Adventures in an all electric vehicle.

[premmington]

The problem is further upstream

The government have, to all intents mandated a solution (lithium batteries). And in doing so, made it pretty much impossible to invest in anything else.

Governments record of "backing a horse" are woeful to put it mildly.

What they should have done is mandated an outcome and let the market come up with solutions.

Sadly too late now. We are "all in" on batteries and will, in due course, suffer the consequences of that ridiculous "backing of one horse".

That is a very valid point.

"setting the target not the method structure"

 

[daleyd]

The problem is further upstream

The government have, to all intents mandated a solution (lithium batteries). And in doing so, made it pretty much impossible to invest in anything else.

Governments record of "backing a horse" are woeful to put it mildly.

What they should have done is mandated an outcome and let the market come up with solutions.

Sadly too late now. We are "all in" on batteries and will, in due course, suffer the consequences of that ridiculous "backing of one horse".

How have “the government” (presumably you just mean our government and not every other countries government too?) done this?

What alternative do you think they should have backed?

Do you not think they are providing infrastructure to suit what the car industry are telling them they are going to be doing, and not the other way round?

Why is providing a charging system only favourable for lithium batteries? The same charging system can work with any other form of battery?

 

[sako243]

I think what he was referring to was the favouritism towards electric and pure battery vehicles. What they should be doing instead is saying that vehicles should be carbon neutral / zero harmful emissions (as an example).

 

[daleyd]

I think what he was referring to was the favouritism towards electric and pure battery vehicles. What they should be doing instead is saying that vehicles should be carbon neutral / zero harmful emissions (as an example).

Isn’t that exactly what they have said? I think that is in fact the actual wording from them.

It just happens that bev happen to be the one thing which is actually achievable with current tech, whereas others aren’t.

 

[HughF]

And that is why you buy a Tesla…. For the charging network.

 

[Roger440]

Isn’t that exactly what they have said? I think that is in fact the actual wording from them.

It just happens that bev happen to be the one thing which is actually achievable with current tech, whereas others aren’t.

No. The have banned ICE vehicles. From 2030. And no, not all governments have done this. In fact one of only 2 out of 197.

Thats very different to setting an emmisions standard, even if that standard is zero emmisions.

In doing so, they have enitrely eliminated the arcitecture of the modern motor vehicke, and precluded any further development along that avenue.

So even if someone could or did come a with a fuel that allowed continued use of the basic principle of internal combustion, its banned anyway.

As i said, "to all intents" thay have backed a single horse. Utterly ludicrous. And i gurantee, will bite us. Hard.

Meanwhile, a good chunk of the world have left themselves open to new technologies that may yet develop. We have just reduced the chances of that with our dumb lawmaking.

 

[Roger440]

How have “the government” (presumably you just mean our government and not every other countries government too?) done this?

What alternative do you think they should have backed?

Do you not think they are providing infrastructure to suit what the car industry are telling them they are going to be doing, and not the other way round?

Why is providing a charging system only favourable for lithium batteries? The same charging system can work with any other form of battery?

As above. Its not governments job to "back" anything. It should be to set a desired outcome. That is manifestly NOT what it has done.

The car industry are doing what the government have told them to do, not the otherway round. Theres plenty in the car industry that can see how this will end. A couple have said so. Most wont say anything publically. They are just trying to manage as best they can with the hand they are dealt.

Car "shortages" will be the first evidence. Assuming it makes it in to law later this year, the manufacturers will have to sell a certain % of electric cars across their range. So, regardless of demand, if they cant sell x number of electric cars, they will have to cease selling ICE cars once they reach that limit. This isnt going to be decided until September this year, with the law coming into effect 1st Jan 2024. How far in advance do you reckon car manufacturers order their cars? Let me tell you, its more than 4 months. So faced with the threat of a new law, with an unknown % figure, what would you do? The answer is, go cautious. Otherwise you will have field full of ICE cars you cant sell.

Then there the companies that dont have an electric option because they have a limited range, or only one model. They are finished.

Most of that initial pain will be in light commercials. Where replacing one van with 2 is your only viable option if you want to be on the road all day.

I predict the net result of the above lunacy will be longer retention of the existing fleet. Which is, of course, the exact opposite of the intention.

