Electric cars

AdrianC

Herzlos wrote: »

May as well. Trailer regulations are in desperate need of updating.

They were updated 20 years ago. In the opposite direction to what you now want.

Doesn't this apply to all locks for anything hired?

No, because you're not looking at utterly generic items being moved around the country en masse and taken-and-left in rapid succession.

But not that common. You can't get 700 miles out of most modern diesels.

Yes, you can, easily. Golf diesel - official economy of up to 83mpg combined. 50 litre tank. I make that 920 mile range. To get 700 miles from 50 litres, you only need achieve just over 60mpg. That's well within the extra-urban figures of a petrol Golf...

Whilst the Mitsubishi PHEV can charge or just maintain battery level.

Lovely, an' all - but that's a petrol plug-in hybrid, not a range-extended electric. 30 mile range on electricity...

Again, nothing to say you couldn't add 300kg of battery and push the GVW up to 3,800kg and require drivers to do a C1.

Go over 3500kg MAM, and you're into operator's licences, tachos, and a whole new world of legislation - above and beyond the licence group.

zeupater

AdrianC wrote: »

... So you're looking at a trailer that can recharge, say, 200 mile range (call it 60kWh) in three hours (200 miles), plus another 60kWh for actually driving the car that distance. 120kWh in three hours, 40kW.

This is what a 40kW diesel generator looks like.
https://www.generac.com/industrial/products/diesel-generators/configured/40kw-diesel-generator


With no fuel tank, it's 2m long, 1m wide, 1.2m high, and weighs just under a ton. Add another half ton for the trailer hardware. For that 700 mile range, you'd be looking at (say) 12hrs at 13 litres per hour full-load use. ...

Hi

Technical question (rhetorical .. ) .... how exactly did they shoehorn a generator with 50% more capacity under the bonnet of an Ampera then? .... we tried one out a few years back and there was no sign of a trailer or a tow-bar, more than that there was still room for passengers inside ... that's the point though - different solutions for different problems means that an industrial generator probably isn't best suited for mobile applications, just as plugging a factory into an inverter connected to a car's 12V socket isn't ....

On towed battery packs - I think it's a neat solution for a temporary range boost, but the relative cost of battery tech to ICEs is the killer .... a small lightweight generation unit which would half-fill an average engine bay would be all that's needed, whether it's not an option, towed or installed would be down to what the vehicle manufacturers offer and customers want, and that's really down to a combination of individual usage profiles and affordability ...

HTH
Z

AdrianC

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Technical question (rhetorical .. ) .... how exactly did they shoehorn a generator with 50% more capacity under the bonnet of an Ampera then?

They didn't.

60kW petrol engine output is not the same as 60kW electricity output from a generator. To drive that 40kW generator, there's a 3.4 litre turbodiesel inside that big box.

silverwhistle

AdrianC wrote: »

Being able to easily travel around the country was a good change.

Change comes at a price, and if they tried to put a motorway through your back garden I can't see you cheering!

But that change didn't happen overnight. Railways were for the well off and didn't go everywhere. Gradually lowering prices and the availability of excursions democratised rail travel. The early cars were an even bigger luxury. One of the biggest advances in personal mobility (and mixing up the gene pool) was the bicycle.

Now I don't think trailers are the answer for range either, but all you have listed are the negatives and don't seem to have acknowledged the fact of change and that it won't happen overnight. The car market (motorbike/push bike/anything really) is segmented and consists of different needs, wants, desires. So, as an example, I'd go for a plug-in hybrid or electric before buying a big luxury saloon however much money I had.

Reducing the autonomous range of vehicles is not quite such a retrograde step as you're making out when you consider the benefits and solutions. Those solutions are probably more diverse than they used to be, which reflects our increasingly complex world.

Car_54

kmb500 wrote: »

I've been on plenty of long car journeys with frequent stops, and have never come across an electric charging point. The only one I've ever seen is the one at my work.

Another added to the list of things you've failed to see ....

AdrianC

silverwhistle wrote: »

Change comes at a price, and if they tried to put a motorway through your back garden I can't see you cheering!

We're talking about a very specific and relatively detailed change here. Internal combustion cars to electric.

Now I don't think trailers are the answer for range either

Which is what we're talking about here.

but all you have listed are the negatives

Of trailer-generators, yes. Because it is a ridiculous idea and doesn't take account of any of the realities.

So, as an example, I'd go for a plug-in hybrid or electric before buying a big luxury saloon however much money I had.

