Electric cars

RHemmings

NigeWick wrote: »

Battery costs are coming down all the time and are likely to hit $100 per kWh perhaps next year. Once they are that level electric vehicles should be cheaper to buy than fossil burning ones without subsidies.

That would be amazing.

iolanthe07 wrote: »

My Leaf gets a solid 130 even in the winter rain.

That is excellent. Do you have to drive like a vicar on valium to attain this, and does it include having the heating on?

And is this the 30kw/hr Leaf, or the 24kw/hr?

[Deleted User]

iolanthe07 wrote: »

My Leaf gets a solid 130 even in the winter rain.

That is excellent. Do you have to drive like a vicar on valium to attain this, and does it include having the heating on?

Aye, With bum cheeks clenched


In my city car I still get about 130 miles when the low fuel warning light comes on...


Cheers

almillar

Eletric cars a fundamental flaw is the batteries when they go, it will cost at least 10k to repalce

Remember to compare the cost of maintaining a petrol/diesel car over all the miles the battery has covered, and also remember that engines break too!

I understand that but the Renault Zoe does not charge as fast as the Nissan Leaf, and, the 41kWh version Zoe has two charging speeds. And yes, I do know that the Leaf has a 24kWh or 30kWh battery. Renault quote an hour to get to 80% on a rapid charger for the swifter charging of the two.

And what do Nissan quote for the 2 Leafs (24kWh and 30kWh)? There are many reasons to choose between an Leaf and Zoe. Charging speeds is not one of them. 43kW vs 50kW isn't enough of a difference, and again, it ignores that the Zoe doesn't slow down as much near the top. Charge them both for an hour and see what happens.
Different story if you compare to the newer, in house Renault motor which only charges at 22kW, which I have, but you wouldn't buy a Leaf instead of that, if it was a limiting factor - you'd buy a 43kW Zoe! It depends on the chargers around you. I've got 100+ chargers on NI that will charge my car at 22kW. In the same area, there are 14 that will charge the Leaf at 50.

And is this the 30kw/hr Leaf, or the 24kw/hr?

It's got to be the 30kWh one. 'Top' range of the 24 would be 100 miles.

Strider590

NigeWick wrote: »

Absolutely.

One of the problems I have with fossil, and especially nuclear generation is the possibility of disaster. Either in the form of a failure of the generator or some form of terrorist action/cyber mischief. One would not get that with solar and batteries in every home/shop/factory/workplace backed up by wind & solar with larger battery backup. By having localised generation and storage it would negate a lot of problems. With solar roof tiles/slates coming on the market along with cheaper batteries this sort of system makes sense to me.

As I get older, the "greener" I get, especially with regards to energy generation and agriculture as I want a better world to live on for my grandchildren.

Solar and even wind power are just pointless in the UK, we simply don't get strong enough sunlight or wind to make them viable on most of the main land.

Even in Australia, where the sun is exponentially stronger than in the UK and where they get that sun most of the year, yet solar power is just something you do not see.

The reason we push for it so much in the UK is because people in govt have big private investments and vested interests in the renewable energies sector. They bought in when it was cheap and they created a market for it.

I'm an electronics/electrical engineer, i've done many solar projects and if you could speak to the engineers working in the sector (on their own away from marketing people) they'd tell you it's all BS.

The placed I last worked at, their customers wanted them to use solar panels to power wireless CCTV systems, but they soon changed tune when we pointed out the battery cost versus replaceable alkaline battery packs AND the costs required for engineers to go out and clean the solar panels every 6 months as opposed to simply plugging in a new battery every 2 years.

Here's what people hate about fossil fuels..... the images the media feed us..... But did you know that all that "smoke" is coming from the cooling towers and is actually just water/steam?



Nuclear power is actually incredibly safe, 95% of what you think you know, is all fear mongering from people who don't have a clue, the media and James Bond films.

Bringing this back around to the subject at hand, did you know that it's possible to make atomic batteries from the non-harmful/radioactive isotopes in nuclear waste? We could power a car for 50 years or more using just one atomic battery.
Ask yourself why we don't do that.

AdrianC

Strider590 wrote: »

Solar and even wind power are just pointless in the UK, we simply don't get strong enough sunlight or wind to make them viable on most of the main land.

Odd, then, that 9.3% of the UK's electricity is being generated by wind as I type this... Plus 2.7% solar (on a miserable grey misty January day), 0.7% hydro, and 4.5% biomass. I make that a total of 17.2% of our electricity demands being currently met by renewables.

(I'm not including pumped, because that's a short-term in-and-out demand-smoother, rather than generation.)

To put that into perspective, coal is currently 18.6%, and nuclear 16.6%, and the UK is currently a net exporter of electricity.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Here's what people hate about fossil fuels..... the images the media feed us..... But did you know that all that "smoke" is coming from the cooling towers and is actually just water/steam?

A lot of it is steam from the cooling towers, but coal certainly doesn't burn smokeless, so some of that IS from the coal. B'sides, not all combustion emissions are visible.

Strider590

AdrianC wrote: »

Odd, then, that 9.3% of the UK's electricity is being generated by wind as I type this... Plus 2.7% solar (on a miserable grey misty January day), 0.7% hydro, and 4.5% biomass. I make that a total of 17.2% of our electricity demands being currently met by renewables.

(I'm not including pumped, because that's a short-term in-and-out demand-smoother, rather than generation.)

To put that into perspective, coal is currently 18.6%, and nuclear 16.6%, and the UK is currently a net exporter of electricity.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

It's pointless because it's not economically viable, the net costs grossly outweigh the benefits, yet we're still wasting time and resources on it.

AdrianC wrote: »

A lot of it is steam from the cooling towers, but coal certainly doesn't burn smokeless, so some of that IS from the coal. B'sides, not all combustion emissions are visible.

Of course, but do you think the emissions are anywhere near what they were 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago? They've got all sorts of filtration systems, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if they filtered the emissions through water, producing carbon rich water (and carbon is the building block of every life on this planet).

AdrianC

Strider590 wrote: »

It's pointless because it's not economically viable, the net costs grossly outweigh the benefits, yet we're still wasting time and resources on it.

That depends on if you view the only difference between fossil and renewable generation as being a financial one.

scaredofdebt

Sales of EVs have approximately doubled year on year since 2011, so if you extrapolate those figures you will see EVs outselling ICE cars in the UK by 2020/2021.

The technology isn't quite good enough for me yet but it will be based on current rates of development in around the same time-frame, same for a lot of people.

It depends on how the relative costs pan out though, the exchequer will have to replace all that lost tax revenue from fuel sales, duty etc from somewhere so presumably they will then go after the EV owning motorist.

andrewf75

AdrianC wrote: »

That depends on if you view the only difference between fossil and renewable generation as being a financial one.

and how long term you look

the viability of solar and wind in the UK is not something I am qualified to comment on, but we clearly need to invest in some form of renewable. Tidal would seem to make sense in the UK.

AdrianC

Strider590 wrote: »

Of course, but do you think the emissions are anywhere near what they were 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago? They've got all sorts of filtration systems, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if they filtered the emissions through water, producing carbon rich water (and carbon is the building block of every life on this planet).

Mmm. The experiments with large-scale carbon capture and storage worked so well, didn't they? Great value.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34943034
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-38687835