Im not sure they can "force" companies to buy electric vans. Still, the aftermarket will do OK, keeping the ever ageing fleet on the road.

 

[daleyd]

No. The have banned ICE vehicles. From 2030. And no, not all governments have done this. In fact one of only 2 out of 197.

Thats very different to setting an emmisions standard, even if that standard is zero emmisions.

In doing so, they have enitrely eliminated the arcitecture of the modern motor vehicke, and precluded any further development along that avenue.

So even if someone could or did come a with a fuel that allowed continued use of the basic principle of internal combustion, its banned anyway.

As i said, "to all intents" thay have backed a single horse. Utterly ludicrous. And i gurantee, will bite us. Hard.

Meanwhile, a good chunk of the world have left themselves open to new technologies that may yet develop. We have just reduced the chances of that with our dumb lawmaking.

That’s different to what you said though, they haven’t “backed” lithium batteries. They have said what they want to achieve.

I don’t particularly agree with it either, though they haven’t actually banned ice completely as all they say is that vehicles should have capability of some distance with zero emission (so hybrid will still be allowed). Our government aren’t the only ones to do this, the only difference is timescale.

I’d say it’s also pretty much nailed on that ice days are numbered, at least for personal transport -not just through the actions of our country, rightly or wrongly it’s a complete shift in the way the whole world is going.

 

[Roger440]

That’s different to what you said though, they haven’t “backed” lithium batteries. They have said what they want to achieve.

I don’t particularly agree with it either, though they haven’t actually banned ice completely as all they say is that vehicles should have capability of some distance with zero emission (so hybrid will still be allowed). Our government aren’t the only ones to do this, the only difference is timescale.

I’d say it’s also pretty much nailed on that ice days are numbered, at least for personal transport -not just through the actions of our country, rightly or wrongly it’s a complete shift in the way the whole world is going.

My original post said "to all intents".

Hybrid only allowed until 2035.

They havent said what they want to achieve in law. The law banned ICE.

The law is what counts, not what the press releases say.

 

[Pigeon_Droppings2]

Public transport is another area that needs far far more joined up thinking, like Holland.

When I lived in the Netherlands for 3 years (they don't like the name Holland) ...I cycled and got public transport everywhere...that was around 2005.

UK infrastructure is a joke...I've never cycled here because I don't want to die!...and my refusal to use public transport needs no explanation I think.

 

[daleyd]

As above. Its not governments job to "back" anything. It should be to set a desired outcome. That is manifestly NOT what it has done.

The car industry are doing what the government have told them to do, not the otherway round. Theres plenty in the car industry that can see how this will end. A couple have said so. Most wont say anything publically. They are just trying to manage as best they can with the hand they are dealt.

Car "shortages" will be the first evidence. Assuming it makes it in to law later this year, the manufacturers will have to sell a certain % of electric cars across their range. So, regardless of demand, if they cant sell x number of electric cars, they will have to cease selling ICE cars once they reach that limit. This isnt going to be decided until September this year, with the law coming into effect 1st Jan 2024. How far in advance do you reckon car manufacturers order their cars? Let me tell you, its more than 4 months. So faced with the threat of a new law, with an unknown % figure, what would you do? The answer is, go cautious. Otherwise you will have field full of ICE cars you cant sell.

Then there the companies that dont have an electric option because they have a limited range, or only one model. They are finished.

Most of that initial pain will be in light commercials. Where replacing one van with 2 is your only viable option if you want to be on the road all day.

I predict the net result of the above lunacy will be longer retention of the existing fleet. Which is, of course, the exact opposite of the intention.

Im not sure they can "force" companies to buy electric vans. Still, the aftermarket will do OK, keeping the ever ageing fleet on the road.

I don’t follow any of that logic I’m afraid - if they had said ok we want every car to be zero emissions by year x and then never put in place any infrastructure to achieve this then I’m sure there might be things to be said as well.

Like I said, if you think it’s purely uk driven then you need to have a look e a bit - the only difference is the date.

Phase-out of fossil fuel vehicles - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Pigeon_Droppings2]

I was reading an article yesterday that suggested the emissions to manufacture an EV are around 70% more than ICE vehicles...so basically just shifted the problem!

Banning ICE I think closes down the synthetic carbon neutral fuel route...that route seems like a far quicker way of addressing emissions from the existing global fleet of ICE vehicles?

