• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Biden To Pitch EV Plan [Electric vehicle discussion]

shin_getter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
323
Reaction score
307
Global warming is rather overrated and is a big deal because of crazy politics. The impact of it is much smaller than a major historical war or perhaps even cov-19 (big error bars all over the place) to take place over the next century and no actor is actually giving up much of anything to fight it.

*why doesn't someone spread a "serious" pitch in for India to invade the ME to induce a oil crisis to 'save themselves' as being a tropical nation with "much to lose".... this category of troll sounds fun in the right places*

That said, it is nonetheless good and proper to correct for externalities whenever practical. A universal carbon tax priced at the expect global impact (not that high per ton) would make good sense, so that high value uses can continue while pollution without good cause gets stopped. Swap this tax for "distortionary" taxes like income and one wouldn't have to rescale government either.
---------------
Some people just think in religious, binary ways emphasizing moral purity and they push totalitarianism in everything, and they have taken up the green issues and push for typical totalizing control, like every issue taken up by those people. The notion that someone can do something they don't like is unacceptable regardless of everything else. I should note however, the crazies are not successful in general. Instead, their success comes up when they have powerful allies for other reasons, like when the idea they are pushing is not completely insane by complete accident! No need to throw an idea out because crazy people support it, crazy people's beliefs are effectively random and irrelevant factor to judge an idea on.

There is a successful push for EV tech at this point because it is (barely) good enough and stakeholders outside the crazies have something to gain. Ultimately rural populations have fewer votes and not all that much money, while oil is taking such a hammering (coal is literally dead, 99% drop in market value in past 10 years) that everyone in it is looking for exit strategies instead of spending effort for long term political position.

Insufficient. Minimum acceptable: 250 miles on one fill/charge; minimum range 500 miles per day. Time required to refill or recharge cannot exceed 15 minutes.

He has to drive 75 miles to school, then fifty miles to work, then 100 miles home. Bonus: add another 60 miles to pick up/drop off girlfriend.
Well, wait for Aptera to deliver I guess. Stuff a battery into those hyper-efficient solar racers. It will be a long time until these gets a volume ramp and show up in the 2nd hand market at significant markdown though, on the other hand 2030+ is still a whiles off.

Ultimately long range, low cost electrical vehicles are a small market that is not profitable in a time of battery shortages, that is why vehicles for this purpose is not pursued by major players.

If you go to mid market, a $45k 2021 Hyundai SUV could to 15~12mile/minute recharge (it is a curve) with suitable fast charge in place.

Really need a few more battery cost drop cycles to reach parity in this domain. But it should be clear that this is not just plain unworkable. There is a billion things governments wastes people's money (like one third of the stuff in the main forums) on, what can I say~~

That will be the likeliest outcome of current trends. There are seven and a half billion people trying to achieve the quality of life of three quarters of a billion westerners, and the only way they have a hope in hell of doing so is with a *vast* expansion of energy generation.... Build all the wind turbines and solar panels you like - and I certainly support that - .... *and* shut down all the coal and gas powerplants and not build new nuclear plants, you're outta your friggen' mind.
Those planning power generation have a serious problem at this point. The issue isn't solar/battery costs today, which is enough to dominate day time generation, but that cost curves over time are drawn in log charts.

For a multi-decade asset like power plants the future market need to be known, while the solar+battery cost drop continue for 5 years and you'd break even, run in 10 years you'd be dead broke and run it 20 years we'd be looking at another industrial revolution in terms of cost of energy.

It is pretty dangerous to step in front of a exponential curve and people in the know is not going to really push back especially with their own money. If the development curves for those technology is clearly slowing with hard constraints shown, it would be reasonable to plan another course of action. The correct course of action is simply unknown at the moment and waiting it out is the safe move.

It is not like green/gaia people could win fights without intrinsic weakness in their "opponents". Ask how has the voluntary human extinction movement work out. Alternatively ask how successful they are in stopping CCP, or air travel or globalized shipping or increase in motor vehicle sizes.
 
Last edited:

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
366
Reaction score
368
Lots of ranting and raving about green agendas, political manoeuvring, billionaire conspiracies etc. Its beginning to make my eyes bleed.

Remove the political black and white, accusations of extremism on both sides, conspiracies etc. and what we are left with is ever improving technology that delivering unexpected benefits as well as unexpected problems. Predictions that electric cars would be useless if the power was cut proved false as many owners also had solar cells and batteries fitted to their homes while service stations shut because, shock horror, bowsers need electricity. In Australia home solar feeding into the grid is destabilising the network in some areas due to infrastructure limitations, while the big batteries have proved exceptional at stabilising the networks and reacting so much faster than back up generators that load sheading is now often avoided in Australia.

