UK Drivers See The Writing On The Wall

“Demand for alternatively fuelled vehicles (AFVs) continued to accelerate in September however, surging 41.0% in the month and 34.6% year-to-date, with nearly 95,000 leaving forecourts this year. However, this couldn’t compensate for declines in registrations of petrol cars, down -1.2%, and, especially, diesel which fell for the sixth consecutive month, down -21.7%.”
 
See Demand for new cars declines in September as consumer and business confidence falls
Gee, I feel positively prescient. Ten years ago, I advised TLW to buy an EV, the Nissan Leaf, or a diesel, the VW Jetta. Both would have been decent buys. She would have obtained a good reliable car with much higher efficiency than her first choice, a gas-guzzling hybrid SUV. The world is thinking my way now, seeing the great advantages of efficiency and cleanliness, whatever the price of oil. The diesel Jetta would be still going strong while our SUV is a constant pain. The Nissan Leaf would be on its second battery I guess but maintenance would be a fraction of what the SUV entails.

The world is catching up with me and EVs are a growth industry with everyone and its dog building EVs. There’s plenty of room for growth but I’m pleased to say it looks like Electra Meccanica Vehicles is on the verge of shipping Solo EVs in large quantities. It’s about time. I ordered mine 9 months ago and I’ll probably have to wait a few more months to take delivery. This time, I’ll bypass TLW. When she sees my shiny new bug in the driveway, she’ll want one too.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in family, technology and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to UK Drivers See The Writing On The Wall

  1. oiaohm says:

    http://www.news.com.au/technology/gadgets/woman-follows-gps-into-lake/news-story/a7d362dfc4634fd094651afc63f853a1
    Deaf Spy really out of all the stupid things people can do to cars an EV running out of power and having to be charged from a generator is quite low down there on the environmental impact level. In fact from contamination of water ways of car driven by mistake into water the safest one for foolish humans to sink is EV. The hybrid and the ICE have the nasty habit of leaking fuel and oil.

    Nature-friendliness is not exactly a straight forwards question particularly when you start adding in incorrect usage over all with all the common incorrect usage EV comes out on top.

    It is you who still can’t buy the ARM board you wish for.
    To be correct what interested me about the arm board was 2.5G networking that uses your standard Cat5e. Not having FCC was a problem.

  2. Deaf Spy says:

    Speaking of EV’s efficiency, nature-friendliness and so on…
    https://imgur.com/a/LKkW9

  3. Deaf Spy says:

    I don’t have issues with current technology, Robert. What I want and need is available readily. It is you who still can’t buy the ARM board you wish for.

  4. Deaf Spy wrote, “ARM-based cheapo home-tv motherboards are not seeing the light.”

    Look inside “set-top boxes”, smartphones, appliances and many tablets. ARM works for people as does GNU or Android/Linux.

  5. oiaohm wrote, “That gives 39% that something like the Solo could be suitable.”

    That’s it. We no longer all live in villages so we can walk everywhere we go. Many live in cities and while the ability to do a list of errands including hauling kids and freight is definitely useful it depends on circumstances. Many families find two cars are essential. One could well be Solo. Many families live in the suburbs and school buses pick up the kids so one or two Solos might do. For retired folk with no kids at home, Solo works too. Where I live, “three car” garages are the norm and most families have at least two cars. Many of those cars take the breadwinner to work while someone else maintains flexible transportation. Solo meets the needs of a fair slice of humanity here.

    Solo is a luxury car if it’s a second or third car but many people can afford that especially at current interest rates. I remember the “Good Old Days”™ when a family needed a year’s income to afford a car. At the peak of my career I could have bought several Solos with my annual take-home pay. Retired, I can likely afford two Solos perhaps not in the same year but one for me next year and one for TLW the year after she sees how red and shiny it is…

    So Solo meets needs real or imagined and it’s affordable, efficient and non-polluting. What’s wrong with that?

  6. oiaohm says:

    mitsubishi outlander Deaf Spy is a 5 seater SUV. And at 5 years the EV version breaks even with ICE version.

    Not really true. Some of these commuters have families. They go alone in the morning, and in the afternoon they need their 5-seater cars to pick their kids and move them around different after-school activities.
    The key word is some. What percentage are just driving to work and driving home solo.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/10/03/americans-commuting-choices-5-major-takeaways-from-2016-census-data/
    Deaf Spy this has numbers. So we start with 78% that drive solo. We also know under 50% will pick up children from other studies. That gives 39% that something like the Solo could be suitable.

    Other commuters get organized and they commute 4 other colleagues along.
    That is care pooling that is 9 percent do that. So well and truly dwarfed by possible Solo car customers.

    Deaf Spy basically your last post is completely uninformed garbage as normal. The reality is 50 of the cars on road could be possible better off as true single seater cars possibly double seater based on the statistics how we use cars without letting personal biases kick in.

  7. Deaf Spy says:

    Why do I still need the SUV?

    It is not about you, Robert. It is about the majority of the population. The same reason why ARM-based cheapo home-tv motherboards are not seeing the light.

    Commuters often travel just with their smartphone in a 5-seater car.

    Not really true. Some of these commuters have families. They go alone in the morning, and in the afternoon they need their 5-seater cars to pick their kids and move them around different after-school activities. Other commuters get organized and they commute 4 other colleagues along. I see this in my company, I see it in other companies, too, and it is a very popular thing, I can tell you.

    Life is more than Manitobah, Robert. 🙂

  8. Deaf Spy wrote, “You forgot to say that you personally don’t need large trunk, you personally don’t need large space in the car (despite the fact that you’re a large man”.

    Our SUV has handled some long/heavy stuff but that’s done. We don’t envisage needing anything long/heavy delivered except delivered by the supplier to our driveway. Why do I still need the SUV? I don’t. People who own Minis don’t either. They sell about 3000 units per month in USA. There must be millions on the roads here and there. I’m not alone in thinking smaller is better in some cases. Commuters often travel just with their smartphone in a 5-seater car. Why? Why not use the right tool for the job?

