The Electric Car

copeyhagen

copeyhagen wrote: »

pitty its the burning of fossil fuels that generates the leccy for these charge points

More and more renewables are being added to the mix.

When power stations have to be kept burning to be ready to meet sudden demand it wastes a lot of fuel and so ev's charging at night greatly enhances efficiency much more than power stations burning fuel for nothing.

Ev's are also a lot more efficient even considering transmission losses in the electric network.

In the future electric cars will be used to store wind electricity, and no you won't be left with a dead battery, they will make use of the power that would otherwise be turned off when demand is low or when there is excess.

Means Of Escape

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Time to charge car 6-10 hours
Time to fill with petrol 2 mins

Range of elec maybe 100-150km
Range of petrol car 600km+

charge required every day, if not more often. Petrol once a week or less.

Not practical at all...

You can reduce that range further with air conditioning on in the car

Means Of Escape

BloodBath wrote: »

-edit- Sorry I got the distance wrong. You may well need to charge depending on conditions. If you could charge while parked in Dublin though it wouldn't be a problem.

You wouldn't need to with a 300m/480km range battery. Even with reduced range with CC on, increased motorway speeds and low temps it would still be enough. Assuming a max round trip of 300km which gives plenty of room for city travelling and traffic conditions. Obviously that's the high end model and it's not cheap.

The multiple near future developments in Lithium battery tech will bring those ranges to the affordable mainstream market though. It shouldn't take more than 5-10 years for at least 1 of those developments to hit the market offering 10 times the capacity of current Li-Ion batteries. The energy density is going to far exceed fossil fuels.

The revolution is happening right now. EV's in every driveway is coming in the near future.

Don't know about that .
With technology advancing so quick on petrol engines there could be a move away from diesels once again back to petrol.
Stiff competition for the EV.

me bolly

me bolly wrote: »

Don't know about that .
With technology advancing so quick on petrol engines there could be a move away from diesels once again back to petrol.
Stiff competition for the EV.

You already can by converting to LPG and @80 C and 30 mpg consumption would work out around 55 odd mpg diesel.

Convert a Prius and it would be more like 85-90 mpg.

Means Of Escape

Deleted User wrote: »

You already can by converting to LPG and @80 C and 30 mpg consumption would work out around 55 odd mpg diesel.

Convert a Prius and it would be more like 85-90 mpg.

LPG is past tense.Never totally viable otherwise LPG would have been incorporated into engines a long time ago.
The modern petrol engines will eventually match diesel fuel efficiency which will see a move back from diesel.

me bolly

me bolly wrote: »

LPG is past tense.Never totally viable otherwise LPG would have been incorporated into engines a long time ago.
The modern petrol engines will eventually match diesel fuel efficiency which will see a move back from diesel.

LPG is pretty viable and getting a lot of attention the last 2 years or so.

It's certainly viable for those who don't want to spend the extra cash on a high mileage rough diesel with the potential for problems related to modern diesels.

The Prius is a good match for any diesel and even better in a lot of cases, as a prius owner I can certainly say you will at worst get 54 mpg or if you use the hybrid system properly like me than you'll get 60-64 mpg.

As my girlfriend drives the prius now for around 54 miles rount trip on the motorway at 12-140 kph mostly 130 ish, she is averaging 54 mpg without even thinking about economy and she couldn't care less about trying to figure out any form of hybrid style driving.

So at 54 mpg converted to lpg would make for a much cheaper than diesel car to run.

The next cheapest would be the Prius MK III then the Prius plug in and of course nothing comes close to full electric.

Diesel is yesterday afaik and there is no going back. I'd rather convert the CRV 2.0L petrol to LPG than go back to diesel.

Tzar Chasm

you forgot about biodiesel, the ability to make your own fuel at home goods a certain appeal to many, even if you are buying it its still cheaper than regular diesel and better for your engine* and the? environment.

*engine must be biodiesel capable with viton seals rather than rubber, most modern cars are safe enough

Tzar Chasm

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

you forgot about biodiesel, the ability to make your own fuel at home goods a certain appeal to many, even if you are buying it its still cheaper than regular diesel and better for your engine* and the? environment.

*engine must be biodiesel capable with viton seals rather than rubber, most modern cars are safe enough

If you have the ability to make it then fine, but most modern diesels afaik are not capable of taking it.

If I remember correctly the B6 Audi A4 was capable of 100% bio diesel, but don't quote me on that , it certainly was capable of a high % the most I ever saw. Provided of course the bio diesel met the standards which I forget but it's in the manual.

I don't know of anyone selling it, the only place I ever saw was a garage in Portlaoise but I think that doesn't sell it any more.

Tzar Chasm

almost every engine built before 2007 is compatible most of the VAG diesel engines are biodiesel ready, along with mercs and the newer ford econoline motors, after 2007 there was a change in

US regulations to finally deal with the excessive amount of sulpher they put in diesel, so some engines have issues with 100% biodiesel, bit if you blend it with regular diesel you can still run an engine on it.

bigger machines with cummins or perkins diesels can be run on vegetable oil.

If I remember correctly my Brothers A4,A5 and now A6 do not approve more than 10% bio ? I must read the manual again.

I think the problem was mainly down to the quality of fuel and there were a lot of problems with it.