Getting a bit annoyed at the politicking on technical matters, I think we need a little more rationality here, just because the tech is supported by people whose politics you don't like, doesn't mean that it doesn't work and isn't worth pursuing.
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
538
Reaction score
304
Nearly all projects bringing electricity to the poorer countries, rely on solar and batteries, usually lead acid, on price and ability to last a long time, and be repaired piecemeal. There are some huge projects going on at the moment. petrol/diesel generators are not going to do this, to expensive to buy, and run.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,055
Reaction score
948
The rest of the world is going electric, Ford, and America, either gets with the program, or loses its foreign markets within the next decade
It's stupid. They shouldn't do it.
Explain why it's stupid. Do so without referencing any car sites.

In any case, most of the industrialized world is trying hard to eliminate fossil fuel use for some excellent reasons, not least of which is the trillions (as in 1,000,000,000,000) of dollars in increases to weather-related damages expected by those bastions of left-wing lunacy, insurance companies.

----

As an aside, roads and suburbs are pretty much exclusively the result of massive government expenditures. Those suburbs and roads that all the "freedom-loving petrol heads" love are, at their base, completely socialist constructs.
Why would anyone follow the stupid suggestion that they reference something without certain sites? What makes you think you can control other people's response in favour of your views?

Battery electric is a one trick pony and we NEED to check every route to improve that we can. Think. Who benefits from BE as a solitary route of change and WHY are they so determined to deny the other routes to a clean future. Seems like you and others WANT this short sighted hedonistic approach to be forced on us which a lot of us will resist.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Getting a bit annoyed at the politicking on technical matters, I think we need a little more rationality here, just because the tech is supported by people whose politics you don't like, doesn't mean that it doesn't work and isn't worth pursuing.

The issue is... if the batteries and solar panels and electric cars were being studied, manufactured and put out into the market on their own merits, nobody would have a problem. Where the problem comes in is that these technologies, which do *not* equal current technologies, are being proposed prematurely to replace current system by political and legal fiat.

It seems that a lot of people have problems with being told what to do. What's more, being told that they will be mandated to spend a lot more to be able to do a lot less. Not because there's no alternative, but because someone unaccountable and far away has simply decided that that's the way it shall be.

And of course,a lot of people get off on telling other people how to live. These worldviews seem to conflict slightly.
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
538
Reaction score
304
Home solar, even in europe is becoming a bit of a no-brainer, a small battery makes sense. EV's need a bit more work, but for a lot of people, who stay local they are perfect, and the running costs usually balance the slightly higher purchase cost.

I dont think anyone will be forced to give up petrol, but your going to have to be prepared to pay a lot more for it, as it becomes less in demand, and less common.

EV charging is improving all the time, the new 800V systems can charge in less than an hour, matched to real ranges of 250 miles, you can charge in a toilet/coffee stop, do a few emails and move on. Your day will be the same length, just a bit different in organisation.
 

shedofdread

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
485
Reaction score
144
By way of confession; I am a 'dyed in the wool' petrol-head and I do have a very small collection of interesting, fairly rapid but sadly, not valuable cars. I have no dogmatic objection to electric power (efficiency, max torque exactly where you want it, reliability etc etc). I do however have a number of problems with the direction things are going in -

At work, we've been using batteries based on lithium chemistry since the mid 2000s and whilst I've seen discharge rates rise quite a bit, energy density hasn't risen by much at all. For a small business, to buy significant numbers of these batteries isn't a trivial purchase so we look after them well (charge at a max of 1C, store correctly, don't over discharge etc) but they simply do not last. According to the logs, the oldest we have is now just over 6 years old and is 'on its last legs'. Most don't get to that age and I can see EVs being written off because the replacement cost of the battery being more or roughly equivalent to the vehicles value. Hardly the greenest way forward or the most cost effective. This talk of them being re-purposed as energy stores doesn't sit well with experience.

The synthetic fuels (see Porsche's recent announcements) would appear to be great way to keep existing vehicles running but why isn't this gaining traction (pardon the pun)?

I would also echo the comments of others who object to being told what to do by those for whom science / engineering would appear to be a mystery. I live in a rural location and have no wish to forced into an urban 'existence'.

Governments would seem to want us to all move to EVs but show no sign of investing in the massive uplift in generating and power transmission capacity that will be required. Why?




