The big fat Electric Vehicle bashing thread.

Herzlos

Ah, I get what you mean. If there's enough demand for overnight charging, then it might reach parity with the daytime peak and therefore stop being off-peak with excess capacity?

However, as soon as that happens and you get rid of the peak/off peak, people will start charging during the day and thus creating a peak/off peak again so you'd still want to incentivize EV users to recharge overnight.

With a smart enough grid, you could provide any surplus generation to EV's at any time of the day.

Ibrahim5

And EVs could supply the grid when demand was high. Sorry if it's already been said. No time to check 16 pages.

Ergates

Petriix said:
Those that do such long journeys will need to do something different rather than assuming the current paradigm will remain viable.

I think this point touches on something fundamental about the whole debate.  People are so used to doing things (in this case, traveling) in a particular way that they've become entrenched - "This is the way we've always done it*" has become "This is the only way to do it".  But the simple truth of the matter is we *can't* keep doing things the way we've been doing them - it's simply not an option any more.   Switching to electric vehicles is our best (only viable) option to keep as much of the "old way" as possible, but it's still not going to end up exactly the same and if we keep trying to do things the old way in the new world they're just not going to work.   So - you want to drive 400 miles without stopping to recharge?   Tough, you can't (yet) - find a different way.


A good recent example of this was working from home.   Before 2020, most companies were reluctant to let people work from home.  People were coming up with all sorts of reasons why it'd never work, why it would be a disaster - but most of them boiled down to "Working in an office is the way we've always done it", but when it *had* to happen it did and it worked.  Yes there were teething problems, and yes it took some getting used to and yes it doesn't suit everybody (but neither does working in an office), but on the whole it was fine and certainly wasn't the disaster people were predicting.  In fact, now many workers and many companies say they prefer it this way and aren't returning to offices.   The pandemic showed us that, if we need to, we *can* change - we need a similar shift in attitude to travel (and energy use in general).


* "always" here means the last 40-50 years.

Herzlos

Absolutely. At some point you couldn't travel 200 miles without stopping with a petrol car either, and now it's completely normal.

Martyn1981

Ergates said:

Petriix said:
Those that do such long journeys will need to do something different rather than assuming the current paradigm will remain viable.

   So - you want to drive 400 miles without stopping to recharge?   Tough, you can't (yet) - find a different way.

Totally agree with everything you said, but can I add to the above comment - There are actually a couple of models that can do this, the Lucid Air (500) and the Tesla S (400), however these are very, very expensive BEV's. Loads of models that can do ~300 miles, but still not cheap.

But more importantly, as you state 'without stopping to recharge' - We've all been told for years that stopping for a short break every 2 to 3 hours is a good, even necessary safety measure. Chatting with other EV owners, on this forum, other UK forums, and comment sections of articles largely populated by Americans, around 250 miles of range seems to be the sweet spot, and I'd agree.

More range than that adds cost (to buy), and will also add a small cost to operation from added weight. 250 mile range, should give 200miles even in poor weather and slightly faster than 70mph motorway driving. So that gives you about 3hrs of driving when you start of, if you want, then say a short break every 2hrs, since ultrafast chargers can add a lot of range in a short time, especially if the battery is low. Two of the most commonly sold BEV's in the UK, the Tesla models 3 and Y, can charge at about 250kW's (1,000mph) up to about 30%, and then 200kW's past 50%, and whilst you aim to arrive low (not zero) 0-80% would be around 25mins, 10-70% perhaps 15mins.

None of this is perfect yet, but I'd suggest that solutions are arriving faster than problems, and the current vehicles, whilst still very expensive, are actually already suitable (in terms of range and charging speeds). But as you say, if a small number of edge cases really need to do 400+ miles without stopping, then tough, not yet. [Wish I had a 400 mile bladder!]

For me, the biggest current problem, which has been raised by some on here concerned about BEV viability in the UK, is that our charging infrastructure is behind the curve. I also agree that (to me) it looks like BEV's are growing faster than the attempts to ramp up new deployments. So the UK is behind the curve, and I think falling further behind, as BEV sales grow faster than most expected. I don't see this as a long term problem, since so many solutions exist, and more will be developed over time, but sadly I suspect that the UK will do what it usually does, and make this issue as painful as possible, rather than biting the bullet and getting ahead of the curve. [But, at least millions of owners have the opportunity to charge at home, which I suspect is many more than have a petrol station at their property, but they still managed.]

Just a comment as someone mentioned street parking (I think) in London. I have a forum friend in London who lives on a major road (4 lanes total), terrace properties. There is parking, perpendicular to the pavement, but as it's a main route the pavement is about three metres wide. He has owned a BEV since late 2019, charges at work and the local Tesco's. He has charged a few times with a granny cable across the pavement, with mats over the cable (this was when TOU (time of use) tariffs were negative and he was being paid about 10p/kWh, ahhh the good old days) but it's a bit (very) naughty. However, consideration is now being given by the Gov for a simple if not elegant solution, of putting groves into the pavement for cables. Don't know if this will succeed, but at least it's another potential solution/aid.

