Electric cars

Wig

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Where will this hydrogen come from?

The same place that batteries are charged from - energy.

The point being that batteries are not viable

* They weigh a lot
* They cost a lot
* They deteriorate
* They have a high manufacturing footprint in materials
* They limit your driving range and take ages to recharge assuming you can find a charging point

Hydrogen on the other hand is as easy as filling up with LPG. And does not limit your range if it were available everywhere.

You're using the same source - energy - but you are utilising it more efficiently through hydrogen, the cars do not have to carry all the weight of battery and there is no manufacture of battery required for the billions of cars

Gloomendoom

Car_54 wrote: »

So there are two chargers in a city of 2.2 million, and 1,500 miles to the nearest major city.

The two chargers are actually quite far apart. About two hours drive.

I actually reckon that the Perth area is ideally suited to EVs. The vast majority of car journeys are well within the range of the cheaper offerings. Overloading the grid would be the biggest issue, as it is virtually everywhere else.

Gloomendoom

Wig wrote: »

The same place that batteries are charged from - energy.

The point being that batteries are not viable

* They weigh a lot
* They cost a lot
* They deteriorate
* They have a high manufacturing footprint in materials

The same criticisms could be levelled at fuel cell technology.

Plus, when you also factor in the overall inefficiencies of converting electricity to hydrogen (even assuming that you aren’t suggesting that the current method of methane reformation is used) and then the hydrogen back to electricity, hydrogen doesn’t look quite so attractive. It isn’t particularly easy to transport or store either.

Martyn1981

Car_54 wrote: »

I suspect that's wildly optimistic, to say the least. A quick look at what demographic data I can find suggests that a majority of the population lives in flats.

If we assume (generously) that 1 million live in the type of houses where charging is practicable, it is also reasonable to assume that the average household in those types of dwelling is well over two persons. If it's as low as 3 (again generous) then your 1 million potential charging points come down to one third of a million.

Hiya, when I checked yesterday I used the census data for the City of Perth, and that had occupation average as less than 1.9 per household. If that doesn't represent Perth as a whole, then fine, can you provide me with a better link please.

[Edit - this link suggests that the vast majority of Perth residences are not flats, so the exact opposite of what you've stated(!) in fact WA has a lower percentage of medium to high density properties than Australia as a whole. Also that WA has approx 1m private dwellings. M.]

Also, please don't use the 'flats' excuse for criticism of EV's, it's getting a bit old and lame now. Chargers can be placed on road sides, parking spaces, shops, work places etc etc.

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

I've not seen any December production figures. But November was 345 cars, for a total of 712 in the four months since the first batch of 30 at the end of July. That's half a day's production at the rate being aimed at...

To increase the monthly production to 4,300 - more than twelvefold - in one go? Yeh, good luck with that... It's possible. Is it likely? No.

The rumours for December are that production has ramped significantly, and that by year end it might be 5,000 M3's.

AdrianC wrote: »

I already said "under-promise, then over-deliver". Not the other way round.

Yes, I did chuckle at that comment. It's that appalling old and dare I say pathetic philosophy that has allowed Tesla to steal a march on the car industry.

Whilst the industry has stood back and said 'that's not possible', Tesla have simply gotten on and done it. So the old 'thinkers' are now stuck simply pointing out that Tesla often fails to reach it's self imposed 'impossible' targets, by a few months or a year, ignoring the fact that they are still years ahead of the competition.

Perhaps a better saying is 'to aim for the stars, even if you fail, you'll still reach the Moon'.

Speaking of which, Elon's other companies The Boring Company and SpaceX are already doing what 'the experts' said couldn't be done.

Look at SpaceX, they have 33% of the 2017 launch market and 50% of the 2018 market, despite only being about 10yrs old. They are the cheapest launch company by far due to the re-useable nature of their kit, something which 'the experts' would have us believe is impossible.

AdrianC wrote: »

...while I think you're blind to reality because of your fanboi religious fervour to worship at the altar of St Elon.

Never thought of myself as as a religous fanboi of Tesla, I was just trying to correct all of the false misinformation and negative nonsense being posted on here such as tarambor's battery weight 'calculations'.

EV's are pretty much unstoppable now.

AdrianC wrote: »

That half million cars per year pretty much IS the target 10k/wk Model 3s - ignoring the S and X. They've been averaging around 14k S and 11k X over the last few quarters - about 100k/yr between them. So getting 2018 to 500k is going to require the 10k/wk figure pretty much solidly from the start of Q2 - which isn't going to happen, given that half that is now pushed back to the very end of Q1 and no date's being given for the full whack. Or a massive ramp for the S (now five years old, so more likely to go the other way) and the X (unlikely, now it's settled into the market with a year of production behind it).