Here is a site that gives useful info.

http://www.biodieselfillingstations.co.uk/approvals.htm

Seemingly rapeseed is best. Isn't that what they call PPO or pure plant oil ? I remember the government taxing it and it died over night.

Maybe there is movement in the bio industry now ?

But you got me thinking as I forgot all about bio diesel/ PPO etc.

However I don't really believe is wasting thousands of acres to make biofuel as the land would be better off feeding people or resting rather than chemicals being dumped on the land. I don't really believe Bio Fuels are very green though I am open minded on all sources of fuel.

I think LPG has huge potential.

I think Electric has too.

One can buy an electric car and install solar panels/wind turbine and seriously reduce their emissions and solar being dirt cheap these days compared to wind it does have potential even in Ireland, our long summer hours can make up for loss in winter and maybe more.

Longer payback with solar pv and wind compared to buying LPG at 80C in a converted Prius for example but you can use them for transport, heating and also general household use and export any excess.

Tzar Chasm

lpg isn't really a solution to fossil fuels tho, you are still beholden to the same cartels.

biodiesels environmental impact is mostly based on where the stock feed for refinement comes from, if you are recovering oil from some other process then its a lot more green than growing a plant specifically for oil.


another interesting conspiracy just occured to me

why did the US legislate that engine manufacturers had to reduce the ammount of Nox produced by diesel engines burning high sulphur diesel rather than mandate that oil companies in the US reduce the amount of sulpher in their diesel in line with the rest of the world

Tzar Chasm

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

lpg isn't really a solution to fossil fuels tho, you are still beholden to the same cartels.

biodiesels environmental impact is mostly based on where the stock feed for refinement comes from, if you are recovering oil from some other process then its a lot more green than growing a plant specifically for oil.

LPG isn't a solution to fossil fuels but because it's a by-product in the production of petrol and diesel if there were no use for it it would simply be wasted by burning it, so in a way it makes perfect sense to use it and it's much cleaner than diesel.

There are still emissions from the production of bio fuels and in the burning of bio fuels, though much cleaner than diesel.

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

another interesting conspiracy just occured to me

why did the US legislate that engine manufacturers had to reduce the ammount of Nox produced by diesel engines burning high sulphur diesel rather than mandate that oil companies in the US reduce the amount of sulpher in their diesel in line with the rest of the world

afaik they have reduced the sulphur content of diesel fuels, but the U.S have far stricter emissions regulations regarding diesel emissions than Europe even with low sulphur diesel and diesel exhaust has to be treated with chemicals, I think Mercedes call it ad blue ? But imo it just further adds to the complexity of modern diesel engines.

Tzar Chasm

Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel must be 'available' but the standards vary between the US &EU, we want 3-5 ppm they allow 15ppm

but low sulphur diesel is the norm, and its there that the difference is obvious, our standard is 50ppm and their LOW Sulphur standard is 500ppm.

From Wiki

Ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel was proposed by EPA as a new standard for the sulfur content in on-road diesel fuel sold in the United States since October 15, 2006, except for rural Alaska who transferred in 2010. California has required it since September 1, 2006. This new regulation applies to all diesel fuel, diesel fuel additives and distillate fuels blended with diesel for on-road use, such as kerosene, however, it does not yet apply to railroad locomotives, marine, or off road uses. Since December 1, 2010, all highway diesel fuel have been ULSD. Non-road diesel fuel was required to move to 500 ppm sulfur in 2007, and further to ULSD in 2010. Railroad locomotive and marine diesel fuel also moved to 500 ppm sulfur in 2007, and will change to ULSD in 2012. There are exemptions for small refiners of non-road, locomotive and marine diesel fuel that allow for 500 ppm diesel to remain in the system until 2014. After December 1, 2014 all highway, non-road, locomotive and marine diesel fuel produced and imported will be ULSD. [End Quote]

So ULSD is what they must use now 15ppm max.

manonboard

I hope its ok to post in this thread. It seemed like i would just be creating a duplicate by starting a new one.

I am a big believer in the theory that the ECar is being held back. Recently I thought they had failed with tesla etc. Maybe they have.

There is simply too much money at stake. Today though, the ESB released charging prices soon to be implemented in an email to the ECar owners currently registered.
17quid per month flat fee + 30c PER MINUTE.
This charge is HUGE. Its not even based on power consumed.
The ridiculous consequence of this is that long journeys, that require several recharges. Basically any cross country driving will now cost 9quid per charge. So in some cases it will be more than petrol, and in most cases, not significantly cheaper.

I was very surprised by this. I was wondering if some forces at play would try stop it from being mass adopted. It looks like that first stroke of the pen to tackle it has been struck. All a force has to do is to make it less attractive price wise to run the car.. and whoosh.. all the benefits that would encourage mass adoption is gone.

I think it a foolish move on ESB part. They could have the entire car market fuelling as their customer.. Yet.. ruin this emerging market.

So yes, I do think there are forces at play that are this very day actively trying to stop the ECar adoption.

No please post in this thread about the ESB billing for charging. No point having two threads going about it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057515691&page=13

MrPudding

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Time to charge car 6-10 hours
Time to fill with petrol 2 mins

Range of elec maybe 100-150km
Range of petrol car 600km+

charge required every day, if not more often. Petrol once a week or less.

Not practical at all...