  9. oiaohm says:

    http://mrpogson.com/2017/10/04/canada-needs-to-drive-smarter-electrically/#comment-380383
    Deaf Spy as I pointed out before ESC and a EV 3 wheel vehicle don’t relate. Properties of a 3 wheel says if you control traction and ABS style braking you will get ESC by default. Fuel based 3 wheel vehicles can benefit from it. The massive torque of the electric motor means if you don’t have traction control you will burn the tires off and if you don’t have ABS in the regenerative braking be ready to skid like hell. The electric motor is able to apply way too much torque.

    DeafSpy auto-braking is one of the first times someone has in fact mentioned a valid feature that is missing Solo. There are a few more. like computer assisted parking.

    Yet you chose to discuss only a single one, and explained how you personally are fine with 150 km range.
    DeafSpy Robert has already answer you that on one of the past posts. The distance he is out of the city means home and back he is not going to consume 50% of that range and he not planning to do multi trips per day.

    Deaf Spy the seat in the solo is a standard car seat size so the seating was not mega compacted.

    >>don’t need large trunk<<
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5YsOMq4v38
    Never watched this video right Deaf Spy. The trunk space in the solo is not that small. Particularly not having a any glass on back and using a camera instead so able to fill to roof with no issue. It in fact usable space is larger than some compact hatch backs boots with the front and back boots in the solo.

  10. Deaf Spy says:

    Deaf Spy wrote a lot of irrelevant stuff

    Yet you chose to discuss only a single one, and explained how you personally are fine with 150 km range.

    Let me help you. You forgot to say that you personally don’t need large trunk, you personally don’t need large space in the car (despite the fact that you’re a large man youself), you don’t need features like ESC and auto-braking, you don’t need navigation, you don’t need anything but a Solo. Which, of course, in Robert-speak, means the world needs nothing but a Solo.

  11. Grece wrote, “the same could be said of lithium”.

    No, it could not. There are multiple processes for obtaining lithium. Some of them require no high temperatures, just roasting at pizza-oven temperatures. Aluminium requires much higher temperatures because the oxide has a very high melting temperature. A flux is used to reduce that but even the flux melts at over 1000C. Aluminium has a melting point of 660C. Lithium has a melting point of 180C. It’s a different regime. The most efficient lithium extraction will come from electrolysis of concentrated and precipitated salt water from the ocean or terrestrial brines.

  12. oiaohm says:

    https://www.tesla.com/en_AU/support/incentives
    Robert Pogson its called a tax break why Tesla is cheaper with years. Luxury Car Tax break so you car has to be insanely expensive and be classed as a Luxury Car to get a break on Tax from being fuel effective.

    I call this one of the most stupid Australian tax breaks. It also makes it clear why you have to calculate numbers based on your countries tax code rules.

  13. Grece says:

    Ok Robert, the same could be said of lithium. However to add, it is a toxic element and just as bad as oil extraction which you despise.

  14. Interesting costs in there:

    • Mitsubishi Mirage ES, the least expensive to buy, $28,888.13 over five years, more than double the purchase price.
    • Tesla costs are borked. It’s the only car that shows a lower 5-year cost than purchase price. Is Tesla paying people to drive it? I guess that’s due to using depreciation rather than purchase price as the five-year cost. Apparently people think Teslas hold their value better than other EVs/ICEd vehicles. I don’t buy that. Brakes, tires, bearings cost what they cost. Perhaps they think Teslas need no repairs in the first five years. That’s cheating if Tesla ramps up the price to pay for warranty/service for five years. Yes, the warranty is 4/8 years… So, that’s not the right calculation. I would use the purchase price divided by the expected lifetime instead.
  15. Deaf Spy wrote a lot of irrelevant stuff like, “This means basically no out-of-town trips.”

    I can drive from my home to Calgary or Edmonton in Solo. Those are definitely out-of-town. EMV has driven to Victoria BC from Vancouver in a Solo. They crossed salt water on a ferry. If a long trip is necessary, it’s far cheaper to occasionally rent a ICEd vehicle for the trip than paying insurance, fuel and maintenance on an ICEd vehicle all year long. You don’t hire a photographer to live at your house if you need wedding pictures a few times in a lifetime; you hire one.

  16. oiaohm says:

    Deaf Spy
    https://www.racq.com.au/cars-and-driving/cars/owning-and-maintaining-a-car/car-running-costs
    I gave this link that takes you to a RACQ list would pay to read it. 15000km per year over 5 years. Compare method they use.
    In case you have missed the second, right now, to get a Nissan Leaf in EU you need to shed more than 30K EUR. For this amount of money, you can get a larger, better equipped IC car.
    That is not in fact the most cost effect EV. But the reality if you use the RACQ method take the same size IC cars, The worst difference is 12 thousand AUD at at 5 years.

    Scary point is car that has the same price as the Leaf IC ends up at more cost than a Telsa S at 5 years in.

    Basically to compare electrics to IC you really need to do 5 year in compares. Because with EV you are effectively buying 5 years worth of fuel up front.

    mitsubishi outlander in the racq list is interesting.
    Fuel model =33AUD.
    EV Hybrid= 47 AUD.
    So 14 AUD difference.
    At 5 years
    Fuel model. 51 AUD.
    EV Hybrid 65 AUD.
    So still exactly 14 AUD difference.
    There are exactly the same chassis and maker. Please note the hybrid you still have to maintain a fuel engine. Yes over 5 years you chew though about 20 AUD in engine maintenance with an IC engine. Its just bad that the RACQ did not include the pure EV mitsubishi outlander. The pure EV mitsubishi outlander is a cheaper buy than the hybrid due to no IC engine still more than the IC engine model.

