The Historically Accurate EV discussion

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Recycling More Heat- Hyundai and Kia Turn Up EV Efficiency with New Heat Pump Technology

https://news.hyundaimotorgroup.com/M...echnology#none

A lot of people know that the batteries are at their best at about 20 C , and lose over 20% of efficiency /range if the temp is 20 up or down from that .

But the Hyundai/ Kia battery tech thing is not new , & is probably the reason why they usually only lose about 10% of the claimed mileage under real driving conditions , compared to the 20 to 30 % mileage loss from a lot of other manufacturers .

[crmalcolm]

Switzerland: DPD To Use Electric Truck With Largest Battery Available

https://insideevs.com/news/429066/sw...ery-available/

[crmalcolm]

Watch Tesla Model S Raven Destroy New Chevy Camaro ZL-1 In Drag Race

https://insideevs.com/news/429061/vi...-chevy-camaro/

[midgetman]

We know EVs can be quick that's a given. TBH even as an EV follower I'd be more excited to see them doing distance drives. Can an EV live with an ICE over a holiday tour across Europe?

That'll be the test of both car and infrastructure.


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Tel 911S]

https://www.businessinsider.de/wirts...ush-1592649475

German BUSINESS INSIDER magazine restating the fact , [ which the Green Parties have been trying to deny ,] that EVs are no benefit for the environment .
With the very high cost , lack of range & charging network , the main point they have been trying to sell them on is again shown up to be lies .
With only 20% of electricity from fossil fuels , EVs are still overall producing more CO2 than ICE engined vehicles , & the EU has admitted that up to 2050 most of Europe will still be over 40% fossil fuel electricity generation .

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

https://www.businessinsider.de/wirts...ush-1592649475

German BUSINESS INSIDER magazine restating the fact , [ which the Green Parties have been trying to deny ,] that EVs are no benefit for the environment .
With the very high cost , lack of range & charging network , the main point they have been trying to sell them on is again shown up to be lies .
With only 20% of electricity from fossil fuels , EVs are still overall producing more CO2 than ICE engined vehicles , & the EU has admitted that up to 2050 most of Europe will still be over 40% fossil fuel electricity generation .

If we are going to continue pushing the agenda, can we at least be honest with what is written?

Business Insider are not 'restating any fact', and make no link to any 'Green Parties' in their article. The article also makes no claim or mention of EVs being no benefit for the environment.

The article also makes no mention of high cost, range or charging network infrastructure - these are conflations you have made with the article. The EU has also made no 'admission' about most of Europe being over 40% fossil fuel.

A more honest appraisal of the article:

Business Insider are reporting (objectively) that a study has been published suggesting that the extra electrical consumption from grids of EVs, if supplies to the grid do not alter, may result in an overall increase of CO2 emissions.

The EU commission estimates that, in some possible scenarios, we may still be reliant on fossil fuels for 40% of electricity in 2050.

Schmidt's study actually says that 'a scenario in which electromobility can contribute to climate protection instead of damaging the climate is "far away"' - which is surely an admission that it is achievable, but requires work?

You can choose to read Schmidt's study from a perspective of anti- or pro- EVs. What it does say is that EVs can be a benefit for the environment, if the electricity supply is developed appropriately.

[Peter Mallett]

On the subject of fossil fuel power stations, Qatargas, which is the world's largest exporter of LNG, has recently contracted for 100 additional tankers. They must know something the rest of the world doesn't.

http://www.qatargas.com/english/Medi...-carriers.aspx

And they are also currently engineering a further two LNG super trains.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

On the subject of fossil fuel power stations, Qatargas, which is the world's largest exporter of LNG, has recently contracted for 100 additional tankers. They must know something the rest of the world doesn't.

http://www.qatargas.com/english/Medi...-carriers.aspx

And they are also currently engineering a further two LNG super trains.

Mobile storage units?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Mobile storage units?

Keep producing, store it long term.

Then wait until the historic market pushes the price up, and sell at a premium.

When the mainstream market has moved away from a product, it becomes niche and more valuable......

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Mobile storage units?

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Keep producing, store it long term.

Then wait until the historic market pushes the price up, and sell at a premium.

When the mainstream market has moved away from a product, it becomes niche and more valuable......

Nope, They see the market expanding.

The US has also started to build more LNG plants, two of which are in partnership with Qatargas. So, although we'd like to think things are going full on green, I doubt it will really happen in terms of infrastructure for quite some time. The recent proclamation of the non coal powered period ignores the biofuel and gas consumption which probably provided the majority of power.

So, as Ford has told me my Mach E is now delayed until next year I'll be burning fossil fuels for much longer.

Another point to come out of the recent crisis is the shipping companies who are expecting to use LNG as the motive power for their fleets. Again this will only increase the sale of the product.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

If we are going to continue pushing the agenda, can we at least be honest with what is written?

Business Insider are not 'restating any fact', and make no link to any 'Green Parties' in their article. The article also makes no claim or mention of EVs being no benefit for the environment.

