Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

1961Nick

I'd just like to say that it's refreshing to be discussing, debating & exchanging ideas rather than tearing chunks out of each other.:cool:

How do we all feel about trying to maintain this detente?

GreatApe

1961Nick wrote: »

Hybrids make sense during the transition peroid because it's feasible to add the battery & motor to an existing chassis. ZF make an automatic transmission that incorporates an electric motor that can replace their existing 8HP transmission. Most vehicles still have a wheel well that will accommodate between 15 & 25 kWh of batteries. Cooling isn't really an issue on these small battery packs & the control gear can go wherever the stop/start battery previously was. I think we'll see quite a few of this type of vehicle over the next few years.

As new models hit the market I expect an increasing number to be electric only as incorporating both propulsion systems adds to complexity & cost, but worst of all, it massively compromises the design - The iPace wouldn't be possible as an ICE vehicle!

You're thinking of historical hybrid technology I'm suggesting a pure BEV platform with a 'generator'

Nothing like this exists and you'd need this plug in hybrid to be at least about 25KWh battery pack and 100 mile range I'll do a specific lost explaining why

1961Nick

GreatApe wrote: »

You're thinking of historical hybrid technology I'm suggesting a pure BEV platform with a 'generator'

Nothing like this exists and you'd need this plug in hybrid to be at least about 25KWh battery pack and 100 mile range I'll do a specific lost explaining why

You've still got to package the generator & it's a pretty heavy item with the associated exhaust, cooling system & fuel tank. It'd also mean that many of the design constraints of a ICE vehicle would be retained whereas as pure EV can be a whole new design philosophy.

A 100 mile range from 25kWh is optimistic ... In reality, 60-70 miles might be possible.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

Hybrids make sense during the transition peroid because it's feasible to add the battery & motor to an existing chassis. ZF make an automatic transmission that incorporates an electric motor that can replace their existing 8HP transmission. Most vehicles still have a wheel well that will accommodate between 15 & 25 kWh of batteries. Cooling isn't really an issue on these small battery packs & the control gear can go wherever the stop/start battery previously was. I think we'll see quite a few of this type of vehicle over the next few years.

As new models hit the market I expect an increasing number to be electric only as incorporating both propulsion systems adds to complexity & cost, but worst of all, it massively compromises the design - The iPace wouldn't be possible as an ICE vehicle!

Yes to all, but there's a big but, and as always it's the one that can't be beaten, economics.

Whilst a PHEV would spread the limited battery production across more PEV's than going solely with BEV's, the problem is that they cost more to own and run than an ICE.

Now, that's not an insurmountable problem, and was, to a degree, being helped by government subsidies, but now that BEV's are cheaper (in TCO terms) than an ICE, we've seen subsidy support removed from PHEV's.

So, building a PHEV might be an easier shift for the old guard, but with falling sales already, and a clear winner (BEV's) having already been proven, then it might simply be better to get on with the full shift, rather than half measures.

I suspect we all know the real problem, and that's battery production, it needs to be ramped up massively, and ideally, like Tesla, with less and less Cobalt and plans to remove it completely.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

You're thinking of historical hybrid technology I'm suggesting a pure BEV platform with a 'generator'

Nothing like this exists and you'd need this plug in hybrid to be at least about 25KWh battery pack and 100 mile range I'll do a specific lost explaining why

You've still got to package the generator & it's a pretty heavy item with the associated exhaust, cooling system & fuel tank. It'd also mean that many of the design constraints of a ICE vehicle would be retained whereas as pure EV can be a whole new design philosophy.

A 100 mile range from 25kWh is optimistic ... In reality, 60-70 miles might be possible.

Unless I'm missing something here, what GA is describing is a range extender PHEV like the Chevy Volt (Vauxhall Ampera E), BMW I3 Rx, the new London Taxi, etc etc..

So I'm not sure how 'nothing like this exists'.

A poster on the EV thread who had a BMW I3 Rx, and seems to do about 50k miles pa, changed to the battery only BMW I3 on renewal as they'd used the Rx so little. They now have a Kona (I think).