(Ah... y'can't beat ranting online - makes one feel so much better about things ;) )
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,055
Reaction score
948
Petrol is a dinosaur. Endex. Plenty of other liquid fuels to burn in an ICE vehicle while demonstrating the same level of reduction in emissions as electric are HERE. Not a million years away with a paucity of charging stations.

What is the problem with the BE only clan?
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Governments would seem to want us to all move to EVs but show no sign of investing in the massive uplift in generating and power transmission capacity that will be required. Why?
Because if you eliminate cheap ways to travel, then you can control the populace more easily. If you make people move to EVs but don't make EVs actually practical, people are stuck. This nudges them into packing more densely into urban areas where people are far more dependent upon bureaucrats for *everything.*

Note that the Venn diagrams of "officials who tout EVs" and "officials who support a hundred thousand neighborhood-scale nuclear reactors" or even "officials who support a few dozen terawatt-class nuclear powerplants" or even "officials who support breeder reactors" do not overlap very much.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
I dont think anyone will be forced to give up petrol, but your going to have to be prepared to pay a lot more for it, as it becomes less in demand, and less common.
I have doubts about this. What, exactly, will wind turbine blades be made out of? TV's? Common household items? Government Issued Nutriloaf packaging? Hardly wood or metal... plastic. And plastic will either require low-cost fossil petrochemicals, or low cost synthetic petrochemicals. And if you've got the latter, there's no good reason to dispose of virtually every mobile machine on the planet.

If EV's make a serious dent in the gasolien market, that would seem to drive the price of gas *down.* The supply would remain high while the demand would be down. Basic economics would suggest a lowering of cost, to keep the interest in gas up if nothing else.

There are any number of videos on YouTube showing people all over the world building machines everywhere from "industrial scale and quality" to "third world jerry-rigged" that turn plastic and wood and garbage into diesel fuel. There's no reason to imagine that the internal combustion engine will go away until:
1) Big Brother mandates at the point of a gun
2) Batteries get *far* better and the planet starts crankign out nuclear reactors and SPS's at a vastly accelerated rate.
 

shedofdread

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
485
Reaction score
144
Governments would seem to want us to all move to EVs but show no sign of investing in the massive uplift in generating and power transmission capacity that will be required. Why?
Because if you eliminate cheap ways to travel, then you can control the populace more easily. If you make people move to EVs but don't make EVs actually practical, people are stuck. This nudges them into packing more densely into urban areas where people are far more dependent upon bureaucrats for *everything.*

Having met a VERY senior politician and thinking he seemed like a really decent chap but sadly no great intellect, I'm more inclined to believe the cock-up model vs the conspiracy one HOWEVER having sat through many briefings during which we were told the military of the future expects to undertake operations in ever larger urban environments, one has to wonder. ;)

Perhaps it's more likely these people haven't the technical knowledge to foresee issues and if they have, they know in 'x' years time, it'll be someone else's problem...?
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Perhaps it's more likely these people haven't the technical knowledge to foresee issues and if they have, they know in 'x' years time, it'll be someone else's problem...?
Politicians are generally very skilled individuals. But like any very skilled individual, their skills tend to be limited to one area. A politicians area of expertise? Getting elected. Actually thinking through technical issues? Not their area. "What is good for me *now*" seems to be about the limit. "What are the long-term results of this policy" is asking too much of many/most of them. hell, it's too much to ask of *most* people who can't, or at least won't, think more than one move down the line.

Sadly, the most malevolent of them seem to be the ones most willing to actually plan long term.
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
538
Reaction score
304
So much tin foil....

BEV's now, new are available at the £23K mark, just a couple of K more than the petrol/diesel models, i.e. Vauxhall/Opel Corsa, so they are coming within reach for new car buyers.

I dont know who is getting rid of cheap travel, the total cost to buy an EV and run it for say 5 years, inc the electricity is basically the same cost as a petrol car, with the petrol.

For those that dont buy new, you will have to wait longer, and manage the petrol availability issue, and the price.

Politicians, well yes, they plan as far as the next election, and party gangbang, so two things, can be pretty tough....
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,055
Reaction score
948
Actually the clean fuel will be available in the next year or so, charging stations for all your BEV's, When? Filling a tank with clean liquid fuel will take how long? Charging the BEV, how long? Getting the work force to work on public transport which cannot deal with the current load let alone predicted increases in demand if BEV's are enforced? Finding a way to allow residents of tower blocks to charge a BEV, how and when?