 

[redlig]

I was reading an article yesterday that suggested the emissions to manufacture an EV are around 70% more than ICE vehicles...so basically just shifted the problem!

Banning ICE I think closes down the synthetic carbon neutral fuel route...that route seems like a far quicker way of addressing emissions from the existing global fleet of ICE vehicles?

Don't worry about the SCN Fuel . It's time will come just after we a have all been convinced/forced into EV and it will all start again . Magic Roundabout comes to mind.

 

[Pigeon_Droppings2]

Don't worry about the SCN Fuel . It's time will come just after we a have all been convinced/forced into EV and it will all start again

I think so too....it's a very simple answer to the problem of emissions caused by the millions of ICE vehicles that will still be around.

I think a PHEV using SCN on long trips and EV mode in cities is probably a good compromise as it stretches out the limited supplies of battery materials across more vehicles perhaps.

 

[not done it yet]

And that is why you buy a Tesla…. For the charging network.

That is now somewhat behind the curve? Do keep up with developments. Now that many of the Tesla superchargers are being made available to all electric car users (I was recently considering charging at Trumpington Park and Ride). May not happen, for all superchargers, but I expect it will for the majority .

The have banned ICE vehicles. From 2030

Pray tell me the form of motive power, when ICE are no longer sold in the UK? Other than the millions of ICE cars sold up until the cut-off date, of course. Other than ELE CTRIC, what form of power supply do you envisage?

Of course, that power could be from Hydrogen. But doubtful it would be from internal combustion - fuel cells are far more efficient than inefficient expansion of gases. Thermodynamics provide a good limit to the efficiency of using fuels that way. TEGs may be used, in the future, to increase the electrical output of fuel cells - but need further development for mass usage.

There is time for future developments to be adopted, but the storage of energy, for later use as motive power, will still require a store of some sort. Whether a chemical battery (such as at present or a futur development), super capacitors or other means not yet developed remains to be seen. There are some very clever people researching the possibilities all the time. Joe Public are streets behind the research results being amassed by those researchers.

 

[Roger440]

I don’t follow any of that logic I’m afraid - if they had said ok we want every car to be zero emissions by year x and then never put in place any infrastructure to achieve this then I’m sure there might be things to be said as well.

Like I said, if you think it’s purely uk driven then you need to have a look e a bit - the only difference is the date.

Phase-out of fossil fuel vehicles - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

ISure, others are doing it. But slower and with options for other things. The EU have just given synthetic fuels a window to prove their worth as an option. We havent.

All the legeslative stuff i mentioned is real. Its happening right now.

If you cant see the obvious consequences of restricting the supply of vehicles, then i cant help you.

The way your post reads sounds like you think the government are installing the infrastructure?

 

[Roger440]

Pray tell me the form of motive power, when ICE are no longer sold in the UK? Other than the millions of ICE cars sold up until the cut-off date, of course. Other than ELE CTRIC, what form of power supply do you envisage?

Of course, that power could be from Hydrogen. But doubtful it would be from internal combustion - fuel cells are far more efficient than inefficient expansion of gases. Thermodynamics provide a good limit to the efficiency of using fuels that way. TEGs may be used, in the future, to increase the electrical output of fuel cells - but need further development for mass usage.

There is time for future developments to be adopted, but the storage of energy, for later use as motive power, will still require a store of some sort. Whether a chemical battery (such as at present or a futur development), super capacitors or other means not yet developed remains to be seen. There are some very clever people researching the possibilities all the time. Joe Public are streets behind the research results being amassed by those researchers.

Not sure i understand your point. Other than its the same as mine. Banning ICE only ensures that batteries are the only answer. There was no reason to ban ICE. Simply to require zero emmisions. Let the market figure out how to achieve that. Im confident of one thing, government are less capable of coming uo with a solution than all the smart clever people including those researchers you refer to.

Synthetic fuels were an option. Now ruled out. But as far as i can tell ONLY by the UK.

 

[daleyd]

ISure, others are doing it. But slower and with options for other things. The EU have just given synthetic fuels a window to prove their worth as an option. We havent.

All the legeslative stuff i mentioned is real. Its happening right now.