LOL. I have been running a Zoe for a.most a year now. Best transport purchase I ever made (apart from my awesome motorcycle) and highly practical. Full charge at home is under 3 hours. That is from an almost flat battery. I have a 30amp, 7kW charger, which I got installed for free. Driving conservatively I can get the best part of 160k on a single charge, my consumption averages about 4.6 miles per kWH. I think I pay about 12p per kWH.

I live in the UK and there is a company called Ecotricity. They have a little scheme call the electric highway. This is a network of rapid chargers, in most motorway service stations. This will charge a Zoe from 0 to 80% in about 25 minutes. This network is 100% free to use.

I live in Buckingham and have driven the Zoe to Edinburgh and back. Yeah, I have to stop pretty frequently, but it was actually an really enjoyable and stress free way to drive, it also cost me nothing as I went from free rapid charger to free rapid charger.

The practicality, or otherwise, of EVs is dependent on infrastructure. Yes, the cars tech is important, the longer the range the less reliable they are on infrastructure, but depending on where you live they are really practice. As a family we are saving a fortune with the electric car, but we have reasonably decent infrastructure in the UK. That said, if you are running the car as a little city/town run around then infrastructure is less important. If you aren't making long journeys then daily charging may not be necessary. Our other car is a grand voyager, we have 4 kids. Most of our journeys are short and don't need 7 seats, so the Zoe is perfect. We went from filling the grand voyager every week, best part of £100 at one point, to now filling it maybe once a month.

Did anyone see "Building Cars Live" a couple of weeks ago? In Norway last year 18% of new cars sold last year were electric. And that number is expected to rise.

To reword a favourite saying of mine to. Are it more suitable for this; never put down to conspiracy what can be adequately explained by government incompetence.

MrP

ScumLord

manonboard wrote: »

There is simply too much money at stake. Today though, the ESB released charging prices soon to be implemented in an email to the ECar owners currently registered.
17quid per month flat fee + 30c PER MINUTE.

By my calculations a €17 flat fee is more like 0.02c an hour.

The ridiculous consequence of this is that long journeys, that require several recharges.

This is the real reason electric cars haven't taken off yet. They don't have the range to compete with the combustion engine. That's changing and the tables could turn within the next 5 years making electric viable or preferable.

MrPudding

ScumLord wrote: »

This is the real reason electric cars haven't taken off yet. They don't have the range to compete with the combustion engine. That's changing and the tables could turn within the next 5 years making electric viable or preferable.

I think the next car from Tesla, not the model x but the one after, will help turn those tables, but infrastructure is still a major issue.

I read years ago that Finland were considering a system where they had a nationwide network of charging stations. Fairly standard so far... The difference was, when you arrived you did not plug in, you parked in the bay, your battery was dropped out and taken off to be charged and a fully charged battery was installed. All automatic and faster than filling a car with fuel. Not sure what happened with that system, perhaps there is a conspiracy there. A system like that would, I think, have really helped EVs to kick off.

MrP

ScumLord

I heard of an Israeli company doing something similar. If patents were a problem it might have scared some folks away. Unless the car makers can agree on a common standard there's no point in anyone going to far down the road of developing the technology, especially when the car manufacturers can decide they want to come up with their own concept.

I'm actually surprised how many of the charging stations there are around the country and in small towns, and I don't think I've ever seen one in use.

Yakult

Have always thought that oil company's are holding back the electric car, but then again, the oil companies are needed to provide electricity to fuel the electric car to some degree.

But who can you trust these days? Like when they say oil is running out. Is it tho, or are they saying that so they can keep prices at a premium for as long as possible?

Hydrogen is the future.

Yakult

Yakult wrote: »

Have always thought that oil company's are holding back the electric car, but then again, the oil companies are needed to provide electricity to fuel the electric car to some degree.

But who can you trust these days? Like when they say oil is running out. Is it tho, or are they saying that so they can keep prices at a premium for as long as possible?

Hydrogen is the future.

We don't use oil to generate electricity ?

There is a decent bit of our electricity coming form wind in Ireland, lots of days 30-40-50% is met by wind. There are days that 3-5% is met from wind but still, seeing 50% being met is really cool to see at times. Even 30% all this is energy not being imported though may as well be because it doesn't make our bills cheaper.

Hydrogen isn't the future at all at least not for passenger cars, it's hugely wasteful to produce, this energy is far better put into batteries.

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

Hydrogen isn't the future at all at least not for passenger cars, it's hugely wasteful to produce, this energy is far better put into batteries.

I don't think either technology has found a workable solution yet. Hydrogen needs a fuel cell to work. I think there are a number of fuel cells in development that could provide safe storage. If they can make it cost effective there's no reason why Hydrogen wouldn't take over.

The problem with batteries is they can't hold enough of a charge and weigh a ton, There are light weight, high capacity batteries being developed but they're prone to bursting into flames at the moment. But I think a lot of the new fully electric race series are putting serious development into these new types of batteries and are more prepared to live with the dangers.

I think the race to electric is still on when it comes to fuel. The car itself is ready. Electric cars are better in every way bar fuel capacity. They're faster, cheaper to run and have way better handling. They will leave the combustion engine for dust once the fuel issue is sorted.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

We don't use oil to generate electricity ?

Oil and Gas powerplants, coal powerplants, and in a number of EVs they use gas-turbines or standard 4-stroke engines to power the electric drivetrain (Chevy Volt).

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think either technology has found a workable solution yet. Hydrogen needs a fuel cell to work. I think there are a number of fuel cells in development that could provide safe storage. If they can make it cost effective there's no reason why Hydrogen wouldn't take over.