Grumpy_chap

Ergates said:

So - you want to drive 400 miles without stopping to recharge?   Tough, you can't (yet) - find a different way.

We are at, or very close to that.  EVs can achieve around 4 miles / kWh (real world) and 100 kWh (or very near to 100 kWh) batteries are available.  So, range of 400 miles is possible.

I actually think the long journey (in one direction) in the EV is easier than the longish return journey.  If I am travelling 200 or 300 miles, I need to stop part way to recharge myself so it is simple enough to recharge the car at the same time.  Assuming I am using primary routes, infrastructure is already there to support that.  There is no reason why that recharge needs to increase overall journey time.

The more challenging journey is a long commute.  Pre-COVID I was doing 70 mile each way commute and no sensible work place charging available.  An "affordable" EV (MG ZS or equivalent) at that time was quoting around 175 mile range.  With adjustments for real world, that was too marginal and needing to stop to charge on one route would add considerable percentage increase to the overall journey time.

IF I were to return to the same office now, the range of cars available mean that an EV is becoming an easier option.  MG5 quotes 250 mile range.  Nissan Leaf 239 miles.  Allowing for real world variances, the return commute will still be viable.  For a longer journey, near 200 miles on the road is over 3 hours so I need to stop anyway.  The edge cases where an EV is not available are becoming remote.

The cost to enter is still a challenge as, frankly, £28k - £30k for an "affordable" EV against the alternative £30k for a "premium compact exec" does set a desirability challenge.  The EV will be cheaper to run overall but still fails to match the showroom appeal.

As for range - it would seem as though manufacturers do not consider range a major concern.  All the EV's being put out seem to be heavily weighted to big, heavy, un-aerodynamic over-sized lumps.  If range was a concern for manufacturers, an EV version of the regular car would be more readily available.  I'd actually prefer to be able to choose an Electric Mondeo rather than a Mustang Mach-E.  The big car has quoted 379 mile range - I'm sure that the same car presented as a regular car would top 400 mile range.

As battery range is being eroded as a blocker, and price gap is closing, the next challenge is the vehicle choice so I can have the car I want but it just happens to be electric.  That really needs to be the destination the manufacturers work to - a car "just happens" to be electric rather than a "big deal" that the car is electric. 

Manufacturers currently produce cars (ICE) and try to retrofit an EV adaption (which then ends up compromised).  The approach needs to be reversed so that the car is designed as an EV and the ICE is retrofitted for the remaining shrinking ICE market and the compromised adaption is the ICE. 

Ergates

Benny2020 said:

But Germany will be powering their EVs with coal.

Missed this earlier:    Even if fossil fuels are used to generate the electricity, BEVs are still cleaner because power stations are a lot more efficient than ICEs  (because they don't have to be light weight and moveable).

Obviously it is better if the power source is renewable

Benny2020

Technically coal is renewable.

Grumpy_chap

Ergates said:

Benny2020 said:

But Germany will be powering their EVs with coal.

Missed this earlier:    Even if fossil fuels are used to generate the electricity, BEVs are still cleaner because power stations are a lot more efficient than ICEs  (because they don't have to be light weight and moveable).

Obviously it is better if the power source is renewable

An ICE is about 1.2 miles per kWh.  Diesel car at 60 mpg and 1 gallon diesel is about 50 kWh.

An EV is about 4 miles per kWh.  Three time as efficient.

How many kWh of fossil fuel go into a power station to generate 1 kWh of electricity at the plug?

TooManyPoints

 "Working in an office is the way we've always done it", but when it *had* to happen it did and it worked. 

No it didn't and it still doesn't. It was an emergency stop-gap measure that should have had a defined end date (or at least an end determined by the progress of the pandemic). Anybody who has had to deal with any organisation in the last two years -  whether government or private - will tell you of the problems they have had when trying to have their affairs dealt with. Tales of the DVLA and the Passport Office are the stuff of legend. Only last week I eventually got through to a large commercial organisation after waiting about 40 minutes to speak to somebody. After a couple of minutes the agent had to ask me to hold on because it had begun to rain and she needed to get the washing in. Sorry, that's not the description of something that works.

In fact, now many workers and many companies say they prefer it this way and aren't returning to offices.

I dare say they do. But nobody seems to have asked their customers what they would prefer.

Since managers and directors seem to have lost the will to manage and direct their staff, WFH will blunder along, together with all the adverse effects it has on the businesses concerned, their customers and the economy in general. Similarly, so will EVs. Both will contribute quite nicely to the UK's economic decline.

Technically coal is renewable.

Indeed it is. As I mentioned earlier, even more renewable than that is felling thousands of acres of mature trees, processing them in huge, energy hungry plants and shipping them, usually by diesel powered ship, 5,000 miles to be burned in Drax power station. And the fact that people accept that speaks volumes about the argument in favour of "renewable" energy.