If you cant see the obvious consequences of restricting the supply of vehicles, then i cant help you.

The way your post reads sounds like you think the government are installing the infrastructure?

No, why would the government install the infrastructure - but they are at the top layer so of course they need to approve things, and need to be involved at some level, giving grants, investments etc to move things forward.

What I don’t get is the gripe that they are “backing something” - but then what else can they do? If they back “nothing” then nothing will change and when at some point in the future we suddenly decide that “something” should be done then there will be cries of “why didn’t you do something”.

“They” have decided, rightly or wrongly, that they want zero emissions from a point in the future. That is now moot, unless they reverse the decision it’s cast. I don’t particularly agree with the decision but here we are.

So there has to be change. Is there currently, any alternative that our and other governments can back with a by certainty, other than ev? There is investment in hydrogen, at an industrial level which I’ve actually been involved in (HyNet) - but this is for addition to mains gas. But pretty much everyone sees hydrogen as a fuel for personal transport as at a dead end. There may be some breakthrough in the future but it doesn’t seem to be forthcoming at the moment. JCB are doing some research for use in construction etc but for personal car use it just doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.
What I am saying is that there is alternatives, of which Bev is the only one that’s currently available and is the only one that “they” can push as a realistic alternative to ice.

Synthetic fuels may well become a thing, but currently they aren’t. And if/when they become available in quantities I’d imagine they would be used for heavy goods/agriculture.

 

[Roger440]

No, why would the government install the infrastructure - but they are at the top layer so of course they need to approve things, and need to be involved at some level, giving grants, investments etc to move things forward.

What I don’t get is the gripe that they are “backing something” - but then what else can they do? If they back “nothing” then nothing will change and when at some point in the future we suddenly decide that “something” should be done then there will be cries of “why didn’t you do something”.

“They” have decided, rightly or wrongly, that they want zero emissions from a point in the future. That is now moot, unless they reverse the decision it’s cast. I don’t particularly agree with the decision but here we are.

So there has to be change. Is there currently, any alternative that our and other governments can back with a by certainty, other than ev? There is investment in hydrogen, at an industrial level which I’ve actually been involved in (HyNet) - but this is for addition to mains gas. But pretty much everyone sees hydrogen as a fuel for personal transport as at a dead end. There may be some breakthrough in the future but it doesn’t seem to be forthcoming at the moment. JCB are doing some research for use in construction etc but for personal car use it just doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.
What I am saying is that there is alternatives, of which Bev is the only one that’s currently available and is the only one that “they” can push as a realistic alternative to ice.

Synthetic fuels may well become a thing, but currently they aren’t. And if/when they become available in quantities I’d imagine they would be used for heavy goods/agriculture.

We disagree on the fundamental approach

You believe they should "back" something. I dont.

I believe government should set direction, ie zero emmisions, for example. They absolutely should NOT be involved in what the solution to achiving that should look like.

You say there are no viable alternatives. Maybe at this exact moment in time, but who knows in 1 year or 5 years. The problem with your approach is that the incentive to find solutions is removed or reduced, because government have alread "decided" on a solution. Can you not see that? All the progress made on so much, say in the last 200 years, happened because we let people get on with stuff. Now, government has decided it knows best, and progress and development stops here. Batteries it is. The end.

 

[daleyd]

We disagree on the fundamental approach

You believe they should "back" something. I dont.

I believe government should set direction, ie zero emmisions, for example. They absolutely should NOT be involved in what the solution to achiving that should look like.

You say there are no viable alternatives. Maybe at this exact moment in time, but who knows in 1 year or 5 years. The problem with your approach is that the incentive to find solutions is removed or reduced, because government have alread "decided" on a solution. Can you not see that? All the progress made on so much, say in the last 200 years, happened because we let people get on with stuff. Now, government has decided it knows best, and progress and development stops here. Batteries it is. The end.

See the wiki entry above - it’s split fairly evenly between countries that have banned diesel/petrol and those that have done it via specifying zero emissions - uk is not alone in this approach. Both of which effectively mean, as it stands, that any ice vehicles are banned from the dates that those countries have set.

I guess if they can get ice to zero emissions before then things might change, but it seems unlikely.

I’m not saying I agree with anything, but it’s fairly obvious that worldwide the ice is at an end without some fairly dramatic developments.