Are we being forced to go electric?

[icowden]

How ever much I dislike cars on the road I can't say I blame you. Life is built around easy transport and for most people the car is the best solution.

I blame Beeching.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Not if you look at Tesla's philosophy and they are the ones that put in the momentum. An EV uses electricity and that can be generated by Solar and Wind.

I'd be very careful basing anything on Tesla's "Philosophy" in the first place, as Musk has a track record of bold statements, which are then quietly forgotten when they don't work. I think they first made a small profit last year and are massively overvalued. I'd be more interested in the evidence on the ground and that isn't exactly overwhelming.

Own a skyscraper or large building - put solar on the roof. Own a multistorey carpark with an open top - put roof top solar up above the cars. Own a farm and want to maximise your cash after the UK Govt has failed to subsidise you - install solar above your crops etc etc.

You can do most of that, but you'll still not generate anything like as much energy as oil can deliver, which is the basic, largely ignored problem when trying to convert the car fleet from oil to electric.

Ah but what is normal? The philosophers have debated this for millennia... Books and newspapers were once thought to be antisocial.

Normal is living within your means. This isn't a matter of philosophy, not what we think, but a matter of available energy, specifically the energy returned on the energy invested. Laws of physics haven't changed; we just had access to unusually large amounts of energy in oil.

Why not?

Because our current system only looks economical because we have access to energy in the form of oil, practically for nothing. As oil becomes harder to get, and it is harder to get, we will increasingly have to decide what we want to spend it on. As oil is used for many things, such as agriculture, we will need to burn less in transport, and a system that requires a 1.5 tonne vehicle to transport 1-4 people will look increasingly silly.

Of course, allowing people to drive heavy vehicles on roads provided practically for nothing is masking the other incidental costs, but that's getting slightly NACA.

How are you moving them? Electric train? Electric boat? Electric plane?

Trains are far more efficient than road based transport even when using diesel engines, but electric trains are not a new technology: one is barrelling past as I write this, carrying more than a fleet of trucks could in a week. As no-one has managed to work out how to make electric trucks even carry the fairly small payload of a diesel truck, that's not about to change.

Boats will become more important. A lot of bulk cargo where I live is transported by boat, as it was long, long before trucks came about. Maybe they'll use electric motors soon; maybe we'll decide that as they're more efficient, we will use what oil we have to power those instead of trucks.

Ultimately our future is one of less travelling, and more localised travelling; not doing the same but with batteries.

 

[icowden]

You can do most of that, but you'll still not generate anything like as much energy as oil can deliver, which is the basic, largely ignored problem when trying to convert the car fleet from oil to electric.

But oil is terrible for energy delivery. So much of the energy is lost to heat etc. The only limit to solar and wind is defined by the sun and the winds. We need to make better solar panels - and many are. That's why Tesla bought SolarCIty.

Normal is living within your means. This isn't a matter of philosophy, not what we think, but a matter of available energy, specifically the energy returned on the energy invested. Laws of physics haven't changed; we just had access to unusually large amounts of energy in oil.

And then we invented Nuclear which gave us lots of energy for far less source material but at the cost of radioactivity. Solar and wind will soon be providing vast amounts of energy because massive amounts of research are now being done.

Because our current system only looks economical because we have access to energy in the form of oil, practically for nothing.

Our National Grid is largely renewables, Gas and Nuclear. No oil.

Ultimately our future is one of less travelling, and more localised travelling; not doing the same but with batteries.

Sounds awful. I vote for batteries.

 

[Andy in Germany]

But oil is terrible for energy delivery. So much of the energy is lost to heat etc. The only limit to solar and wind is defined by the sun and the winds. We need to make better solar panels - and many are. That's why Tesla bought SolarCIty.

Again, I'll wait for the evidence, not the extravagant claims made by Tesla.

Oil is inefficient, which is part of the problem, but as a portable source of energy that was cheaply available, it kept our transport systems running for nearly a century. Nothing else can compete with the amount of energy it produces for the energy invested.

And then we invented Nuclear which gave us lots of energy for far less source material but at the cost of radioactivity. Solar and wind will soon be providing vast amounts of energy because massive amounts of research are now being done.

Nuclear has a stack of problems both unrelated and indirectly related to radiation. Again, if I go onto them I'll be straying into naca territory, but suffice to say, it's no more a panacea then batteries.

Our National Grid is largely renewables, Gas and Nuclear. No oil.