The problem with batteries is they can't hold enough of a charge and weigh a ton, There are light weight, high capacity batteries being developed but they're prone to bursting into flames at the moment. But I think a lot of the new fully electric race series are putting serious development into these new types of batteries and are more prepared to live with the dangers.

I think the race to electric is still on when it comes to fuel. The car itself is ready. Electric cars are better in every way bar fuel capacity. They're faster, cheaper to run and have way better handling. They will leave the combustion engine for dust once the fuel issue is sorted.

There's far less chance of an EV battery bursting to flames than a tank full of highly combustible petrol !

Just imagine the potential of a large explosion if there were a tiny leak in a highly pressurised hydrogen tank ?

The Nissan leaf battery can not burst into flames , at most it it will just smoke.
The Model S can but it's one of the safest cars ever built and no one has been killed in one yet despite some serious crashes and flames.

We have an electrical network already and granted current EV range is limited but the batteries are good enough today, the Leaf II 60 kwh battery will provide 200-240 miles and I think most people will be happy apart from the usual EV bashers.

In just over 2 years affordable electrics will be more than good enough and most likely charge twice as fast, still not fast enough as ICE which will always upset some but I still can't see most people flocking to Ev until car manufacturers are forced to give up outdated diesel tech in Europe. Until this especially in Ireland, Diesel will remain King while our backward Government keep promoting it as Earth saving technology.

Overheal

Tell that to e-cig users who have had batteries explode in their pockets. Never had that happen with a lighter.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Tell that to e-cig users who have had batteries explode in their pockets. Never had that happen with a lighter.

Major differences in the batteries.

There have been 0 reports of Nissan leaf battery fires, Renault Zoe, Fluence, BMW I3, VW E-Golf.

Only one in mass production is the Model S that hit a piece of steel at high speed and another that went off the road at high speeds, no injurues or deaths.

And again, the Nissan Leaf battery can not catch fire !

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

There's far less chance of an EV battery bursting to flames than a tank full of highly combustible petrol

That's current generation batteries, basically the same technology that's in your laptop. Those batteries won't get electric into the mainstream though, they just weigh to much and don't produce enough power to make an electric car something most people could live with. The current batch of electrics only make sense if you've got a short commute, or you live in a city.

Tesla had to innovate to come up with a battery pack that could power their Model S, it was a smart way of managing the batteries to extend the life out to ten years. Ten years is twice what you'd really expect to get out any battery. They have a shelf life don't forget. Tesla subsequently released the patents to help move electric cars along. But the system is really squeezing a stone at this point the technology is at it's limits.

The next generation of batteries are something like a fifth the weight and produce more power. The batteries work great but over heat easily, that's the only thing holding them back from the consumer market, but expect to see them pop up in electric race cars over the next few years.

These two videos briefly talk about the upcoming battery tech. Overheating in the Drayson video and weight in the Mercedes video.

Just imagine the potential of a large explosion if there were a tiny leak in a highly pressurised hydrogen tank ?

They won't be using a pressurized tank, they're developing fuel cells that will release the hydrogen from a chemical compound. So it would be safe.

but I still can't see most people flocking to Ev until car manufacturers are forced to give up outdated diesel tech in Europe. Until this especially in Ireland, Diesel will remain King while our backward Government keep promoting it as Earth saving technology.

Diesel engines have been at the forefront of engine advances for the past few years. I prefer a HDi engine now. Loads of torque where you need it, perfect for Irish roads. Petrol cars I've tried lately seem dead next to a tiny diesel engine. I know diesel is a lot more toxic than people realize but it's super efficient and modern turbo charged engines are the workhorses of the modern world. I've seen the little 1.6 HDi in the berlingo I'm driving in so many cars, from people carriers to Volvo saloons, and it's incredible what that engine can do.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

That's current generation batteries, basically the same technology that's in your laptop. Those batteries won't get electric into the mainstream though, they just weigh to much and don't produce enough power to make an electric car something most people could live with. The current batch of electrics only make sense if you've got a short commute, or you live in a city.

The leaf battery, I3, and E,Golf, And Zoe are far from laptop battery cells. Event he Tesla is well beyond laptop cells now.

Battery tech today is good enough , but the majority of people lack the interest.

ScumLord wrote: »

Tesla had to innovate to come up with a battery pack that could power their Model S, it was a smart way of managing the batteries to extend the life out to ten years. Ten years is twice what you'd really expect to get out any battery. They have a shelf life don't forget. Tesla subsequently released the patents to help move electric cars along. But the system is really squeezing a stone at this point the technology is at it's limits.

Telsa's batteries will last well beyond 10 years, the original model S prototype has over 350,000 miles and still more than usable.

ScumLord wrote: »

The next generation of batteries are something like a fifth the weight and produce more power. The batteries work great but over heat easily, that's the only thing holding them back from the consumer market, but expect to see them pop up in electric race cars over the next few years.

Unfortunately for now the next gen batteries Lithium air are a long way off.

Leaf Ii will hahve 60 kwh option and probably 100 Kw charging, this ability to recharge a car in 5 mins is over rated. Charge 200 miles from home, charge 170 miles in 30 mins over lunch.

ScumLord wrote: »

They won't be using a pressurized tank, they're developing fuel cells that will release the hydrogen from a chemical compound. So it would be safe.