The article also makes no mention of high cost, range or charging network infrastructure - these are conflations you have made with the article. The EU has also made no 'admission' about most of Europe being over 40% fossil fuel.

A more honest appraisal of the article:

Business Insider are reporting (objectively) that a study has been published suggesting that the extra electrical consumption from grids of EVs, if supplies to the grid do not alter, may result in an overall increase of CO2 emissions.

The EU commission estimates that, in some possible scenarios, we may still be reliant on fossil fuels for 40% of electricity in 2050.

Schmidt's study actually says that 'a scenario in which electromobility can contribute to climate protection instead of damaging the climate is "far away"' - which is surely an admission that it is achievable, but requires work?

You can choose to read Schmidt's study from a perspective of anti- or pro- EVs. What it does say is that EVs can be a benefit for the environment, if the electricity supply is developed appropriately.

2 to 3 years ago the Swedish Environmental Institute did a study which showed that overall, EVs lead to more co2 production .
This has been widely attacked by all of the Green parties , especially in Germany , where they even censored a report by a transport minister who said that the Lockdown proved that air pollution in cities was not caused by traffic .
So it is a restating of the facts of an earlier study
Now this new study shows that , " At the present electrical generation mix , EVs are FAR AWAY from environmentally friendly "

So your version of that is a long way away from what most people would call an " honest appraisal "

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Nope, They see the market expanding.

The US has also started to build more LNG plants, two of which are in partnership with Qatargas. So, although we'd like to think things are going full on green, I doubt it will really happen in terms of infrastructure for quite some time. The recent proclamation of the non coal powered period ignores the biofuel and gas consumption which probably provided the majority of power.

So, as Ford has told me my Mach E is now delayed until next year I'll be burning fossil fuels for much longer.

Another point to come out of the recent crisis is the shipping companies who are expecting to use LNG as the motive power for their fleets. Again this will only increase the sale of the product.

CCGT , [ gas fired ] power stations are much cheaper for producing electricity than Wind or Solar , [ about 15 times cheaper over the 60? years life of a power station ].
Also they can run the whole grid , where wind or solar of over about 30% total will destabilise the grid leading to blackouts , or at the very least enormous amounts of extra money to try to keep the lights on .

So gas is a lot more sensible approach to a lot of things while renewable energy is very unreliable & very expensive .

[crmalcolm]

Lucid Motors to unveil production Air electric car with pricing and specs on Sept 9

https://electrek.co/2020/06/17/lucid...-specs-sept-9/

The Lucid Air is going to be equipped with a more than 900V system, will have up to 400 miles of real-world range, and more.

The first version of the car, which might be called Dream Edition based on a recent teaser, is expected to cost over $100,000 and have up to 1,000hp.

Rawlinson told Electrek that he didn’t set out to create a 1,000hp car, but the power is a consequence of creating a long-range electric vehicle.

The CEO expects the Air to create a new standard for efficiency with 4 to 5 miles of range per kWh for a full-size luxury sedan.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

Now this new study shows that , " At the present electrical generation mix , EVs are FAR AWAY from environmentally friendly "

So your version of that is a long way away from what most people would call an " honest appraisal "

I was referring to an honest appraisal of the article, which is what most people would prefer.
If you check back, nowhere does it say EVs are 'far away' from environmentally friendly. It says the scenario is far away.

The cost or benefit to the environment depends on the scenario it is used under. In the right scenario, EVs are environmentally friendly.
But don't let the truth get in the way of misrepresenting the sources to fulfill the agenda.

[S griffin]

I too saw that was a fair balanced view of the article. EVs are still in their infancy. It’s still has a lot of obstacles to overcome before it can even think of taking over the car industry. Gas guzzlers will still hold sway for quite some time, I think EV cars will have a job on to challenge them in this decade. One day though they will be the cars to have

At the same time those doing the EV production know it’s better to walk before you can run. At the end of the day no one is forcing anyone to buy one. You can make up your own mind on these EVs, but on whether they are right for the enviroment etc is best left to the experts. Trying to pick holes in them because you don’t like them isn’t the answer

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I was referring to an honest appraisal of the article, which is what most people would prefer.
If you check back, nowhere does it say EVs are 'far away' from environmentally friendly. It says the scenario is far away.

The cost or benefit to the environment depends on the scenario it is used under. In the right scenario, EVs are environmentally friendly.
But don't let the truth get in the way of misrepresenting the sources to fulfill the agenda.

So the headline which says "Far away from climate friendly " , and further down where it says " EVs aggravate Global Warming if current Electricity mix is used as a basis " , do not exist in your world .

I think you must be using AUTOCAR as a translator .

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

So the headline which says "Far away from climate friendly " , and further down where it says " EVs aggravate Global Warming if current Electricity mix is used as a basis " , do not exist in your world .

I think you must be using AUTOCAR as a translator .

The point being that the electricity supply is the issue, not EVs.

An EV using 1kWh will use 1kWh whether that comes from coal, gas, nuclear, wind, solar or any other source.
The 'far away' refers to those sources, not the EVs.
As you say, 'if current electricity mix is used as a basis'. Change that mix and EVs become part of the solution.