<scratches head> But you can have a big luxury plug-in hybrid or electric car, or you can have a big luxury internal combustion car.

Reducing the autonomous range of vehicles is not quite such a retrograde step as you're making out when you consider the benefits and solutions. Those solutions are probably more diverse than they used to be, which reflects our increasingly complex world.

Until such time as considering an electric-only vehicle as somebody's only car does not get in the way of them undertaking perfectly sensible and realistic journeys, then electric-only is not going to replace internal combustion in any major numbers. As a low-use second vehicle, sure. But just replacing low-use second vehicles is not going to make any meaningful impact on emissions.

Even then unless the high-use vehicles, particularly in urban environments where local air quality is a major problem, can be replaced, you're still fiddling around the edges of the actual problem. It's greenwash, frankly.

Electric cars are more viable than they used to be, even a few years ago - but they are still not viable in any meaningful numbers. The easy problems have been solved. Ranges are starting to become workable in the near future - 200 miles+ starts to become useful.

But even then... that simply moves the problem to elsewhere. And that elsewhere is rapidly becoming the generation and transmission realities. We've been near winter capacity in generation for the last few years, without a wholesale move to plug-in electric vehicles. That problem is getting worse, not better - again, without EVs.

The most useful short-term answer to the range problem is actually far easier, and is already being implemented by at least one manufacturer. Lease an electric car, and you can borrow/cheap-rent an internal combustion when you actually require the range. Simples.

Herzlos

AdrianC wrote: »

They were updated 20 years ago. In the opposite direction to what you now want.

And they've moved back in the right direction in 2013 - restriction applies to actual weight rather than MAM.


Do you really think the current laws regarding trailers makes sense for small camping trailers? I mean, a lower limit when you've got 3500kg on the back makes sense - that'll push around even the biggest of vehicles. But a lower limit with a 4ft camping trailer weighing 300kg full? Most vehicles would barely notice it.

No, because you're not looking at utterly generic items being moved around the country en masse and taken-and-left in rapid succession.

Most of which will be at some sort of pick up / drop off yard which can easily be secured using something like RFID or ANPR. Not that many people will need to dump them on an industrial estate outside of town for the afternoon.

Yes, you can, easily. Golf diesel - official economy of up to 83mpg combined. 50 litre tank. I make that 920 mile range. To get 700 miles from 50 litres, you only need achieve just over 60mpg. That's well within the extra-urban figures of a petrol Golf...

Fair enough, thought I don't see any Golfs on the honest john real mpg getting above 58mpg.

Lovely, an' all - but that's a petrol plug-in hybrid, not a range-extended electric. 30 mile range on electricity...

70 miles on electricity (@70mph, apparently), and then you can use the petrol motor to either power the motor only, or power the motor whilst charging the battery.
The technology already exists; I'm just proposing offloading the heavy part of it to a removable unit. Something that's not viable now, but for political/behavioral restrictions rather than physical.

Go over 3500kg MAM, and you're into operator's licences, tachos, and a whole new world of legislation - above and beyond the licence group.

Yup. I don't see a problem with couriers who can't get by with a 200 mile range needing a higher license or a tacho.
I mean it'd be easy enough to produce, say, a short range van with 200 mile range and a 3500kg MAM, and an extended range van with 400 miles and 4000kg MAM. You want more than 4 hours continuous driving, you need a C1 and a tacho, that's not unreasonable?

As it is I suspect a lot of delivery drivers are doing much longer shifts and driving stints than they really should.

zeupater

AdrianC wrote: »

They didn't.

60kW petrol engine output is not the same as 60kW electricity output from a generator. To drive that 40kW generator, there's a 3.4 litre turbodiesel inside that big box.

So, back to the question then, with a little more accuracy and taking the generation efficiency into account ...

.... how exactly did they shoehorn a 63kW petrol engine with a coupled generator to deliver 54kW, (35% more than 40kW) under the bonnet of an Ampera then?

... plenty more examples available on request, but the gist should be clear to everyone ...

The main reason that the generator is so large is because it's designed for high availability continuous duties whereas a top-up (long journey) generator in a passenger vehicle isn't, but we've already been there - as previously mentioned ... "that's the point though - different solutions for different problems means that an industrial generator probably isn't best suited for mobile applications, just as plugging a factory into an inverter connected to a car's 12V socket isn't ...."

HTH
Z

almillar

That's kinda the whole point. If the technology means you have to change the way you use the product, then the technology is causing a problem.