Will the batteries from all these BEV's you want are ditched, where will they go? The same place as the nuclear waste because that never went south did it? Do you know how much irradiated waste the French have 'dumped' in the English channel?
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
323
Reaction score
307
At work, we've been using batteries based on lithium chemistry since the mid 2000s and whilst I've seen discharge rates rise quite a bit, energy density hasn't risen by much at all. For a small business, to buy significant numbers of these batteries isn't a trivial purchase so we look after them well (charge at a max of 1C, store correctly, don't over discharge etc) but they simply do not last. According to the logs, the oldest we have is now just over 6 years old and is 'on its last legs'. Most don't get to that age and I can see EVs being written off because the replacement cost of the battery being more or roughly equivalent to the vehicles value.
The durability of batteries is dependent on a lot of factors from design to manufacturing to operating environment. Modern mid range+ EV have complicated battery management systems combined with heating/cooling systems for the battery to keep the battery operating at optimal conditions to minimize degradation. That said, not all cars have this especially some hybrids or low end models, and resell values reflects this.

Tesla, being the market leader with a old fleet has produced some data
Battery capacity is above 85% (on average) after 150,000-200,000 mile

Of course the other thing that has been talked about for a while is a million mile battery.

The battery itself is has always have been a big factor. Solid State/Silicon Anode battery that has been hyped a lot for improved energy density have historically had too poor of durability for a car. The recent "breakthroughs" being being reported involves developments that improve their durability (and how they do it is totally secret sause).

Ultimately it is just a trade off and the market would segment itself out.

The EV enthusiast can not have wars over V6 or V8s, but they can all have fights over details of battery chemistry (LIP! x% Cobolt! blah blah~)

The synthetic fuels (see Porsche's recent announcements) would appear to be great way to keep existing vehicles running but why isn't this gaining traction (pardon the pun)?
It is not like oil is actually running out. It is more like the synthetic fuels will be expensive to produce and scaling it would also be very expensive and does not satisfy the green type of voter at all. There just isn't enough advantages to convert into profit to push a coalition though.

Well, except when the corn lobby did it even though it was economically insane~

Governments would seem to want us to all move to EVs but show no sign of investing in the massive uplift in generating and power transmission capacity that will be required. Why?
Because if you eliminate cheap ways to travel, then you can control the populace more easily. If you make people move to EVs but don't make EVs actually practical, people are stuck. This nudges them into packing more densely into urban areas where people are far more dependent upon bureaucrats for *everything.*
I don't think the average bureaucrat cares about the long term power of the bureaucrat class over simple self interest. It is more like there is a sizable voter block that hates all the spooky stuff like nuclear, all industry, and "weird chemical gases that kills the earth!1!1one!1!!!!!!" and one can get elected by making noises. The same "group" demands things like urban living while nimby out attempts to build cities, demand renewables but nimby it out of their own backyards (but eye sore and mah property values!!!1!) and preaches anti-racism while living in the most segregated areas in the country~~
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,745
Reaction score
3,960
Do you know how much irradiated waste the French have 'dumped' in the English channel?

Common, the North Sea has long been Europe trash heap. I recently learned that thousands of tons of chemical weapons shells were dumped after WWI and nowadays are still there, slowly rusting in the sea bed and slowly poisoning it.

The british also dumped irradiated water from their nuke plants, and the Soviets in Murmansk and elsewhere...
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
538
Reaction score
304
At work, we've been using batteries based on lithium chemistry since the mid 2000s and whilst I've seen discharge rates rise quite a bit, energy density hasn't risen by much at all. For a small business, to buy significant numbers of these batteries isn't a trivial purchase so we look after them well (charge at a max of 1C, store correctly, don't over discharge etc) but they simply do not last. According to the logs, the oldest we have is now just over 6 years old and is 'on its last legs'. Most don't get to that age and I can see EVs being written off because the replacement cost of the battery being more or roughly equivalent to the vehicles value.
The durability of batteries is dependent on a lot of factors from design to manufacturing to operating environment. Modern mid range+ EV have complicated battery management systems combined with heating/cooling systems for the battery to keep the battery operating at optimal conditions to minimize degradation. That said, not all cars have this especially some hybrids or low end models, and resell values reflects this.

Tesla, being the market leader with a old fleet has produced some data
Battery capacity is above 85% (on average) after 150,000-200,000 mile

Of course the other thing that has been talked about for a while is a million mile battery.

The battery itself is has always have been a big factor. Solid State/Silicon Anode battery that has been hyped a lot for improved energy density have historically had too poor of durability for a car. The recent "breakthroughs" being being reported involves developments that improve their durability (and how they do it is totally secret sause).

Ultimately it is just a trade off and the market would segment itself out.