Even if true the immense problem of inefficiency can't be solved unless using Nuclear, but what's the point ? all for 5 min refuelling ? and Nuclear can't even solve the inefficiency but at least it's a 0 emissions source of fuel that is abundant.

Electric cars are much faster and more powerful than a fuel cell for now at least.

ScumLord wrote: »

Diesel engines have been at the forefront of engine advances for the past few years. I prefer a HDi engine now. Loads of torque where you need it, perfect for Irish roads. Petrol cars I've tried lately seem dead next to a tiny diesel engine. I know diesel is a lot more toxic than people realize but it's super efficient and modern turbo charged engines are the workhorses of the modern world. I've seen the little 1.6 HDi in the berlingo I'm driving in so many cars, from people carriers to Volvo saloons, and it's incredible what that engine can do.

Diesels have reached the limit of development, they can only succeed into the future with Governmental support and promotion like our own Government continues to promote. And the E.U continues to promote them and will even after the emissions scandal from VW.

Car makers are pressing E.U legislators to allow them increase emissions to above today's standards meaning diesel has reached the end.

The 1.6 HDI is absolutely nothing compared to the electric motor of the Leaf and it;s far less refined, like a tractor in comparison.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

Major differences in the batteries.

There have been 0 reports of Nissan leaf battery fires, Renault Zoe, Fluence, BMW I3, VW E-Golf.

Only one in mass production is the Model S that hit a piece of steel at high speed and another that went off the road at high speeds, no injurues or deaths.

And again, the Nissan Leaf battery can not catch fire !

And the Dreamliner 787 battery issues? It's kinda weak to argue the reliability of products that, really, are incredibly new. Laptop batteries for instance, they don't fail often, but they fail.

You also have to consider there are way more laptops and e-cigs than Leafs. The actual boom-boom rate of e-cig batteries (or that battery type in general) could be for wild conjectural example, .0003%. You'd have to statistically build a hell of a lot of cars before you saw one blow, but if it did, someone would be dying. Same thing for google's driverless cars: (~)100% pointless to say it has 0% fatalities until there are 10 million of them on the road.

emigrate2012

There's actually a review of the Toyota hydrogen fuel cell car in this month's top gear mag. (not sure if it's on general release just yet though the list price is there, a shade under 40k sterling)
It's not the prettiest of saloons but the interior is quite nice imo, high grade leather and quite a tasty centre console.

Tester was generally complimentary overall but his biggest gripe was the 'old bugbear, the infrastructure simply isn't there yet. But it's telling that Toyota are releasing it, might be an indication of the path they are looking at taking, they've obviously spent a packet in r and d to take it this far, unlikely to abandon it in a hurry.

I also remember James may testing a Honda fuel cell saloon in california on the show a few years back, and recall reading somewhere that california has a pretty decent hydrogen infrastructure in place/ progressing nicely now.

I can see fuel cell being the answer eventually over ev's that need charging as they currently do, possibly sooner than we know it.

Edit:it's called mirai, costs 66k sterling, polymer electrolyte fuel cell stack, 152bhp,247ftlb.range of about 340 miles on 5kg of hydrogen. Not shabby tbh though must noted there are only 3 stations in the UK that can deliver the hydrogen at the 700bar required. Three more due early '16. 16 by the end of the year. Germany are European leaders with currently 50 by 2016 with 400 planned by 2023. (source:top gear mag)

So obviously the infrastructure is looooonnnngggg way of practical so far but it'll be interesting to see how the German market adopts the technology in coming years.

shedweller

Overheal wrote: »

And the Dreamliner 787 battery issues? It's kinda weak to argue the reliability of products that, really, are incredibly new. Laptop batteries for instance, they don't fail often, but they fail.

You also have to consider there are way more laptops and e-cigs than Leafs. The actual boom-boom rate of e-cig batteries (or that battery type in general) could be for wild conjectural example, .0003%. You'd have to statistically build a hell of a lot of cars before you saw one blow, but if it did, someone would be dying. Same thing for google's driverless cars: (~)100%
pointless to say it has 0% fatalities until there are 10 million of them on the road.

But statistically maybe more lives would be saved than lost by going the EV route over diesel. Despite the odd fatality due to a battery going "boom-boom"
Maybe you know the figures??

Overheal

shedweller wrote: »

But statistically maybe more lives would be saved than lost by going the EV route over diesel. Despite the odd fatality due to a battery going "boom-boom"
Maybe you know the figures??

I don't, but http://car-accidents.com/car-fire-crash-burn.html

Fair point, I just don't want anyone (not you per se) to overexaggerate any new technology's safety record. Just from an engineering perspective: overconfidence in new tech always brings about bad consequences. GM ignition, Takata airbags, Toyota accelerator runoff, I could list plenty more; all instances where laziness allowed for preventable failures to occur, something that can be further compounded in.

nokia69

emigrate2012 wrote: »

There's actually a review of the Toyota hydrogen fuel cell car in this month's top gear mag. (not sure if it's on general release just yet though the list price is there, a shade under 40k sterling)
It's not the prettiest of saloons but the interior is quite nice imo, high grade leather and quite a tasty centre console.

Tester was generally complimentary overall but his biggest gripe was the 'old bugbear, the infrastructure simply isn't there yet. But it's telling that Toyota are releasing it, might be an indication of the path they are looking at taking, they've obviously spent a packet in r and d to take it this far, unlikely to abandon it in a hurry.