But our transport system is oil dependent, and we can't replace vehicles with EV's on a 1:1 basis. Even if we had the materials for batteries they couldn't store the energy, hence the range issues. Also, despite claims by Tesla, Electric HGV's aren't working out.

Sounds awful. I vote for batteries.

Unfortunately, or possibly forunately, we don't get a vote: this is physics and engineering, not politics.

 

[fossyant]

I only do about 5,000 miles a year so the economics are quite different and the fuel savings would never claw back the price difference over the life of the vehicle. You must be doing around 15,000, which is almost double the UK average.

I'm not anti-EV and I fully intended to buy one this time around, but all the numbers (cars, "fuel", grants and taxation) have gone in the wrong direction. Added to that, the PCP cost is exorbitant because the makers are using very pessimistic residuals. I have no appetite for a £450/month deal, especially for a car at the lower end of the range, er, range.

Same here, don't drive enough to make the extra cost of an EV worthwhile. 3000 miles last year, and most of that is motorway.

 

[icowden]

Unfortunately, or possibly forunately, we don't get a vote: this is physics and engineering, not politics.

Yes, Engineering. That doesn't require oil:-

https://www.greencars.com/greencars-101/the-future-of-ev-batteries

Or to summarise - EV batteries are the new gold rush.

 

[cougie uk]

Not likely to happen, beyond what is already being done (I.e. ULEZ zones, banning sale of new ICE cars). Any party that had a manifesto including actual restrictions on car ownership just wouldn't get elected.

Even in this group, where we are all reasonably keen cyclists (or we wouldn't be here), from what I can gather, most of us have at least one car per household, often more.

The issue is that any change in widespread car use (note I say "use" not "ownership") will require a MASSIVE change in lifestyle for a large portion of the population, and a significant reduction in quality of life for many. More than most would be willing to undergo.

I'm not sure about the quality of life thing.
If we carry on without a care in the world we will basically kill off the planet so not much quality of life for the cute grandkids.
Driving huge distances to work or whatever sounds awful to me. I'd rather have a lower salary at a job I can walk or ride to (which is what I did).
Keeping fit and healthy is more important than a bank balance.

 

[cougie uk]

Yes, Engineering. That doesn't require oil:-

https://www.greencars.com/greencars-101/the-future-of-ev-batteries

Or to summarise - EV batteries are the new gold rush.

I've absolutely no interest in a 500 mile range battery that charges in minutes. Ridiculously over specced for more than 0.01% of users.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Yes, Engineering. That doesn't require oil:-

https://www.greencars.com/greencars-101/the-future-of-ev-batteries

Or to summarise - EV batteries are the new gold rush.

Engineering does have to work within Physics.

EV batteries are the new gold rush, and that means there will be lots of snake oil sellers.

 

[Pale Rider]

EV batteries are the new gold rush.

You say that as if you think it's a good thing.

We really don't need another rush to dig up the planet.

Might as well have a new oil rush.

At least we'd get some decent, usable power for our graft.

 

[youngoldbloke]

What's the electric future for military transport - can't imagine how you could recharge an e-tank's battery in a combat situation. Filling it with diesel takes moments but recharging a very hefty battery? There's going to be a need for oil based fuels for a long time yet.

 

[FishFright]

What's the electric future for military transport - can't imagine how you could recharge an e-tank's battery in a combat situation. Filling it with diesel takes moments but recharging a very hefty battery? There's going to be a need for oil based fuels for a long time yet.

All this change is driven by the certain knowledge that oil is getting harder and more expensive to source. It wasn't that long ago that oil shales were considered very uneconomic to process and now they can't get it fast enough.

As for electric tanks , what else is going to power them once diesel is a rare commodity ?

 

[Gillstay]

What it mostly needs is a willingness to change ,. As we can see from this thread and many other similar ones , a majority would rather do nothing than change anything.

It's time stop waiting for other people to hold the hands of drivers and start handing out the whip.

Yep. Could start with stopping all SUV's from driving in the third lane. After all if its a Utility vehicle its not going to need to is it. Same as lorries.

 

[Gunk]

Yep. Could start with stopping all SUV's from driving in the third lane. After all if its a Utility vehicle its not going to need to is it. Same as lorries.

I’d also ban Honda Jazz’s driving at 65mph in the middle lane on an empty motorway

 

[Jameshow]

I’d also ban Honda Jazz’s driving at 65mph in the middle lane on an empty motorway

Usually nissan leaf's!!