The EV enthusiast can not have wars over V6 or V8s, but they can all have fights over details of battery chemistry (LIP! x% Cobolt! blah blah~)

The synthetic fuels (see Porsche's recent announcements) would appear to be great way to keep existing vehicles running but why isn't this gaining traction (pardon the pun)?
It is not like oil is actually running out. It is more like the synthetic fuels will be expensive to produce and scaling it would also be very expensive and does not satisfy the green type of voter at all. There just isn't enough advantages to convert into profit to push a coalition though.

Well, except when the corn lobby did it even though it was economically insane~

Governments would seem to want us to all move to EVs but show no sign of investing in the massive uplift in generating and power transmission capacity that will be required. Why?
Because if you eliminate cheap ways to travel, then you can control the populace more easily. If you make people move to EVs but don't make EVs actually practical, people are stuck. This nudges them into packing more densely into urban areas where people are far more dependent upon bureaucrats for *everything.*
I don't think the average bureaucrat cares about the long term power of the bureaucrat class over simple self interest. It is more like there is a sizable voter block that hates all the spooky stuff like nuclear, all industry, and "weird chemical gases that kills the earth!1!1one!1!!!!!!" and one can get elected by making noises. The same "group" demands things like urban living while nimby out attempts to build cities, demand renewables but nimby it out of their own backyards (but eye sore and mah property values!!!1!) and preaches anti-racism while living in the most segregated areas in the country~~
apart from the wizards, I think you covered everyone in that last paragraph.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,215
Reaction score
959
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Will the batteries from all these BEV's you want are ditched, where will they go? The same place as the nuclear waste because that never went south did it? Do you know how much irradiated waste the French have 'dumped' in the English channel?
Warning: Straw Man Argument.
 

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,528
Reaction score
751
I see a lack of imagination here. A pizza delivery vehicle that drives itself is in operation (Nuro). It will be interesting to see what so-called "ride sharing" services do when a person orders a ride in a self-driving car. No insurance, no garage, no fuel/charging. Someone will own that fleet at whatever scale that is required.
 

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,528
Reaction score
751

 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
BEV's now, new are available at the £23K mark, just a couple of K more than the petrol/diesel models, i.e. Vauxhall/Opel Corsa, so they are coming within reach for new car buyers.

I dont know who is getting rid of cheap travel, the total cost to buy an EV and run it for say 5 years, inc the electricity is basically the same cost as a petrol car, with the petrol.

£23K is still a *bucket* of money, *far* more than many, perhaps most, people can come up with just to replace a serviceable vehicle they already have. And even if the cost of ownership of an EV is the same or even less than an IC car... with an EV, all that cost is *up* *front.* If you had to buy that $750 beater as your first vehicle while you work nights at the Circle K *and* you had to buy fifteen years worth of gasoline to go with it, you wouldn't buy it. You wouldn't be *able* to buy it.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
It will be interesting to see what so-called "ride sharing" services do when a person orders a ride in a self-driving car.

Indeed so. I especially want to see what happens in, say, New Orleans twenty years from now when the next Katrina starts moving in and the terribly efficient "just in time" ride-share cars, the only ones allowed in much of the city, have packed up a tiny fraction of the populace and are driving them into west Texas leaving the rest of the city to rot.

A self-driving ride-share economy will have just as many cars as are needed at normal maximum capacity (basically, rush hour). There would be no economic incentive to have more. But every now and then there comes a need for an extraordinary surge capacity. And having a populace that has meekly accepted the notion that they shouldn't actually own their own cars leads to a populace that is essentially nailed down when the SHTF. When that comes, the rush-hour capacity vehicles will be promptly hired by the first people who can get them, who will use them to drive *far* beyond their normal routes... assuming the system will let them. If the system restricts the autocars to city limits, then *everyone* in town is boned.
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
538
Reaction score
304
BEV's now, new are available at the £23K mark, just a couple of K more than the petrol/diesel models, i.e. Vauxhall/Opel Corsa, so they are coming within reach for new car buyers.

I dont know who is getting rid of cheap travel, the total cost to buy an EV and run it for say 5 years, inc the electricity is basically the same cost as a petrol car, with the petrol.

£23K is still a *bucket* of money, *far* more than many, perhaps most, people can come up with just to replace a serviceable vehicle they already have. And even if the cost of ownership of an EV is the same or even less than an IC car... with an EV, all that cost is *up* *front.* If you had to buy that $750 beater as your first vehicle while you work nights at the Circle K *and* you had to buy fifteen years worth of gasoline to go with it, you wouldn't buy it. You wouldn't be *able* to buy it.
of course it is, the 2 are not in the same argument - new EV is now only 5% more than the similar petrol model, thats pretty good. As the first EV's come down to 5 -10 years old, their costs will drop, just as all cars do. Will take a while to get to £1000 but they will get there, and there will be small garages repairing their batteries, using cheap cells or second hand cells.