Tell me that when the oil runs out. The ICE technology we're using now IS causing problems, hence the push to change.

I've been on plenty of long car journeys with frequent stops, and have never come across an electric charging point. The only one I've ever seen is the one at my work.

You've also never seen a box junction. Either look harder, or you live very rurally and don't drive far. Have a look at www.zap-map.com and tell me how far to your nearest charger.

(200 mile range is closer to 20kwh than 60kwh') - You're in cloud cuckoo land. Official range for a 30kWh Leaf is 107 miles. Official range for a 90kWh Model S is 294 miles.

Agreed - At 70 on a motorway, I reckon 3.5 miles per KWh is a decent estimate - driving carefully. That would be 57 kW. I can do much better at 60, but of course thats a change of behaviour.

The i3 REx will - at best - hold the charge level while driving, rather than deplete it. It won't recharge it while driving.

Yes, at 70 it just about holds charge. But when you do stop, it's very quick to 'recharge' the little motorbike engine. And by this time you'll have 200 miles under you maybe?

Whilst the Mitsubishi PHEV can charge or just maintain battery level.

That's a real stretch of 'electric car' (2.0l petrol engine) and if you walked into a Mitsubishi dealership and told them you regularly drive 400 miles, THEY would tell you to buy the diesel.

As a low-use second vehicle, sure. But just replacing low-use second vehicles is not going to make any meaningful impact on emissions.

Disagree. An electric car, right now, can be a HIGH use second vehicle. All those short journeys add up. Everyone's different, but my 'second' car now does far more miles than my 'first' car.

Ranges are starting to become workable in the near future - 200 miles+ starts to become useful.

200 miles is extremely useful. Loads of people do this mileage in one go very rarely.

But even then... that simply moves the problem to elsewhere.

IT DOESN'T, or at the very least, the problem gets smaller. Driving an electric car uses less energy, mile for mile, than a petrol or diesel. That energy can come from a power plant, or from renewable. Even if it's from a power plant, that's less fossil fuel being dug up for each journey.

That problem is getting worse, not better - again, without EVs.

So the problem exists without them. Either way, National Grid needs to sort it out, and they seem pretty relaxed about it.

(Outlander) 70 miles on electricity (@70mph, apparently),

Absolutely not! 'up to' 30 miles, and not at 70 either!

Towing - it's a non starter for me. Hey, we've already started, and no-one is towing generators or batteries around! People are complaining about the faff of sitting at a charger for 30 mins during a journey - that's far less faff than messing around with trailers!

silverwhistle

AdrianC wrote: »

<scratches head> But you can have a big luxury plug-in hybrid or electric car, or you can have a big luxury internal combustion car.

I should have made myself clearer. I'd go for a bottom-end, no frills electric or PEH over a luxury ICE for the same money.

As a low-use second vehicle, sure. But just replacing low-use second vehicles is not going to make any meaningful impact on emissions.

It's exactly the high use vehicles in urban environments that we're talking about. Someone who is a regular 30/40 mile each way commuter is ideally placed to benefit from an EV. If you look at the accounts of people who have EVs it's exactly those who tend to have them, and in families with two cars often the ICE is kept for occasional long trips, but low usage on an annual basis. It's far from greenwash.

Of course range is an issue, but that is changing; the attitudes of the manufacturers and public are as well. As you point out, manufacturers are currently implementing loan schemes with ICE, and that is to meet _today's_ issue. I really wouldn't like to speculate on the situation in 5 years time, on range, on market penetration and on infrastructure.

But even then... that simply moves the problem to elsewhere. And that elsewhere is rapidly becoming the generation and transmission realities.

I thought you were only talking about trailers..

But it's all change there as well. One of the things that strikes me as amusing are the anti-RE (and here we're mainly talking wind and PV) people going on about the surpluses we'll have at certain times from an excess of that power (sunny summer afternoons, windy nights etc.). As we increase RE we'll need to implement solutions so that we use it. EVs are ideally placed to mop up cheaper power when it's available (even forgetting the storage potential, which I think is a lot further into the future).

Of course there are issues, but there are many solutions. None of which are technically insurmountable. Many years ago as a systems analyst on the simple stuff I worked on I was not only expected to identify issues but solutions as well. The same process also applied to my lesson plans when I moved into teaching.

I get a bit weary of the 'ah, but' brigade, as it often comes over as a reason for not doing anything at all.