Electric cars.

[old dog new tricks]

Always makes me laugh when i see the anti-AV lot using that as an excuse not to buy one, who travels 150+ miles without doing at least one of the following, a toilet break, a brew, a ciggy (if you dont smoke in the car) a stretch of the old legs, plenty of time to top up your battery on a fast charger even the old ones.

to be fair its easy enough to do 150 miles if motorway outside peak times I a, not saying i do it often but i drive a 70 mile route to see my kids but with the hills its zaps battery power, so need most of my capacity to get there and back as waiting hours to charge up in the ex's town is not going to happen.

That why 250 mile range was my minimum criteria to make it viable, for normal use charge once a week overnight at home.

Its the only car in my house so it needs to do everything

 

[Chippy_Tea]

to be fair its easy enough to do 150 miles if motorway outside peak times

You are still looking at two hours, these days two hours driving is enough in one go (if i am not in a rush) i would rather take a break or two and enjoy the trip.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

 

[Northern_Brewer]

To be honest we are having the **** taken out of us and we will go along with it without a fight as that's what we do.

Take the stats below 16 ships (of the 26,438 in the world) emit the same amount of CO2 as all the world’s cars meaning if they were all afloat they would produce 1,652 times the pollution of all the worlds cars yet they pick on the car drivers and will force us all into EV's eventually.

Chippy - no wonder you think that if you rely on sources that lie to you. You need to change your news sources.

It's clearly nonsense - road transport accounts for 11.9% of CO2 emissions, shipping less than 2%, so there's no way a fraction of the world's ships could emit more CO2 than all the world's cars. I suspect your anonymous source is getting CO2 mixed up with pollutants like SOx and NOx, perhaps think of a report a few years ago that said shipping in Los Angeles emitted more SOx/NOx than the cars in LA.

But that's changing rapidly, as shipping has had stringent new rules on sulphur pollution since 2020 - in fact it's been suggested that the new rules have been so successful that the reduction in sulphur particles has warmed the planet as they were previously reflecting sunlight. It's tough - you try to reduce acid rain and kids getting asthma, but end up contributing to the greenhouse effect.

See this :

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I totally agree marine sector is wild this is where hydrogen makes sense but expect the backlash form the hydrogen haters yes i know it uses 3 times the electrical energy etc etc , but if you think battery is a viable option with heavy shipping then I must disagree the huge financial outlay and lifespan of the marine sector means a radical change is not economically viable, where as using hydrogen in existing turbine and diesel engines is possible as fraction of the cost.

Ship lifespans are not that great in this context, not much more than cars and way less than houses, only 21% of the container fleet are over 20 years old, and they are generally older than tankers and bulkers. Shipping still seems to be up for grabs, it may be one sector where ammonia plays a big role, but you are seeing electric ships already. One cute thing is that you can put batteries in containers and then they just become part of the cargo, which can be lifted and charged onshore.

These ships use 24 out of a capacity of 900 containers for batteries : https://maritime-executive.com/arti...-powered-containerships-commissioned-in-china

Not suggesting it due the insane costs and safety implications but the US fit Small Modular Reactors in their aircraft carriers for a reason, it just keep going and does not have to lug around the thousands of tons of fuel it would have needed otherwise

Conversely they don't fit reactors to any of their other ships for a reason. The USN has published a number of documents (such as this one) where they weigh up the costs of reactors for different types of ship. Broadly, the only ships where the economics work is where you can offset the huge upfront cost of nuclear by saving lots of fuel costs. Cruisers travel a lot but don't use so much fuel per mile, amphibious ships are thirsty but don't travel much, carriers are the only ones where that equation works, although the tactical advantages are limited by the fact that their escorts all need refuelling.

Just on the hydrogen for domestic use thing, blending is pointless - with 20% hydrogen in the blend, the increased leakage rates offset any climate gain :
https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/pol...ld-cookers-compared-to-gas-report/2-1-1628681

 

[GhostDoggyWoofWoof]

Always makes me laugh when i see the anti-AV lot using that as an excuse not to buy one, who travels 150+ miles without doing at least one of the following, a toilet break, a brew, a ciggy (if you dont smoke in the car) a stretch of the old legs, plenty of time to top up your battery on a fast charger even the old ones.

I just drove Dover to Edinburgh with one 15 min coffee and pee break and one 4 min fuel top up. Took me 12 hours. Never again. My new Lotus Eletre won't let me anyway.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Chippy - no wonder you think that if you rely on sources that lie to you

I took the stats as being correct I don't have time to check every article I leave that to those that do.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

In the news this morning they are saying we don't have a problem with a lack of electricity for ev's as all ev's in the UK only use 1% of electricity generated but they did say we need more charging points and soon, our local supermarket recently installed another two taking the number to seven I haven't yet seen all of them in use at the same time.

 

[Stu]

In the news this morning they are saying we don't have a problem with a lack of electricity for ev's as all ev's in the UK only use 1% of electricity generated but they did say we need more charging points and soon, our local supermarket recently installed another two taking the number to seven I haven't yet seen all of them in use at the same time.