Do you still own a horse? or a sedan chair?
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
538
Reaction score
304
It will be interesting to see what so-called "ride sharing" services do when a person orders a ride in a self-driving car.

Indeed so. I especially want to see what happens in, say, New Orleans twenty years from now when the next Katrina starts moving in and the terribly efficient "just in time" ride-share cars, the only ones allowed in much of the city, have packed up a tiny fraction of the populace and are driving them into west Texas leaving the rest of the city to rot.

A self-driving ride-share economy will have just as many cars as are needed at normal maximum capacity (basically, rush hour). There would be no economic incentive to have more. But every now and then there comes a need for an extraordinary surge capacity. And having a populace that has meekly accepted the notion that they shouldn't actually own their own cars leads to a populace that is essentially nailed down when the SHTF. When that comes, the rush-hour capacity vehicles will be promptly hired by the first people who can get them, who will use them to drive *far* beyond their normal routes... assuming the system will let them. If the system restricts the autocars to city limits, then *everyone* in town is boned.
Their surge capability would probably have a few spare vehicles, but yes capacity would be limited to typical rush hour needs - even then where will all these vehicles be parked?

I think we are some way of this, the next generation may take to ride sharing etc more, but just as they eventually move out of the city, then they will get at least one small [Battery] car.
 

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,528
Reaction score
751
I suggest the best approach to solving problems is to avoid a "paint yourself into a corner" solution. It is not productive or conducive to finding other ways to solve the problem. So, some possible scenarios:

Automakers are projecting sales of BEVs now. Individuals will have access because of government subsidies in the US and due to an increase in public charging stations. There will be the option to have a charging unit installed in a garage or driveway.

Driverless taxis will be an option for some.

Planning is underway to save the lives of registered voters... uh, people, should problems occur, like hurricanes. Securing critical infrastructure through a dedicated branch of the Department of Energy and Homeland Security, plus other relevant agencies, needs to happen now.

I suspect that as BEVs are phased in that the average buyer will have no choice but to buy one.

And the shift, and the reasons for it, can be researched:


 

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,528
Reaction score
751

 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Will take a while to get to £1000 but they will get there

Are you sure? A cheap used IC car is sold *without* ten years worth of gas. An EV without a battery seems a fairly useless device, and I suspect that unless some impressive and unlikely advances are made,a thousand pounds of battery is goign to remain an expensive item.

there will be small garages repairing their batteries, using cheap cells or second hand cells.

Sure, that sounds safe and reliable.

Do you still own a horse? or a sedan chair?

And at what point in the development of the Stanley Steamer would it have made sense for all of western civilization to throw away their horses overnight and remake cities and infrastructure to deal with the obvious new forthcoming status quo of clean and efficient steam powered cars?
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,055
Reaction score
948
I am not trying to deny a place for BE cars, just not the place many here think. There is room for multiple methods of powering vehicles and our homes. For example, a fuel cell stack in the home can charge a vehicle during the night and the home the rest of the time, allowing for the persistence of home entertainment or communication.

What I am, to coin a phrase 'Attacking' is the single solution many are espousing, it serves only those who will gain from it's use or just do not see any other than the tunnel vision solution of the few who will really gain. Straw man argument? No, not attacking people, just an idea that makes little sense. As for the £1000 BE car, it will needing a new battery pack by then and it will cost a fortune so the people who buy cheap cars now will be right out of luck.

What are you BE only folk so afraid of? Seriously.
 

drejr

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
130
Reaction score
112
The teen will get a petrol car, he's not going far,

He has to drive 75 miles to school, then fifty miles to work, then 100 miles home. Bonus: add another 60 miles to pick up/drop off girlfriend.

I think we've just figured out why people move to cities.
Why? Sixty miles to go on a date is less than an hours travel time in a civilized non-urban area. In a city, an hours travel time might be a matter of a few dozen blocks navigating puddles of human waste, domestic terrorists setting up "autonomous zones," gangs of muggers and knockout game aficionados, drug and booze fueled crazies.

Heck, thanks to the Kung Flu, a lot of things such as schooling have been shown to be practical to carry out at a distance. A lot of jobs that people bave done in cities can be carried out quite effectively in small towns. Sure, things are more spread out... but that's a feature, not a bug.

Then why is the kid travelling 75 miles to school?