    Deaf Spy basically there are models where you can do a really good compare where the EV, Hybrid and IC are exactly the same body just different drive train. Cost work out at 5 years the EV is slightly cheaper than the IC.

    fuel+tyres+service= running cost per km in cents.
    IC 9.17+1.33+7.15=17.65
    Hybrid 5.85+1.33+8.83=16.01
    This above is giving running cost per km. The RACQ they allowed for replacement battery and that pushed service cost up. Please note mitsubishi outlander pure EV has a lower service cost and of course lot lower fuel cost tire cost is 100 percent constant. $760 AUD disappeared in interest. Please note the RACQ is also presume the Hybrid never gets plugged into electrical grid because it a worst case number that you are running on fuel.

    Yes 1 cent difference is $760AUD over 5 years. The EV of the same thing is a 10 cent difference. The EV model is not 14000 dollars more is 7 thousand more than the IC because not having the IC engine saves that amount.

    Now why in RACQ numbers does the 14 thousand dollar difference stay exactly the same over 5 years on an outlander. Read closely they say they did not buy it out right but they bought it on loan. So higher vehicle starting value more interest you had to pay back.

    Deaf Spy interesting point is I would say stay away from the Leaf as well. Its a unique chassis this pushes costs up.

    Deaf Spy looking at the 3 mitsubishi outlander the pure EV and IC is very good buying the with the same costs at 5 years old even including replacing battery with EV 5-10 years being cheaper than the IC. The hybrid is lacking major cost savings but the hybrid does have the ability to drive engine off so both the EV and Hybrid can be used in areas where fuel engine usage is forbid and Hybrid have more range than the EV. Reality is with makers going to EV and Hybrid only looking at the EV might be the only way to bring costs back to where they were with fuel or better.

    Please note looking at mitsubishi outlander EV says the Nissan Leaf is over priced just not as much as a Tesla. The purchase price of a EV should be between the cost of a hybrid and ICE on the same chassis and being their with the fuel and service savings as long as repair guys don’t sneak in extra charges like replacing brake fluid every 12 months so they can bill the same as if a ICE engine is there the PV is good buying.

    Deaf Spy I should have been more clear. There are over priced pure EV like the Leaf and the Teslas that are unique cars requiring a unique set of spare parts. This unique set of spare parts makes them expensive. You see price completive EV where there is Hybrid and maybe IC sharing exactly the same body and chassis as the EV so reducing the number of unique parts required to service the market..

    Also you see the same cost problem with some IC cars where they are highly unique in parts resulting in them either being very cheap because people are worried about supply or being very expensive. So overly unique does a really bad number on cost of cars/trucks.

    Deaf Spy basically if you look at the right vendors of EV/Hybrid/IC cars you will see EV cars that are more cost effective than IC and Hybrid over the long term. As more makers bring Hybrid/EV combined models into the market we should see more of this.

    Also note even in ICE cars you can find the insanely over priced then the moderate over priced then the sane priced. Basically the two cars Deaf spy choose one was insanely over price and one was moderate over priced not one sane priced EV.

  17. Deaf Spy says:

    €30K or €25K is a matter of preference. Anyone will choose the slightly more expensive €30K.

    And get in return:
    – Smaller space for driver and passengers.
    – Much smaller trunk (330 lt. trunk vs. 460 lt.) (Similarly priced Ford \ Opel offers even more space)
    – sub 200 km range vs. 1000 km (as minimum, diesels get up to 1200 km). This means basically no out-of-town trips.
    – Less important safety features compared to other cars within this price range (ESP, auto-braking, etc.)
    – Less features like Navigation, parking camera(s), etc., compared to cars like Ford, Opel, Toyota.

    Of course, Robert, you conveniently choose to ignore these tiny details. Gee, who needs to travel out of town with his family?

  18. oiaohm wrote, “The reason why aluminum air not used in batteries is the refining cost”.

    Maybe they don’t understand the chemistry. In Nature, Al is usually found as Al2O3. It takes a lot of energy to separate those oxygen atoms from the Al. In the battery, one ends with Al(OH)3 which releases much less electrical energy than it took to free the oxygen. Further, a lot of heat is wasted melting that oxide even with the use of fluxes to lower the necessary temperature. You can make the argument with recycled aluminium perhaps but not with refining natural ore. Of course, recycled aluminium has lots of other uses, like making pop-cans, with which this process must compete. Aluminium costs what it costs. Folks are not going to charge much less for recycled aluminium than the refined stuff. So, the price of the energy you get from an aluminium primary battery is more expensive than that from a proper secondary battery.

  19. Deaf spy wrote, “to get a Nissan Leaf in EU you need to shed more than 30K EUR. For this amount of money, you can get a larger, better equipped IC car. My previous Volvo V60 was 25K EUR, and it is a passable estate, and safe as a car can get.”, proving my point. Thanks for that.

    €30K or €25K is a matter of preference. Anyone will choose the slightly more expensive €30K. It will likely cost less to own for maintenance and will emit less pollution. That is competitive on purchase-price but the EV is the clear winner on cost of ownership. Assuming one gets a loan for the purchase, that difference could be made up by the deal offered by a bank, a governmental subsidy or the amortization. Get a 4-year loan instead of 3-year loan. Note the difference in payments. The 4-year loan of €30K will have lower payments than the 3-year loan of €25K.

  20. ram wrote, “even if they look “funny” on the roads here”.

    “Funny” is hard to define but a lot of small cheap vehicles have poor, boxy, shape. That makes them more wasteful at higher speeds even if they are reasonable in cities. My big beef is the aerodynamics and the EV versus ICE energy-efficiency even without the air-pollution. One doesn’t notice the air-pollution of an image or a stationary ICEd vehicle but just live amongst them running… It’s disgusting: heat, CO, CO2, NOx, corrosion, particulates, stench… ICEd vehicles have no place in the economy except in long trips or heavy work. For the rare long trips, one can rent one if necessary. It’s cheaper and saves the environment.