[Paul D]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

In the right scenario, EVs are environmentally friendly.

But surely that's kinda the point? Because the right scenario doesn't exist, and probably isn't likely to for decades based on the current scenario?

In the right scenario, we can get ICE vehicles to do 200 MPG with virtually zero emissions.

In the right scenario, we can put a man on mars with a two week transit time.

In the right scenario, we can cure world poverty.

In the right scenario, we can rid the planet of disease, including Covid.

But sadly, those scenarios don't exist yet, and probably won't for quite some time, so it's a bit pointless speaking hypothetically, don't you agree?

[midgetman]

No I don't agree. One needs a goal, an aspiration, and a strategy to get there. Of course it doesn't work immediately, give time for development. If it weren't for aspirations and dreams we'd still be using horses.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Paul D

But sadly, those scenarios don't exist yet, and probably won't for quite some time, so it's a bit pointless speaking hypothetically, don't you agree?

So because today's scenario is not right, we should abandon all hope of changing the scenario?

[Paul D]

No, I'm not saying that we should abandon all hope... not yet, anyway!

But rather making the point that if we're talking hypothetically, then you can say just about anything is possible, however unlikely it may seem.

Max, I'm not saying we shouldn't be aspirational - of course we should, it's what creates progress.

But... those aspirations need to be realistic & achievable for people to take them seriously.

I have no doubt that, eventually, we will have the bulk of our electricity provided by means other than burning fossil fuels, and maybe on that day, we can genuinely call electric vehicles 'zero emissions'. But do any of you reading this really believe that day is just around the corner? If you do, then I'd have to say you're delusional. I reckon anyone who tells us that day is any closer than 20 years away is having a laugh. And while I'm certainly no expert, my feeling is that day could be 40 or 50 years away, so probably not in most of our lifetimes.

Governments move on these things at a less than glacial pace, so don't be expecting quantum changes to happen overnight. That's not to say these changes shouldn't be brought about, but I just wish they'd be a bit more upfront and honest about the whole situation.

As things stand today, right now, you're probably doing little, if anything towards 'saving the planet' by buying and EV, when you factor in all of the elements to it - the raw materials, manufacture and end-of-life considerations and the way the electricity is currently generated to charge it.

So if you want to go and buy one, fine, I have no problem with that. But what I do object to is the attempts at brain-washing carried out by the manufacturers and politicians who would have you believe that you are, in fact, saving the planet by buying one of these and abandoning your nasty, dirty, smelly ICE, when, in reality, with the current technology and not some possible future scenario, there probably isn't much in it.

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by Paul D

But rather making the point that if we're talking hypothetically, then you can say just about anything is possible, however unlikely it may seem.
But... those aspirations need to be realistic & achievable for people to take them seriously.
As things stand today, right now, you're probably doing little, if anything towards 'saving the planet' by buying and EV, when you factor in all of the elements to it - the raw materials, manufacture and end-of-life considerations and the way the electricity is currently generated to charge it.
So if you want to go and buy one, fine, I have no problem with that. But what I do object to is the attempts at brain-washing carried out by the manufacturers and politicians who would have you believe that you are, in fact, saving the planet by buying one of these and abandoning your nasty, dirty, smelly ICE, when, in reality, with the current technology and not some possible future scenario, there probably isn't much in it.

Pretty much my own beliefs there, Paul, but I doubt I could have put it so well. I imagine in the next couple of years when my wife changes her car it will be to an EV, though a Tesla will be beyond our pockets, unfortunately. However, I doubt the change will do anything for the environment.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

it says " EVs aggravate Global Warming if current Electricity mix is used as a basis ".

I thought global warming was a scam though?

How can something that doesn't exist be aggravated?

[Adam43]

In which I can can drive an EV guilt free. Fun and I don't have to worry about the environment. Win win.

[crmalcolm]

The history of Porsche begins electrically

'In 1898, Ferdinand Porsche designed the Egger-Lohner C.2 Phaeton. The vehicle was powered by an octagonal electric motor, and with three to five PS it reached a top speed of 25 km/h. In 1899, Porsche joined the carriage maker in Vienna, k.u.k. Hofwagenfabrik Ludwig Lohner & Co.

There he developed the electric wheel hub motor. In 1900, the first Lohner-Porsche Electromobile with this innovation was presented at the Expo in Paris. With 2 x 2.5 PS it reached a top speed of 37 km/h. Lohner’s reason for a vehicle with an electric motor sounds as topical today as it did then, especially in relation to the era of mass motorisation: the air was “ruthlessly spoiled by the large number of petrol engines in use”.

Also in 1900, Porsche designed the world's first functional hybrid car, the “Semper Vivus” (Latin for “always alive”). The technology, marketed as the Lohner-Porsche system, also had applications beyond the sphere of electric vehicles. Porsche extended the car’s range by not using a battery as an energy source, but instead using a combustion engine to drive a generator and thus supply the wheel hub with electrical energy. One year later, the production-ready version was born as the Lohner-Porsche “Mixte”.'