I also remember James may testing a Honda fuel cell saloon in california on the show a few years back, and recall reading somewhere that california has a pretty decent hydrogen infrastructure in place/ progressing nicely now.

I can see fuel cell being the answer eventually over ev's that need charging as they currently do, possibly sooner than we know it.

Edit:it's called mirai, costs 66k sterling, polymer electrolyte fuel cell stack, 152bhp,247ftlb.range of about 340 miles on 5kg of hydrogen. Not shabby tbh though must noted there are only 3 stations in the UK that can deliver the hydrogen at the 700bar required. Three more due early '16. 16 by the end of the year. Germany are European leaders with currently 50 by 2016 with 400 planned by 2023. (source:top gear mag)

So obviously the infrastructure is looooonnnngggg way of practical so far but it'll be interesting to see how the German market adopts the technology in coming years.

.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

And the Dreamliner 787 battery issues? It's kinda weak to argue the reliability of products that, really, are incredibly new. Laptop batteries for instance, they don't fail often, but they fail.

You also have to consider there are way more laptops and e-cigs than Leafs. The actual boom-boom rate of e-cig batteries (or that battery type in general) could be for wild conjectural example, .0003%. You'd have to statistically build a hell of a lot of cars before you saw one blow, but if it did, someone would be dying. Same thing for google's driverless cars: (~)100% pointless to say it has 0% fatalities until there are 10 million of them on the road.

Dreamliner used completely different batteries to the Leaf.

I don't think I made it clear enough, the leaf's battery by the nature of it's chemistry, can not catch fire as with most mass produced electric cars with the exception of the Tesla.

Leaf battery cells are vastly different to laptop cells.

emigrate2012

emigrate2012 wrote: »

There's actually a review of the Toyota hydrogen fuel cell car in this month's top gear mag. (not sure if it's on general release just yet though the list price is there, a shade under 40k sterling)
It's not the prettiest of saloons but the interior is quite nice imo, high grade leather and quite a tasty centre console.

Tester was generally complimentary overall but his biggest gripe was the 'old bugbear, the infrastructure simply isn't there yet. But it's telling that Toyota are releasing it, might be an indication of the path they are looking at taking, they've obviously spent a packet in r and d to take it this far, unlikely to abandon it in a hurry.

I also remember James may testing a Honda fuel cell saloon in california on the show a few years back, and recall reading somewhere that california has a pretty decent hydrogen infrastructure in place/ progressing nicely now.

I can see fuel cell being the answer eventually over ev's that need charging as they currently do, possibly sooner than we know it.

Edit:it's called mirai, costs 66k sterling, polymer electrolyte fuel cell stack, 152bhp,247ftlb.range of about 340 miles on 5kg of hydrogen. Not shabby tbh though must noted there are only 3 stations in the UK that can deliver the hydrogen at the 700bar required. Three more due early '16. 16 by the end of the year. Germany are European leaders with currently 50 by 2016 with 400 planned by 2023. (source:top gear mag)

So obviously the infrastructure is looooonnnngggg way of practical so far but it'll be interesting to see how the German market adopts the technology in coming years.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/toyota-vs-tesla-can-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-compete-with-evs-60374

Why do people want to pay the same for hydrogen or more for 400-500 Kms when 320-250 kms electrics will be here in as little as 2.5 years ? Why give all those companies control like the oil industry ?

You're going to pay a high price for that ability to refill in 5 mins, where as filling in 30 mins is to me much less of a hassle by being able to drive the first 340 kms on my own cheap electricity.

Most hydrogen is made from gas, converted very inefficiently into another gas and then inefficiently burned in a fuel cell ? that sounds mad to me !

Be far better to run cars on LPG.

I'd like to have the option to charge the Leaf on Solar or wind or both.

emigrate2012

I think it's the better option long term than battery only. Sure, battery life will increase (likely greatly in the next few short years) but even so recycling them safely and an environmentally friendly way may cause problems.

Look at the Mexicans taking on the job of recycling American lead acid battery's (it's a fcukin messy unsafe procedure in most case's) most developed nations won't want the hassle, farming the job out to less developed nations, where it's cheaper and there's less oversight (or none) and not wouldn't be environmentally safe.
But outta sight, outta mind.

Also, battery only ev's (in terms of global co2 reduction, which really is the end issue) really need to be charged from infrastructure that is based on over 50% renewable sources (wind, solar, wave, even nuclear) to meet the goal of meaningful co2 reduction.

That said , I've no idea what expected life of a fuel cell is or will be but overall I'd imagine, with the right infrastructure and widespread adoption of the format, the overall reductions in co2 levels would be greater.

(BTW, I'm just a casual observer on this issue and am open to correction from those more knowledgeable on the matter.)

Yakult

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Most hydrogen is made from gas, converted very inefficiently into another gas and then inefficiently burned in a fuel cell ? that sounds mad to me !

Currently yes. Most hydrogen gas production is from fossil fuels. But they are constantly improving other methods such as biomass gasification and electrolysis of water.

Still early days but I think we will see more from it down the line.

emigrate2012

emigrate2012 wrote: »

I think it's the better option long term than battery only. Sure, battery life will increase (likely greatly in the next few short years) but even so recycling them safely and an environmentally friendly way may cause problems.