  21. ram says:

    There is alot to be said for fuel efficient light weight vehicles, regardless of power source.

    I find low mileage used Japanese government vehicles to be an excellent buy.

    Good on fuel, highly maneuverable, and very reasonably priced. Oh, and they carry alot of cargo for their size. They work for my company, even if they look “funny” on the roads here.

  22. Deaf Spy says:

    We are at a time when EVs are price-competitive with ICEd vehicles and superior to ICEd vehicles in maintenance, energy usage and pollution.

    Bull. Total bull.

    I gave you two examples, with a premium car, Tesla, and a non-premium one, Nissan Leaf. In case you have missed the second, right now, to get a Nissan Leaf in EU you need to shed more than 30K EUR. For this amount of money, you can get a larger, better equipped IC car. My previous Volvo V60 was 25K EUR, and it is a passable estate, and safe as a car can get.

    Maintenance: batteries alone go at 5,5K USD for Nissan Leaf to 25K USD for Tesla.

    Now, Robert, explain this price-competitiveness you bravely talk about.

  23. oiaohm says:

    Hammy, you whining about anyone using your pseudonyms, but it’s you that always responds.
    Grece I have never seen Hammy responds anywhere. This is you are dreaming. Please note look up meaning of pseudonym person must have used that name themselves. Please cite where I have used any of them (guess what I have not). So idiot Grece what you are doing is nothing more than childish name calling and are too much of a idiot to know it. Grece if you are calling those names pseudonym than you are all them because you are the one using them.

    I like how idiot attempt to come back being a name calling bully using pseudonym excuse that does not hold up in a court of law. Its verbal assault in most countries include the USA so what Grece loves doing is a criminal act unless you are attempting to talking to people who use those names themselves. Basically presuming you are mentally ill is so I don’t have to presume you are a criminal Grece. Yes Grece you have been mentally ill for a long time bulling is mental illness because you are not confident in yourself so you have to put other people down.

    Regarding aluminum vs. lithium, it is well known, obviously not by you however, that aluminum is more abundant.
    I know how abundant aluminum is. The reason why aluminum air not used in batteries is the refining cost and the once usage price.

    Lets now convert price of aluminum to equal to Gasoline.

    Gasoline 9,700 Wh/l 12,200 Wh/kg Lets work out what this would mean if it was done as a once used aluminum air battery 12200/500=24.4 just for roundness lets say 25. and 9.700/500 is about 19.4 but for roundness say 20.
    Aluminum is currently 0.96 USD/lb about 2.11 U.S. dollars / kg
    Lets be really kind and say that ICE engines are only 25% efficiency and EV are 100% efficiency. 100 PV is not true and 25% efficiency is what you found in your worst engines on the market. 20/4*2.11 gives a 10.55USD to have the same range and that is using I am dreaming numbers that are totally bias to the aluminum air battery EV.

    Gasoline 1.08 U.S. Dollar per liter. So who wants to be paying 10 times as much. Then you remember there gasoline at 40-50% efficiency mark. So possible 20 times as much.

    Now lets run the numbers in transported mass.
    25/4 that gives a rough 6 times so the roads now have to carry x6 the amount of fuel cargo going aluminum-air . Also being 6 times the mass it many times the volume.

    Please note everything gets worse when you run the same numbers against Diesel
    Diesel 0.96 U.S. Dollar per liter and better power numbers Diesel, 10,942 Wh/l, 13,762 Wh/kg and to top that off better efficiency numbers if we could solve the particulate problem.

    Please note I have been exceptionally nice. You common aluminum air batteries don’t do 500Wh/kg they only do 200Wh/kg. To get better than 200Wh/kg you have to add toxic materials to the battery so they have to be recycled.

    The only thing that makes a pure EV cost effective against Gasoline or Diesel is the fact the batteries can be recharged why is very important that EV have regenerative braking.

    EV using rechargeable even lead acid reduce the total mass that has to be moved on the roads in large volume transports 10 dollars per L for gasoline would make a rechargeable lead acid EV economical.

    Now to produce possible nice aluminum air that can do 1300w/kg you need nickel and cobalt and very expensive construction and patents that are locked up into 2026. Scary part is cobalt almost in equal qualities to the aluminum. Also these batteries are not clean to be dumped. So in materials effective aluminum air is about as rare as making a normal lithium ion cell.

    There is an aluminum-sulfur battery that is rechargeable but we will be waiting until 2036.

    There was a study in 2002 that said that aluminum air batteries could be viable but that did not take into account how ICE efficiency could be improved. Yes you have to presume that ICE is less than 10 percent efficiency and you don’t care how expensive or what materials are in fact used in the aluminum air batteries. Once you start caring about those extras you start needing particular breakthroughs that are patented.

    Grece basically a battery is made from more than 1 material. Sometimes like high performance Aluminum air the reactive part for producing power is not the largest volume of the battery but is the catalyst materials that allow it to work.

    There is more material to make high performance lithium ion batteries on the earth than there is to make high performance once usage Aluminum air batteries. Basically Grece thought it was the other way over because he a idiot and did not look at total materials required.

    Now like the 2016 Aluminium–sulfur battery Rechargeable Aluminum air batteries that thing could be a competitor to fuel. Of course this is patented. Its has a really nice power density of 1340 Wh/kg and light on the toxic chemicals. About 10 charge cycles and it breaks even with fuel for mass transported and would break even a lot faster than lithium ion if the defects in it design can be worked out.

    Grece fairly much all the good possible viable Aluminum air battery designs are patented to about 2036.

    Grece I call you an idiot and a moron because just like now you push stupid impossible ideas over and over again and then claim that a person who does know the fact does not know what they are talking about. About time Grece you wake up to how many times you are speaking out your ass.