The problem I find is that they're too expensive.
I mean, why would you charge at a supermarket at 85p a unit when you can do it at home for 22p (or 9p if you have a regular nighttime rate or 7p if you have a compatible car or charger)?

Most people don't even need an expensive charger if they can park outside their house - a granny charger (3 pin plug) can deliver 120 miles overnight. Considering the average person does 30 miles a day. You can buy cable covers so that you can run the cable over a pavement. Many councils are also supporting installing gullies for the cables. There are grants available for flats too.

The bigger problem is when you're doing a decent chunky journey. To be fair, I've not struggled much, but the ones that stand out are most of those on the M25 (particular South Mimms, although they've put in another 25 chargers since I was last there) and most of them up the M1 and M6. South Mimms (before the new ones) was the only place I ever pulled in, saw them full, and moved on.

People are far more likely to use motorway services. The other problem is that the apps are inconsistent. So it may take months for a charger to show up. Google Maps are terrible - they have absolutely no idea where the chargers are. Yet ask them where your nearest Petrol Station is........

 

[dad_of_jon]

Chippy - no wonder you think that if you rely on sources that lie to you. You need to change your news sources.

It's clearly nonsense - road transport accounts for 11.9% of CO2 emissions, shipping less than 2%, so there's no way a fraction of the world's ships could emit more CO2 than all the world's cars. I suspect your anonymous source is getting CO2 mixed up with pollutants like SOx and NOx, perhaps think of a report a few years ago that said shipping in Los Angeles emitted more SOx/NOx than the cars in LA.

But that's changing rapidly, as shipping has had stringent new rules on sulphur pollution since 2020 - in fact it's been suggested that the new rules have been so successful that the reduction in sulphur particles has warmed the planet as they were previously reflecting sunlight. It's tough - you try to reduce acid rain and kids getting asthma, but end up contributing to the greenhouse effect.

See this :
View attachment 102105

Nice graph. how much of road transport is personal vs road freight?

 

[Chippy_Tea]

For the majority of ev owners home charging will be all they ever do, maybe on an ooccasion they'll have to use a rapid charger if getting close to maximum milage on a longer run,

 

[Brew_DD2]

For the majority of ev owners home charging will be all they ever do, maybe on an ooccasion they'll have to use a rapid charger if getting close to maximum milage on a longer run,

I've used public charger 3 times in 18 months. 2 times because I forgot to plug in overnight.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Here's one for you -

How much does it cost to charge a car on a public charger say from 25% to 75% compared to filling an average ICE car petrol tank from the same percentages?

Average ICE car tank is 50 to 60 litres.
At avarage of 145p per litre it works out at £72 - £87 for a full tank

 

[Stu]

Here's one for you -

How much does it cost to charge a car on a public charger say from 25% to 75% compared to filling an average ICE car petrol tank from the same percentages?

Average ICE car tank is 50 to 60 litres.

Depends where you're doing it. But bear in mind this hugely depends on the size of the battery in the same way that MPG comes into play.
On the most expensive chargers, that'll be about £24 for my car and will add somewhere around 125 miles. So around 19.2p per mile.
That's based on the 85p a unit pricing.

Generally though, I work around the Tesla network and charge off-peak. So that's around 43p (sometimes even cheaper - they do surge pricing). So that would be around £12.50 or 10p a mile.

To compare it to a petrol car doing 40mpg (or 8.8 miles per litre).....
Based on today's prices (£1.42 per litre) that would be 16.1p per mile.
If you were caught out and had to use a motorway filling station (M3 Fleet services is £1.70) that would be 19.3p per mile.

In comparison, when I charge at home (7p per unit), The cost is less than 2p per mile. Even at full price, 22p, it's around 5.5p per mile.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

So basically if you cannot home charge most of the time you would be better off buying a fuel efficient ICE car or Hybrid which is what i am planning to do.

 

[Stu]

Absolutely. If you do more than 20,000 miles a year or can't charge regularly at home, I'd say an EV isn't for you.
That MPG is like something that's hanging off the rear end of a male cow though.

I say that as someone who owned a Prius that said 50-75mpg. 50 was pushing it. You could get 75mpg, but you had to be following a truck doing 57mph and getting the drag along the motorway.

Fuelly says average is 56-58mpg based on 126 cars doing a number of million miles.
https://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/yaris?engineconfig_id=&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=62

 

[MashBag]

electric grid is constantly being developed in parallel.

Not fact. Proper tosh.
I personally know a Nat grid network architect. He says not keeping up big time.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

That MPG is like something that's hanging off the rear end of a male cow though.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

From Toyota Yaris forum -

 

[dad_of_jon]

my son is getting 58+ mpg in his 1.2 suzuki ignis. according to the computer and he mainly does short local trips. i've seen a figure in the high 50's when i've had one as a courtesy car

https://www.whatcar.com/best/real-mpg-most-efficient-cars/n14356

here's more advice from a firefigher who just happens to be a qualifed engineer.