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Yes to all, but there's a big but, and as always it's the one that can't be beaten, economics.

Whilst a PHEV would spread the limited battery production across more PEV's than going solely with BEV's, the problem is that they cost more to own and run than an ICE.

Now, that's not an insurmountable problem, and was, to a degree, being helped by government subsidies, but now that BEV's are cheaper (in TCO terms) than an ICE, we've seen subsidy support removed from PHEV's.

So, building a PHEV might be an easier shift for the old guard, but with falling sales already, and a clear winner (BEV's) having already been proven, then it might simply be better to get on with the full shift, rather than half measures.

I suspect we all know the real problem, and that's battery production, it needs to be ramped up massively, and ideally, like Tesla, with less and less Cobalt and plans to remove it completely.

Life isn’t all about economics or we would all be driving about in cars like the Picanto which I believe is one of the cheapest cars to own and run. We choose our car for many reasons but I would suggest primarily to suit our individual lifestyle. BEVs at the moment don’t suit everyone so there may be a market. These range extenders appeal to me and GA (which is probably about 25% of our closed world) so they may appeal to others.

Martyn1981

Have I finally lost it?

I'm sure I heard something on the radio earlier about the government creating a dedicated climate change department (or something like that), but can't find anything now!

JKenH

I can’t remember seeing this on here before but some heavy reading for anyone interested.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/839555/CCS0819884374-001_Government_Response_to_the_CCC_Progress_Report_2019_Web_Accessible.pdf

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Yes to all, but there's a big but, and as always it's the one that can't be beaten, economics.

Whilst a PHEV would spread the limited battery production across more PEV's than going solely with BEV's, the problem is that they cost more to own and run than an ICE.

Now, that's not an insurmountable problem, and was, to a degree, being helped by government subsidies, but now that BEV's are cheaper (in TCO terms) than an ICE, we've seen subsidy support removed from PHEV's.

So, building a PHEV might be an easier shift for the old guard, but with falling sales already, and a clear winner (BEV's) having already been proven, then it might simply be better to get on with the full shift, rather than half measures.

I suspect we all know the real problem, and that's battery production, it needs to be ramped up massively, and ideally, like Tesla, with less and less Cobalt and plans to remove it completely.

I agree that the cost of manufacturing the car would increase, but hybrid may be the only option for a manufacturer with a vehicle that's less than half way through it's anticipated life. Lead times are long enough anyway, but a clean sheet new technology design could take 5 years or more.

What I'm saying, is that Hybrid could be the only way of preserving the sales of existing vehicles & the mid-life facelift could be the ideal time to do it. The economic viability will favour vehicles with a high list price & profit margin.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Yes to all, but there's a big but, and as always it's the one that can't be beaten, economics.

Whilst a PHEV would spread the limited battery production across more PEV's than going solely with BEV's, the problem is that they cost more to own and run than an ICE.

Now, that's not an insurmountable problem, and was, to a degree, being helped by government subsidies, but now that BEV's are cheaper (in TCO terms) than an ICE, we've seen subsidy support removed from PHEV's.

So, building a PHEV might be an easier shift for the old guard, but with falling sales already, and a clear winner (BEV's) having already been proven, then it might simply be better to get on with the full shift, rather than half measures.

I suspect we all know the real problem, and that's battery production, it needs to be ramped up massively, and ideally, like Tesla, with less and less Cobalt and plans to remove it completely.

How can you claim the total cost of ownership for a BEV is low how many BEVs have been around for 15 years for you to claim that? Sure Tesla owners have low maintenance costs but guess what they are sitting in brand new cars what's the maintenance cost of a brand new petrol car in the first two year.... probably the same zero.

Plus the cost of ownership for an oil car is pretty low I've said this before my last petrol car I did about 50,000 miles in five years and the cost of maintenance was close to zero. The exhaust fell off once but was super cheap to fix. My dad has an old diesel he has had for about 8 years and it's gone from about 120,000 miles to just over 200,000 miles and again the cost of maintenance has been very low.

With regards to the idea of plug in Hybrids not being a good idea well you would say that you are a vested interests with your share holdings in a pure BEV company