  24. Grece should just go home. Grece wrote, “who cares about “rechargable” anyways. With aluminum-air there is no need, which was my point anyways from the beginning.”

    Doesn’t Grece care anything about efficiency? Aluminium is not found natively. Over time it oxidizes and is very active so there’s no metal found in Nature, just oxides. To get aluminium out of the oxide, it has to be mixed with a flux and melted then electrolyzed. That requires a great amount of energy which is then partially recovered in the battery when the aluminium oxidizes again. It’s a charging/discharging process if you look at the whole cycle. One could do a lot with recycled aluminium but that still requires casting/machining the stuff, a high cost to pumping fuel from the Earth and distilling it or letting water run through a turbine. To be practical, the propulsion of an EV must overcome several obstacles:

    1. store enough energy per kg,
    2. store enough energy per m3,
    3. waste very little energy in the complete life-cycle of battery and charges, and
    4. cost about the same or less than an ICE and auxiliary equipment (lubrication, cooling, electrics, fuel, controls, exhaust, air intake).

    We are at a time when EVs are price-competitive with ICEd vehicles and superior to ICEd vehicles in maintenance, energy usage and pollution.

  25. Grece says:

    Hammy, you whining about anyone using your pseudonyms, but it’s you that always responds.

    Regarding aluminum vs. lithium, it is well known, obviously not by you however, that aluminum is more abundant.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth%27s_crust

    Check out #3 vs. #33

    And who cares about “rechargable” anyways. With aluminum-air there is no need, which was my point anyways from the beginning.

  26. oiaohm says:

    How hard is it Robert to drop another chuck of aluminum in your car? Hell, you could order chunks from Amazon, in lieu of a fueling station. Your vehicle could have parallel ports internally, giving the operator the ability to swap one out while the other one is used.

    No need for fueling stations, or charging stations. Its all good!
    Grece idiot strikes again.
    1) aluminum in a air battery is not exactly just aluminum.
    2) did you consider for one min how much electricity it costs to make the aluminum.

    500 Wh/Kg sound kind of great until you work out it cost 12,5 kWh/Kg to produce that aluminum from aluminum oxide. That is a efferently figure 500/12500=0.04 being 4 percent and that is without any other losses like transport of the aluminum to customer. A lithium ion battery over it full live-span can match up with fuel in power used. Mechanical recharging aluminum batteries are not competitive.

    You see clueless idiot see the high output of aluminum air batteries without looking at the recharge price. Non electrically rechargeable Aluminum air batteries make fuel based engines look good heck even start making old school lead acid batteries based EV look good.

  27. oiaohm says:

    You see HamDong, I DO know what I am talking about, whereas you do not.
    Exactly Hsmdonger Grece. What you are referring to fiction Hamdong.

    There is no patent holding back Aluminum-Air batteries, as the technology has been around since the 60’s since it was first discovered.
    Would help if you were not missing a word. The key word “Rechargeable” Aluminum Air Battery. Yes I wrote it the other way before that is valid but with Grece poor reading ability idiot missed it I bet.

    http://www.google.com/patents/US4925744
    First patent for it appears 1989 yes that is expired but it also did not work very well that is very power consuming on the charge and is also slow to recharge dumping 8 times as much power into the cell as you can get back out to recharge it is not a great rechargeable battery.
    http://www.google.com/patents/WO2015131132A1?cl=en
    The first working form of an Rechargeable Aluminum battery. That is the patent I expect will have to expire first. If not we are going to be waiting until the 2016 patent expires at least.
    https://www.energynews.es/english/new-spanish-patent-for-rechargeable-aluminum-air-battery/
    But the 2016 has cycling issues. Less than 400 charge cycles before stuffing up and also a 25% loss still..

    We may be lucky that Tesla might get in a fight with that patent holder first

    So Grece the absolutely clueless has to keep on butting it. We are unlikely to see rechargeable aluminum air batteries in volume to be cheap for at least 20 years and even that is being insanely optimistic. with the patents that are already in place. Working rechargeable aluminum air batteries for EV might require patents that are not even issued yet.

    Zaromb cell from 1969 are mechanical recharging this is not really practical in EV where to recharge is to disassemble cell and perform a mechanical action on it.

    Lithium Ion rechargeable is starting to come down a lot in price because a lot of the key patents from the 1990s are starting to go end of life.

  28. Grece says:

    Al-Air is a primary cell, essentially using aluminium as a fuel instead of hydrocarbons.

    How hard is it Robert to drop another chuck of aluminum in your car? Hell, you could order chunks from Amazon, in lieu of a fueling station. Your vehicle could have parallel ports internally, giving the operator the ability to swap one out while the other one is used.

    No need for fueling stations, or charging stations. Its all good!

  29. Grece wrote, “There is no patent holding back Aluminum-Air batteries, as the technology has been around since the 60’s since it was first discovered.”

    Al-Air is a primary cell, essentially using aluminium as a fuel instead of hydrocarbons. The overall energy cycle of the system is poor, barely better than a simple ICE. So, it’s an interesting idea and solves some problems but it does little to save energy. Li ion technology saves a lot of energy. I could see one use for it eventually. If EVs become flexible in the kind of battery used and one could swap batteries in minutes, an Al-air battery might be just the thing for the long weekend trip on the highway for an EV, giving longer range in the same or less weight. Swapping batteries has its own problems like new batteries for old etc.

  30. Grece says:

    aluminum air rechargeable most likely will be waiting until the patent expires in 2035.

    There is no patent holding back Aluminum-Air batteries, as the technology has been around since the 60’s since it was first discovered. Aluminium is one of the most plentiful materials on earth with a low cost and has the highest electrical charge storage per unit weight except for alkali metals. It has already proved itself to be a viable material in battery application: The Zaromb cell produced in 1960 stored 15 times the energy of a comparable lead acid battery and achieved 500 Wh/Kg with a plate density current of 1A/sq.cm.