I'm not sure about EVs but of course they're not going to be economical for a kid travelling 225 miles a day for a minimum wage job. Nothing would be, especially a $750 car.

Is this really a realistic view of a city? My city has 15,000 people and a remarkable lack of human waste puddles - yet I can satisfy all my basic needs there, lowering my transportation costs substantially. Even the nightmare cities of your imagination are really mostly networks of small towns.

There's the freedom of the open road, then there's being a slave to your car like the kid in your example. If the multi-hour commute dies in the future good riddance.

It's also unclear why powering a car with something feasibly produced at the household level would be a better choice for an authoritarian hydraulic despotism than gasoline.
 
Last edited:

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com

gtg947h

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
114
Reaction score
77
I dont know who is getting rid of cheap travel, the total cost to buy an EV and run it for say 5 years, inc the electricity is basically the same cost as a petrol car, with the petrol.
I’m strongly considering a Chevy Bolt for my next commuter car, as my current one will likely be reaching the end of its economic life within the next year or three. I’ve run numbers for my personal situation, and on overall costs (purchase/finance costs, energy costs, and scheduled maintenance) the Bolt provides a noticeable savings vs. a gas-powered car of the same approximate age, size, and equipment level. But it happens that my projected use is right in the "sweet spot" range for EVs.

There’s also that attractive advantage of not having to stop at shady gas stations while commuting both ways in the dark—living in a standalone house, in the suburbs, I can have things like a garage and a charger.

I realize not everyone can afford an EV, and that they won’t work for everyone’s “mission”. ICE cars will be around for a long time, even if for no other reason than the existing fleet will take time to phase out of service (my above-mentioned commuter car is old enough to vote; my truck is old enough to drive; our van is the "youngest" at 7 years and 125k miles). But for those that can afford them, and have a mission profile suited for them, it’s a good choice that funds the development of the next round of better cars. After all, isn’t this how the early-adopter model works? Of course, this assumes no “let them eat cake” push on the part of the government...


Regardless, though, I have no desire to live in an urban area. Definitely no desire to take public transit. Been there, done that, and it made me a fan of social distancing long before Covid came along.

And even if the cost of ownership of an EV is the same or even less than an IC car... with an EV, all that cost is *up* *front.* If you had to buy that $750 beater as your first vehicle while you work nights at the Circle K *and* you had to buy fifteen years worth of gasoline to go with it, you wouldn't buy it. You wouldn't be *able* to buy it.
To be fair... we’re rapidly approaching the point (if not about there already) where an EV costs the consumer about the same as a comparable (age/trim level) ICE car—and you’re not fronting 15 years of electricity cost. Besides, very few people plop down cash for vehicle purchases—good idea or bad, they finance.

Is this really a realistic view of a city? My city has 15,000 people and a remarkable lack of human waste puddles - yet I can satisfy all my basic needs there, lowering my transportation costs substantially. Even the nightmare cities of your imagination are really mostly networks of small towns.
I think we may be facing a terminology challenge. When I (and others here) hear "city" I think large, dense urban city, like New York, Atlanta, Chicago, etc. I've lived in Atlanta and been to New York and a couple other large cities; if nothing else the smell of urine is ubiquitous (especially on public transportation).

15,000 people is a town, or a suburb perhaps. It's a little smaller than the suburban town I grew up in, which had golf cart paths all over the place in addition to roads. It was great for getting around on off days but most residents had jobs that required 30-60 minute commutes. It's something people put up with because they had no desire whatsoever to live near the places they worked (see earlier comments about large cities).

Proponents of walkable commutes tend to forget that there are many, many jobs that can't be worked from home (even in a pandemic) and are located in places which nobody wants to live near.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
To be fair... we’re rapidly approaching the point (if not about there already) where an EV costs the consumer about the same as a comparable (age/trim level) ICE car—and you’re not fronting 15 years of electricity cost. Besides, very few people plop down cash for vehicle purchases—good idea or bad, they finance.

I just checked Craiglist: a car for sale, 2001 Chrysler Sebring, $900. Very likely not that great a car, but presumably it's adequate transportation. What EV can match that? Whole lotta cars in the $2 grand range. If you have to buy a car for under a grand, you're likely not financing it.
 

drejr

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
130
Reaction score
112
Proponents of walkable commutes tend to forget that there are many, many jobs that can't be worked from home (even in a pandemic) and are located in places which nobody wants to live near.

Commute time in my city (which might be a town if we had them here) is about the same as Atlanta.