Look at the Mexicans taking on the job of recycling American lead acid battery's (it's a fcukin messy unsafe procedure in most case's) most developed nations won't want the hassle, farming the job out to less developed nations, where it's cheaper and there's less oversight (or none) and not wouldn't be environmentally safe.
But outta sight, outta mind.

Also, battery only ev's (in terms of global co2 reduction, which really is the end issue) really need to be charged from infrastructure that is based on over 50% renewable sources (wind, solar, wave, even nuclear) to meet the goal of meaningful co2 reduction.

That said , I've no idea what expected life of a fuel cell is or will be but overall I'd imagine, with the right infrastructure and widespread adoption of the format, the overall reductions in co2 levels would be greater.

(BTW, I'm just a casual observer on this issue and am open to correction from those more knowledgeable on the matter.)

You're still missing the fundamental issue with hydrogen, that is it's horrible inefficiency, emissions are much higher than using already generated electricity and in Ireland more and more of our energy is coming from wind.

Then there is the inefficiency of the fuel cell itself.

Today 51 % of our energy is coming form wind ! That is, more coming from wind than any other source of energy. Granted there are a lot of days we see 5% wind but seeing 51% coming from wind is hugely impressive any day !

http://smartgriddashboard.eirgrid.com/#all

Hydrogen will not offer anything for the average motorist and it will mean expensive refuelling compared to electricity which I am greatly opposed to, most people will be happy with 200 -240 miles range recharging from their own "fuel station" at home charging on ever increasing amounts of green energy ! The fast chargers take cars of the rest for the odd few times 200-240 miles isn't enough.

When batteries are no longer of use in an Ev they will live on in storage applications for many more years, by this time there should be a far better recycling program.

Yakult

Yakult wrote: »

Currently yes. Most hydrogen gas production is from fossil fuels. But they are constantly improving other methods such as biomass gasification and electrolysis of water.

Still early days but I think we will see more from it down the line.

I'm sure we'll see hydrogen for some commercial applications but for the average
motorist it offers nothing other than faster refuelling but the refuelling can be done over night when they're asleep or in the future it's quiet possible DC chargers will become much cheaper so charging a 60 Kwh battery could take just 2-3 hrs but for the majority this won't be necessary because the range will be charged over a few days.

Hydrogen production may get greener but why waste so much energy when it can be much more efficiently put into batteries. ?

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

motorist it offers nothing other than faster refuelling but the refuelling can be done over night when they're asleep or in the future it's quiet possible DC chargers will become much cheaper so charging a 60 Kwh battery could take just 2-3 hrs but for the majority this won't be necessary because the range will be charged over a few days.

Even 2 - 3 hours is too much, it would turn me off getting one if I had to remember to charge the car.

The swappable battery seems like the best solution to me, it wouldn't even require much infrastructure then either. They could simply supply a battery swapping machine that E-cars drive onto. Petrol stations would just need to find a space for it.

A battery swapping method would more than likely mean your paying a monthly charge rather than paying for each fill (your using their batteries so they're going to need deposits and a contract), it could be that other than making the space for the battery swapper there's no charge to the petrol station for the equipment. It would be owned and maintained by the battery supply company and the station just charges for rental of the space.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

Even 2 - 3 hours is too much, it would turn me off getting one if I had to remember to charge the car.

The swappable battery seems like the best solution to me, it wouldn't even require much infrastructure then either. They could simply supply a battery swapping machine that E-cars drive onto. Petrol stations would just need to find a space for it.

A battery swapping method would more than likely mean your paying a monthly charge rather than paying for each fill (your using their batteries so they're going to need deposits and a contract), it could be that other than making the space for the battery swapper there's no charge to the petrol station for the equipment. It would be owned and maintained by the battery supply company and the station just charges for rental of the space.

So you're willing to pay a high price for hydrogen because you fear leaving the car unplugged ? I haven't done this yet in nearly a year !

I can't believe 200 miles range is still not enough for people with an over night charge. Especially if you can replace 170 miles in 30 mins on a 100 Kw charger. I think the majority of people will be more than happy with this apart from the usual EV bashers here on boards.

Battery swapping was tried and failed, too expensive to set up and maintain.

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

So you're willing to pay a high price for hydrogen because you fear leaving the car unplugged ? I haven't done this yet in nearly a year !

I never mentioned hydrogen in that post?

I can't believe 200 miles range is still not enough for people with an over night charge. Especially if you can replace 170 miles in 30 mins on a 100 Kw charger. I think the majority of people will be more than happy with this apart from the usual EV bashers here on boards.

It's not so much that 200 miles isn't enough range, its that if I need to do another 200 miles I'll have to wait until tomorrow to do it. If I forget to charge the car I'm fecked, if there's a problem with the elctricity supply I'm fecked. The only guarantee I'd get from an electric car that's properly managed is that it will get me to work and back.

Battery swapping was tried and failed, too expensive to set up and maintain.

Who tried and failed at battery swapping?

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

I never mentioned hydrogen in that post?

It's not so much that 200 miles isn't enough range, its that if I need to do another 200 miles I'll have to wait until tomorrow to do it. If I forget to charge the car I'm fecked, if there's a problem with the elctricity supply I'm fecked. The only guarantee I'd get from an electric car that's properly managed is that it will get me to work and back.

Who tried and failed at battery swapping?