    You see HamDong, I DO know what I am talking about, whereas you do not.

  31. oiaohm says:

    There is/was no chemistry change on lithium ion batteries.
    Grece there has been a few chemistry changes. Dendrites are the bane of the rechargeable cells.
    http://newatlas.com/dendrite-electrolyte-lithium-batteries/36274/
    Most are in the electrolyte add and removing different activities to effect how fast lithium ion cells fail. Please note most of these changes don’t improve capacity.

    https://transportevolved.com/2015/09/11/confirmed-30-kwh-nissan-leaf-battery-packs-incompatible-with-older-nissan-leafs/
    All the first generation Leaf have had to had all their batteries replaced with the 24mah because the first chemistry chosen in the Leaf did not hold up at all.

    Most of the chemistry changes have been to improve durability by messing with the electrolyte mix. Basically the first generation Leaf batteries have a different electrolyte mix to the current Leaf batteries because the first batteries packed 2011-2016 So less than 5 years some did not even make it 12 months. The replacements that were done under warranty have now done 6 years old.

    https://transportevolved.com/2015/04/14/staffcar-update-after-73100-miles-our-nissan-leaf-loses-its-second-capacity-bar/
    See even a bad chemistry in the electrolyte can out do your 45000 miles if you are willing to put up with range reduction. At 45000 miles the first electrolyte the leaf had used that is a more expensive electrolytic was showing cell failure enough to effect range badly.

    aluminum air rechargeable most likely will be waiting until the patent expires in 2035.

  32. Grece says:

    There is/was no chemistry change on lithium ion batteries. Besides, aluminum air batteries provide a better source of kWH.

    265 W·h/kg vs 1300 W·h/kg

    Simple maths.

  33. oiaohm says:

    Also there is a issue in countries without good consumer protection laws where dealers charge arm and leg for doing basic work on electrics so you don’t see the Australian cost curve where by 5 years old the costs level out.

  34. oiaohm says:

    Grece For the Solo and any other cheapo battery maybe 45K (3 years) at best.
    Solo type battery is at least 5 years its the same type as used in the leaf second generation battery pack just in a different form factor. When I say same type they are the same brand cell and all. Also the solo is only 16.1 kWh battery that does basically halve the replacement cost. 45K was right for first generation Leaf battery pack. The second generation has been doing 100K+. There was a change in chemistry. There is still another chemistry change that will mean the second generation of solo batteries should do more millage than the first.

    Grece Tesla cars have massively over priced batteries and parts.

  35. oiaohm says:

    Diesel engines can go for 250-300K miles like charm. Proper support by qualified service can extend this life with extra 100-150K miles.
    Deaf Spy of course that is with access to the required spare parts. VW Jetta issue is you are not promised that.

    https://www.fastcompany.com/40438382/why-volvo-is-going-all-in-on-electric-cars
    Volvo V60 may be a decent buy.
    https://www.treehugger.com/cars/volvo-v60-dh5-diesel-plug-hybrid-fully-charged-goes-spin.html
    Deaf Spy see Volvo V60 does have the conversion by Volve to be take hybrid if you are in a area that requires. Do watch the video and the note about cities with zero emission requirements. So there are different pure diesels you can pick that are kind backing it both ways because they can be converted. It is 20K for the conversion.

    There is absolutely no economic logic to go for a EV nowadays.
    There is if you are in countries where you are having to-do city driving and emissions are forbid at particular times with nasty big fines.

    With EV, you’ll have to spend 25K USD for a new battery for your shiny Tesla. Or $5,500 USD for your Nissan Leaf’s.
    Also these numbers should cause you to scratch head. The Nissen Leaf replacement battery is 30kWh and the Tesla is 60kWh. Hang on why are you spending 15K+ extra on the Tesla battery. There is a 48KWh for the Leaf as well that is even better price per Kwh at only 6500 USD. So you should be expecting the Tesla battery size battery to be about 8000-9000 USD. Nothing like being deep price gouging in the battery. Its not like the Tesla is like a cheap printer where the printer is cheap and the ink costs an arm and leg. Tesla cost arm and leg all round.

    Really I would not be looking at Tesla the batteries are the wrong price for what you are getting.

    Deaf Spy items like oil filters, air filters, oil …. plus extra labor All add up. Add in not filling up with fuel. It fairly much works at a Leaf battery price not the best its breaking even. If you could buy a leaf without extra cost up front.

    https://www.racq.com.au/cars-and-driving/cars/owning-and-maintaining-a-car/car-running-costs
    Deaf Spy would pay to go read the numbers.

    Deaf Spy the up front price of the hybrids is more than a non hybrid but at 5 years old they break even. Please note here in Australia we get no tax break for buying a hybrid. Countries with tax break for hybrid that covers a battery replacement at 5 years in the decently priced battery packs. Even in Australia replacing battery at 5 years old you still end up ahead on overall costs by 10 years old. EV less service work. Now if the EV purchase price and battery replacement price can be improved ICE would not be cost effective at all. The reality is EV cost in battery is fairly much the ICE engine service and fuel cost extras over the EV.

  36. Grece says:

    Yeah, yeah, we know. Same old story, just replace “EVs” with:

    LMAO…everytime Robert comes up with some silly idea, notion or political view. The world just sets back and laughs at the pure sillyness and ignorance.

    BTW, you left out TRUMP.

    Robert is nothing but a failure in many regards.

  37. Grece says:

    Do the maths.

    350K net / 15K avg. yr. = ~23 years

    Elon quoted 500K on his Tesla’s.

    For the Solo and any other cheapo battery maybe 45K (3 years) at best.

  38. oiaohm says:

    Grece
    VW’s are expensive to keep-up and fix, but they are VERY dependable.
    True if you are insure is spare parts.

