. If they tie in to owning the petrol station/charger units/cafe they can mine that data and generate revenue. So car owner X in their eg Ford charges their car at a suitable charger using a card that Ford have ownership in. Ford now know where you were and for how long. tie that into some kind of points/loyalty system with the on site cafe you can see what the spend was. Govt will just add their percentage to charging once fuel duty drops.
As far as I can see that typically shouldn't matter as long as one end of your journey goes to a car park.0 -
That's a fair point about not having driveways.
0 -
If it was economically possible, we would. We don’t have enough people to generate the required capital to invest in a public transport network that would cover the sheer size of the place.pinno said:
The environmental impact of x million cars in Australia is a lot less than the 27m cars in the UK...Wheelspinner said:
Theoretically all sounds ok.elbowloh said:
If you google, there are a few car reviews where they have done london to scotland pretty easily using the cars own systems to tell them where to stop and charge. Someone even did over 1000 miles to Aviemore and back. I'm sure she doesn't do it that regularly.TheBigBean said:Model 3 ranges. It won't make it without charging on a motorway in cold weather. Yes, she could stop for a charge, but then she has to find a working available charger. I understand why she would hesitate if she wants to do this regularly.
City - Cold Weather 270 mi
Highway - Cold Weather 205 mi
Combined - Cold Weather 235 mi
City - Mild Weather 410 mi
Highway - Mild Weather 265 mi
Combined - Mild Weather 330 mi
Surely you're not suggesting she drives to scotland without any rest stops?
There are tesla charging stations at pretty much every motorway service station.
Except when you turn up in your electric car expecting a fast charge of 20 minutes and you find there are three chargers at the station and 6 other cars already waiting. Your 20 Minute coffee stop turns into an hour or more wasted. And apart from the lost time, your station now must provide facilities for a lot more people to sit around and wait. You need more indoor space, heated, with extra facilities. You can guarantee that in time the service station operators will look to maximise their revenue from the opportunity of having a lot more people spending a lot more time on site.
They’ll build new stuff, places for kids to play, and ways to make you spend money while you wait for your car to charge. And all of THAT development and extra activity will offset the “saving” from your electric car.
With a relative handful of electric vehicles in use now, it’s not perhaps a major issue. But if you want say, half the vehicles out there to be electric just have a think about the infrastructure impact.
It may be irrelevant in a place as miniscule (physically) as the UK, where dependence on those fast chargers is less, but in rest of the world where big distances are the norm it’s a real problem.
I used to quite regularly drive Sydney to Melbourne (or Brisbane) which is roughly 1000km. It was achievable easily in 11 hours, in daylight. Stopping at least once or maybe twice with the risk of an added hour or more each stop would have made that trip an overnight stay for sure. There goes the cost and environmental benefit, never mind the inconvenience. And there’s no way justifying having two vehicles to manage both requirements makes any sense whatsoever.
Hang on, that's bollox: there's 20m registered cars in Australia! What?
So, out of a population of 25m, there are 20m cars and in the UK, there are 27m cars and a population of 66m.
Basically, you lot need to use public transport more, you lazy feckers.
...and what's with Toyota's?
For comparison:
Population density of Greater London Area: 7700 people per square km.
Area of GL = 1,570 square km
Population density of Greater Sydney Area: 430 people per square km.
Area of GS = 12,300 square km.
There’s a clue why we have so many cars…Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
I’d happily accept a real road tax for roads driven on.pblakeney said:
I meant to add my second point to this. The Government is going to see a massive drop in tax take from this, not to mention VED. That shortfall will be recouped from somewhere else. Think car charging will remain cheap? Or a real road tax?pinno said:When the demand for petrol decreases as the uptake of EV's, ...
The rate paid directly correlated to the vehicle driven, the type of road, time of day and road condition.
The technology is there to do this. Biggest problem would be anonymising the data so that you’re not just providing a log of your driving activity to any agency that wants it.0 -
Urban sprawl designed on the basis of the population using cars.Wheelspinner said:
There’s a clue why we have so many cars…
Cyclical problem.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I’d call it a driving tax rather than road tax though.morstar said:
I’d happily accept a real road tax for roads driven on.pblakeney said:
I meant to add my second point to this. The Government is going to see a massive drop in tax take from this, not to mention VED. That shortfall will be recouped from somewhere else. Think car charging will remain cheap? Or a real road tax?pinno said:When the demand for petrol decreases as the uptake of EV's, ...
The rate paid directly correlated to the vehicle driven, the type of road, time of day and road condition.
The technology is there to do this. Biggest problem would be anonymising the data so that you’re not just providing a log of your driving activity to any agency that wants it.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrDn2mG9PUU