No idea what your point is here. Are you still trying to judge a car and car company against their old production targets?

I'll judge them on their cars, sales orders and market penetration. And of course the massive advantage that they have due to their already established charger network.

AdrianC

Martyn1981 wrote: »

And of course the massive advantage that they have due to their already established charger network.

Yes, that's been a good loss-leader, which they're starting to monetise. I wonder whether it'll be anything but a huge cost, long-term?

Martyn1981

Tarambor wrote: »

As I said, I made them based on the Tesla S because at the time there was no information other than "we're making a semi."

That doesn't explain why you then doubled the weight of the batteries as your calculations don't match the Tesla S data?

Tarambor wrote: »

But we don't run at that in the UK, we run at 97,000lb. 80,000lb or 36 metric tonnes would be considered a quite light load.

Great news, so the tractor weight in the UK is an even smaller percentage of the gross weight, so any extra tractor weight from the Tesla semi will have a smaller percentage impact.

Also sounds perfect for the Tesla truck power, since it'll be able to 'drive like a diesel' even with 2 of its 4 motors out, so already able to cope with higher weights.

Tarambor wrote: »

But still a hell of a lot more than the engine, gearbox and 450 litres of diesel in the lorry I drive. At 4800kg that's 2/3 of the GVW of the tractor unit.

But you still have to remove the weight of the engine, transmission, cooling, intake and exhaust systems.

Tarambor wrote: »

There is currently no way a Tesla truck is going to weigh even anywhere near close to that of a conventional truck, a lesson Tesla are about to learn. Tesla are also going to learn that load capacity is extremely high up on the list to the point that we don't even carry spare tyres any more to cut down on weight.

I suspect Tesla are aware of the weight issue, and the fact that most trucks don't run at max weight, but max volume. I suspect the companies ordering the trucks are also aware of this.

Tarambor wrote: »

Until something can be done in regards to power density in batteries Tesla's trucks are only going to appeal to those where they cube out so for lightweight but high volume loads and for relatively local journeys which is why UPS have signed up.

Sounds good to me, and probably explains why they have so many pre-orders already.

Regarding 'local journeys' are you not aware that Tesla Mega chargers will provide 80% charge in 30 mins, so an additional 240 miles for the 300 mile truck and 400 miles for the 500 mile truck. Don't UK drivers also have to stop, like the US drivers?


Quick question, I've been told that the US trucks average about 6 miles per gallon (US gall), is that roughly the same for UK trucks, say 7.5 miles per gallon (UK gall)?

If so, then fuel savings alone over 60,000 miles per year will be around £30k. Giving a 2yr pay back on the extra capital cost. Sounds good.

[I may have overpriced the leccy as I've based it on 2kWh per mile, but that's at 80,000lb, so not allowing for lower weight or empty loads, and also at 12p/kWh.]

Martyn1981

Wig wrote: »

I won't consider an EV until there are as many filling stations in the UK for hydrogen as there are now for LPG.

I consider batteries to be a waste of time, the only logical successor to petrol will be hydrogen.

Even Toyota are now starting to give up on H2.

Martyn1981

Wig wrote: »

The same place that batteries are charged from - energy.

The point being that batteries are not viable

* They weigh a lot
* They cost a lot
* They deteriorate
* They have a high manufacturing footprint in materials
* They limit your driving range and take ages to recharge assuming you can find a charging point

Hydrogen on the other hand is as easy as filling up with LPG. And does not limit your range if it were available everywhere.

You're using the same source - energy - but you are utilising it more efficiently through hydrogen, the cars do not have to carry all the weight of battery and there is no manufacture of battery required for the billions of cars

You do appreciate that a H2 fuel cell car is actually a battery EV with an added fuel cell and hydrogen tank, it's just that the battery is smaller. So you are doubling up on the technology and loosing a lot of leccy efficiency in the process.

However, for heavy freight, it may well be an option in 20yrs or so, if we have a lot of excess generation and choose P2G (power to gas) as a form of compact storage.

AdrianC

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Regarding 'local journeys' are you not aware that Tesla Mega chargers will provide 80% charge in 30 mins, so an additional 240 miles for the 300 mile truck and 400 miles for the 500 mile truck. Don't UK drivers also have to stop, like the US drivers?]

At 2kWh per mile, 400 mile range is 800kWh.
In 30 min, that's 1.6MWh charge rate.
At the same 480v that the current Superchargers use, it'd be nearly 3,500A.
Even at 11kV grid voltage, that's 150A.

Without calculating charging losses. Or heat dissipation.

Who's man-handling those cables about...?
How many charging points do you foresee at one services?