    New VW Beetle is not a discontinued line also they don’t not have 100 percent unique engine mounts between models. So ability to drop in another engine is there. Also each of the engines in the modern VW Beetle share some common parts.

    VW Jetta is one of the worst lines for VW in spare parts cost. Grece basically there are tones of suitable diesel engine even from VW that will be fine. Where the VW models department will still exist forwards as EV and where they are insured of shelf space for parts. Just the VW Jetta is not one of those.

    Reality some of the issue with the Jetta is the fines VW has to pay. VW cannot afford to be wasting money the way they have been having 100 percent unique parts causing a lot of spare parts to be stored and costing them lots of money doing that. Jetta is one of the models that VW cannot afford any more. Paying the huge fines have done a number of VW.

    It a basic thing a car line with 100 percent unique engine mount and fittings per model is horrible expensive in spare parts. Also comes at risk of being first to go on the chopping block when company budgets get tight.

    Grece basically you could have made a lot better choice in just VW models. Most people fail to check how the engine is mounted and this kind gets important when companies get into financial stress like VW is now.

    Also the Jetta CitySTROMER the Hybrid is something the VW wants to forget they ever made.

    Well, they are getting out of diesels because of the scandal, not because of reliability.
    Robert Pogson problem here both are linked. Reliability is linked to access to parts and its parts that make VW expensive to service. The scandal is causing particular lines of VW to loss their direct parts supply as VW streamlines supply lines culling out the worst models. Of course those are appearing cheap in the market because a lot of people with them can see the writing on the wall and want to be out of those models.

  39. Deaf Spy says:

    The world is moving towards EVs.

    Yeah, yeah, we know. Same old story, just replace “EVs” with:
    – Linux on desktop.
    – LibreOffice.
    – ARM-based “small cheap computers”.
    – ARM chips for desktop and servers.

    None of these ever happened, Robert. But nice that you have a new dream to dream of. 🙂

  40. Deaf Spy says:

    Diesel engines can go for 250-300K miles like charm. Proper support by qualified service can extend this life with extra 100-150K miles.

    With EV, you’ll have to spend 25K USD for a new battery for your shiny Tesla. Or $5,500 USD for your Nissan Leaf’s.

    Right now, to get a Nissan Leaf in EU you need to shed more than 30K EUR. For this amount of money, you can get a larger, better equipped IC car. Gosh, my previous Volvo V60 was 25K EUR, and it is a passable estate, and safe as a car can get.

    There is absolutely no economic logic to go for a EV nowadays. (Unless, perhaps, small carts like the Solo)

  41. Grece says:

    VWs have poor reliability

    You sir are an idiot! VW’s are expensive to keep-up and fix, but they are VERY dependable. In fact, I know someone selling a VW Beetle, the newer style mind you, and they got 350K miles on it and it has a diesel engine.

  42. Kurkosdr wrote, “VWs have poor reliability, and as Ohioham pointed out, VW is pulling out of Diesel so you can never be sure about parts support on Diesel VWs”.

    Well, they are getting out of diesels because of the scandal, not because of reliability. I don’t know anyone who did not like their Jetta, diesel or not. Europe is moving away from all fossil fuels for cars. The world is moving towards EVs. VW will do what it needs to do to survive.

    Consumers who have owned Jettas for three years rate them at average dependability.

  43. oiaohm says:

    Aluminum crush zones in the solo Robert are interesting. Due to using such a strong core chassis material solo gets to use Aluminum parts in the crush zones that are made from standard Aluminum thicknesses cut and welded to shape. No fancy cutting or shaping here to reduce structural strength as you find in most cares crush zones. So lot of ways this area of a solo is in fact a lot simpler to repair by replacing the bent Aluminum in the crush zone with new material as long as you replace the complete lengths with same thickness. There will be no need to be attempting to pull the bent parts back to shape in the crush zone in the Solo as you do in the normal steel based construction.

    There are advantages to not doing the common steel based crumple zone and in fact having a stronger chassis than steel so allowing a pure Aluminum crumple zone. Its why I am so interested to see how the composite chassis of the solo holds up. It does promise to simplify car construction. This is also why I find it annoying that the crash test data is off limits due to USA rules. I would like to know how a composite chassis with aluminum crush in fact stacks up to normal steel.

    The body being carbon fiber it can be patched and basically restored in similar ways to the ways steel sheeting on cars can be. The most unique part that will not be able to be repaired or replaced with generics in the solo is windshield. But due to glass that is used in building it will be possible to custom order windshield from the right suppliers even if solo parent disappeared.

    This is what has got me about the solo. You start looking at the video of the production line noting down the parts you see and when you check them out you are looking at 40%+ generic with about 59%+ custom but fixable using generic materials in generic workshops and less than 1% will be a custom order but not something you cannot custom order.

    Most cars are less than 15% generic. A large number of cars from crashes are written off because the crumple/crush zones are not replaceable. Solo having repairable crush zones is a very interesting feature because they are made from standard size material just cut and welded. Any properly qualified welder could manufacture new or repair crush zone parts for the solo.

    Even getting new sheets of what the core chassis is made out of is not impossible. Its also not like repairing that is impossible thinking the blue prints to the solo chassis is all flat cutting.

    In the doors are side impact protection in the solo there chrome-alloy tubes like most cars.

    The scary part about the solo it was designed to be build without complex specialist equipment. This means as long as you can get the materials solo can be repaired without complex equipment.

    The solo and Tofino are interesting to me due to how simple and repairable their crush zones are compared to the alternatives. We will most likely have to wait for the Tofino before we can get proper crash reports because that thing is too big to be called too small for crash reports to be required.

  44. Kurkosdr says:

    Still, VWs have poor reliability, and as Ohioham pointed out, VW is pulling out of Diesel so you can never be sure about parts support on Diesel VWs.