Better place tried and failed with battery swapping.

If you need to do another 200 miles range then there's a high probability you won't be near home and will use the 100 Kw chargers if they're rolled out fast though.

You'll always find a what if question but they haven't happened to me yet.

What if my ICE won't start because the 12 battery dies and I can't get a jump start ?

What if I go out to the ICE car and it won't start ?

If I hear of a storm coming I will charge the car before for instance.

All unlikely scenarios but possibilities.

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

Better place tried and failed with battery swapping.

They must be the Israeli company I had heard of. From what I'm reading here it was mismanagement that lead to the collapse of the company. But they're not the only company doing it, Tesla already has a facility for testing battery swapping and it sounds like that's the direction they want to go. They have a good prerogative to get people to switch to this service since they guaranteed free charging on their stations for life.

It will take industry standardisation and we may be some time off that but there's nothing indicating battery swapping would fail, or has failed. It hasn't even been on a large scale trial yet.

nokia69

ScumLord wrote: »

They must be the Israeli company I had heard of. From what I'm reading here it was mismanagement that lead to the collapse of the company. But they're not the only company doing it, Tesla already has a facility for testing battery swapping and it sounds like that's the direction they want to go. They have a good prerogative to get people to switch to this service since they guaranteed free charging on their stations for life.

It will take industry standardisation and we may be some time off that but there's nothing indicating battery swapping would fail, or has failed. It hasn't even been on a large scale trial yet.

It failed for better place, they lost millions, not enough people were interested in the idea

Tesla were going to start demo trial run of battery swapping, but again so few people were interested they have more or less given up on the idea for now

with large batteries 60kWh or better, and supercharging there is no need for battery swapping

ScumLord

nokia69 wrote: »

It failed for better place, they lost millions, not enough people were interested in the idea

That's one company, of many that are trialing swappable batteries it seems pretty clear they mismanaged the situation. They opened to many test stations at a time when too few people even had electric cars. If you're telling people to buy their electric car and spend a load more money adapting the batteries for swapping, of course your not going to get the few people that have overpaid for the early adoption of electric to switch.

It's a very different situation to a manufacturer providing a standardised swappable battery.

Tesla were going to start demo trial run of battery swapping, but again so few people were interested they have more or less given up on the idea for now

Tesla still seem to be trialing the technology, just last year Elon was doing demonstrations of the system, comparing it to petrol fills.

Electric cars are still in a minority, very few people have them, it's impossible to say what interest is like. Unless you have links to some surveys of people saying that if they did buy an electric car they'd prefer that the battery is permanently fixed and not possible to quickly swap out.

with large batteries 60kWh or better, and supercharging there is no need for battery swapping

Yes there is, no company is going to buy a car/van that needs to stop for 30 minutes (at best) every 300km. I don't see most people that live in the country taking a risk on an electric until there's infrastructure. If electric wants to replace combustion it needs to be better than a petrol in every way, including range and ease of refueling.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

If electric wants to replace combustion it needs to be better than a petrol in every way, including range and ease of refueling.

We'll see what happens to diesel if the E.U introduce stricter emissions controls and tests. Could be huge boost to EV in the next 5-10 years.

There is no incentive to go electric as it stands now, "cheap" diesel 50-60 quid a week in fuel is more than affordable to most people, range is an issue but 200 miles ? come on, that has to attract a lot more people.

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

We'll see what happens to diesel if the E.U introduce stricter emissions controls and tests. Could be huge boost to EV in the next 5-10 years.

There is no incentive to go electric as it stands now, "cheap" diesel 50-60 quid a week in fuel is more than affordable to most people, range is an issue but 200 miles ? come on, that has to attract a lot more people.

Depends on your job and how far you are away from amenities I guess. In a city I think an electric makes perfect sense. Once you're out in the country they just don't work. The range is an issue when you have to drive ten miles or more for just about everything. Go to work, come back, go down to the shop, bring the kids to soccer, it all adds up to the point you'd want to make sure you're plugged in when ever the car is not in use. Maybe a wireless charging pad in your driveway could sort that though?

For business it makes no financial sense whatsoever.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

Depends on your job and how far you are away from amenities I guess. In a city I think an electric makes perfect sense. Once you're out in the country they just don't work. The range is an issue when you have to drive ten miles or more for just about everything. Go to work, come back, go down to the shop, bring the kids to soccer, it all adds up to the point you'd want to make sure you're plugged in when ever the car is not in use. Maybe a wireless charging pad in your driveway could sort that though?

For business it makes no financial sense whatsoever.

A 200 mile commute ? I admit the current 70-80 mile range is a bit low and the 90-105 miles of the 30 Kwh but 200 miles ? the average daily commute driven in Ireland is 16 Kms.

I don't live in a City or Town and drive 134 Kms daily, yes I have the work charge point now but was happy enough to charge on the way home for 10 mins, and sure it's nice to keep driving and not having to stop to charge but it really didn't bother me and I know I'd be the exception , most people wouldn't entertain the idea even if it's saving 180 Euro's a month or more and that's fine by me, it worked for me. Having said that the 30 Kwh battery would allow me complete my daily commute with no charging. And I could even travel further. But the 60 Kwh if affordable would be more than I need 98% of the time, the limitation to me is more the 25,000 Kms a year PCP limit.

As for plugging in the car ? if someone finds that too difficult or a chore then there's something wrong.