In terms of daily life its not much different than Atlanta, which I've lived in, nor the even larger cities I've called home at one point or another. If I want more cultural amenities I drive to large cities of anywhere between 50-200,000 people. This takes about an hour, which is about the same as going across Atlanta by car or London by train.

I have a similar mental image of a city, but this is largely a cultural artifact that doesn't reflect the actual reality of urban life any more than poop maps reflect the reality of San Francisco - you're probably not going to see many turds unless you hang out in Tenderloin (I have a feeling turds would be the least of orionblamblam's worries in Tenderloin).

Point is people move close to other people to improve their quality of life, and you'd have to move pretty damn close together to match the miserable quality of life that comes with a 125 mile drive to a job at McDonald's.
 

1635yankee

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
66
Reaction score
63
The rest of the world is going electric, Ford, and America, either gets with the program, or loses its foreign markets within the next decade
It's stupid. They shouldn't do it.
Explain why it's stupid. Do so without referencing any car sites.

In any case, most of the industrialized world is trying hard to eliminate fossil fuel use for some excellent reasons, not least of which is the trillions (as in 1,000,000,000,000) of dollars in increases to weather-related damages expected by those bastions of left-wing lunacy, insurance companies.
Because they can't force people to buy what they don't want or need. And above all, in addition to the practical and logistical problems of these moves, even the non-help that will be given to the environment, with the minerals extracted from the quarries, will make countries dependent on China, and everyone to save the earth. In this scenario, there will be nothing to save.

The teen will get a petrol car, he's not going far,

He has to drive 75 miles to school, then fifty miles to work, then 100 miles home. Bonus: add another 60 miles to pick up/drop off girlfriend.

I think we've just figured out why people move to cities.
Why? Sixty miles to go on a date is less than an hours travel time in a civilized non-urban area. In a city, an hours travel time might be a matter of a few dozen blocks navigating puddles of human waste, domestic terrorists setting up "autonomous zones," gangs of muggers and knockout game aficionados, drug and booze fueled crazies.

Heck, thanks to the Kung Flu, a lot of things such as schooling have been shown to be practical to carry out at a distance. A lot of jobs that people bave done in cities can be carried out quite effectively in small towns. Sure, things are more spread out... but that's a feature, not a bug.

By way of confession; I am a 'dyed in the wool' petrol-head and I do have a very small collection of interesting, fairly rapid but sadly, not valuable cars. I have no dogmatic objection to electric power (efficiency, max torque exactly where you want it, reliability etc etc). I do however have a number of problems with the direction things are going in -

At work, we've been using batteries based on lithium chemistry since the mid 2000s and whilst I've seen discharge rates rise quite a bit, energy density hasn't risen by much at all. For a small business, to buy significant numbers of these batteries isn't a trivial purchase so we look after them well (charge at a max of 1C, store correctly, don't over discharge etc) but they simply do not last. According to the logs, the oldest we have is now just over 6 years old and is 'on its last legs'. Most don't get to that age and I can see EVs being written off because the replacement cost of the battery being more or roughly equivalent to the vehicles value. Hardly the greenest way forward or the most cost effective. This talk of them being re-purposed as energy stores doesn't sit well with experience.

The synthetic fuels (see Porsche's recent announcements) would appear to be great way to keep existing vehicles running but why isn't this gaining traction (pardon the pun)?

I would also echo the comments of others who object to being told what to do by those for whom science / engineering would appear to be a mystery. I live in a rural location and have no wish to forced into an urban 'existence'.

Governments would seem to want us to all move to EVs but show no sign of investing in the massive uplift in generating and power transmission capacity that will be required. Why?




(Ah... y'can't beat ranting online - makes one feel so much better about things ;) )

Well, were I live the majority of electric power generation and transmission (there are exceptions*) is provided by investor-owned utilities; the government isn't responsible for their construction or maintenance**.

* In the US, one example is the TVA. There are also non-profit energy co-operatives in some states, like Vermont, and some locally owned utilities, like Wallingford [Connecticut] Electric Company [WELCO].

** There are about 20 municipal electrical companies in Connecticut.
 

1635yankee

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
66
Reaction score
63
One thing to remember -- or learn -- is that much of the condition of today's US cities is due to deliberate federal government policy to destroy cities started by the 1950s. One example: I-84, when it was planned through Hartford (the capital city of Connecticut) had no exits in the city. None. There was an exit in West Hartford (a quite nice suburb) and East Hartford (a somewhat more industrial suburb on the other side of a river) but none actually in Hartford. This was not accidental; much of the design of the Interstate Highway System was designed to depopulate cities.
 

Similar threads

Top