  45. I think the windshield, front and rear crush-zones and the body are the only parts unique to Solo. Likely the vehicle will be totaled if many of those are broken.

  46. oiaohm says:

    You’re an idiot Petey. Diesels last a long time and car parts can be found anywhere. Even cars built in the 80’s are easy to rebuild and repair. Using your logic, no vehicle past 2010 would be able to be fixed.
    Grece still talking to non existing person. Apparently Grece has not found his drugs to prevent him from seeing things or making crap up. There are Diesel engines that were made last year that you cannot any of the core spare parts for.

    The 1980 are simpler because of larger engine bays so able to in a lot cases when parts cannot be sourced any more for one engine get a replacement engine that fits as well because most of them used a uniform standard of engine mounts.

    Jetta is a different case. Unique engine mounts so only a particular VW series of engines fit in fact VW changed the mounts every model of the Jetta. All those engines have been discounted. There are no clone makers of the Jetta engine.

    There are other diesels that are equally cheap as the Jetta that have standard engine mounts and engines fitting those mounts have been made of decades. This makes the Jetta a very bad buy.

    However, in Robert’s example of the Solo, parts would indeed be VERY hard to find and repair.
    This is where you are badly wrong. The engine is standard in the solo. The power control system is standard they did not make a custom version yes firmware of the generic would have to be configured but that is it the thing is stock firmware. Solo was planned to have a more detail dash until that was worked out that that would require using non standard parts so when for the stock generic LCD screen of the generic EV controllers set that includes nice stuff like re-genitive braking and torque control . The battery size and shape is in fact standard conforming that you can use https://vruzend.com/product/vruzend_basic_kit/ to replace the solo batteries if you cannot get genuine solo batteries. Yes the battery bays in the solo have the extra height that you can use the vruzend kit because the solo was design with the idea that future batteries might not be exactly the same size.

    Grece the reality with the solo is that you can replace fairly much the complete drive train with parts sourced from third parties because it so generic. I would like to see more vehicles done with generic parts. Even the generic batteries for the solo can be assembled without needing the specialist tools. The specialist tool made batteries for the solo are slightly higher capacity and slightly lighter than the generic kit batteries but it not that you cannot put a generic kit battery in there. Of course with battery cell improvement a generic battery for a solo might end up lighter and higher capacity than the solo battery.

    Grece basically you have gone off and presumed crap without checking the facts again. Solo is massively populated with generic parts.

  47. Grece says:

    So basically the Jetta is cheap because you can only be sure of a few years out of it.

    You’re an idiot Petey. Diesels last a long time and car parts can be found anywhere. Even cars built in the 80’s are easy to rebuild and repair. Using your logic, no vehicle past 2010 would be able to be fixed.

    However, in Robert’s example of the Solo, parts would indeed be VERY hard to find and repair.

  48. oiaohm says:

    Grece buying a Jetta is taking a very big bet that while you own it that the thing never need to be tested. Because even the fixed is known to fail many emission standards. VW is not only discontinuing the Jetta but also discontinuing everything that uses the engine mount pattern of the Jetta. So unique parts for the Jetta engine in a few years are going to be problem to get.

    So basically the Jetta is cheap because you can only be sure of a few years out of it.

  49. Grece says:

    post-2009 diesel Jetta is radioactive

    Precisely my reasoning. I found a few online for sale, and as there is no emission testing for diesels where I reside, a slightly larger exhaust pipe and a tuned muffler will make me smile. Along with a custom aluminum fuel tank in back for long-range hauls.

  50. Kurkosdr says:

    I think he meant economical, not efficient.

    BTW, every post-2009 diesel Jetta is radioactive because of the emissions scandal, which can hurt resale value. Even if you have a “fixed” model, it will still have less value because the fix affects performance (essentially the fux is undoing the cheat VW made).

    Buy a diesel from another brand. VWs are sliding down the reliability scale in Consumer Reports anyway.

  51. Deaf Spy wrote, “There is no possible way to break even of these 15K.”

    The first Teslas were luxurious cars. To people who buy them the cost barely matters. The cars have amazing features not found in many ICEd vehicles.

  52. oiaohm says:

    Deaf Spy energy wise and pollution wise things get interesting.

    There is no possible way to break even of these 15K.
    Depends where you buying and you income. 7.5K of that can come out of tax rebates the other half over 10 years of operation comes out of fuel savings and reduced service cost. Maintain a ICE does have a lot of costs that electric does not. By the way there are many places in the EU where you can no longer register a car when it hits 10 year old so you don’t have the replace battery problem because at that point the car is being scrapped.

    So it get really interesting when you take in EU conditions on cost and rebates.

    For 60K you can get a premium car of your choice, with more extras, better servicing and all.
    The issue here is it also requires more servicing due more moving parts to wear and malfunction.

    https://blog.caranddriver.com/volkswagen-jetta-hybrid-cancelled-for-2017-wont-be-part-of-vws-electrified-future/
    This is why suggesting the Jetta second hard is pure stupid. Its one of the models going totally out of production. Jetta was a good example how not to-do a hybrid. It still had the fuel engine directly connected to the drive train. Since the drive train has to be split in the hybrids something like Jetta is going to have parts problems.

    Lot of the early hybrids are beat by ICE engines mostly due to stupidity of turning off the ICE engine then requiring the electric engine to turn the ICE engine and the drive train. How can you say massive power loss.

    Economy-wise if you are in the EU a pure electric could be depending on where they could be good buying due to on going tax rebates and requirements. In the USA not so much you are most likely going to have a hole in pocket.

    Yes the 10 year then junked requirement in areas of the EU does alter the rules a lot. Please note that is 10 years and scrapped be it ICE or EV. That removes having to consider battery replacement. Most EV will not remain at break even in the USA because at 10 its replace the battery not scrap the complete thing and buy another new car. Of course this might change with the new battery chemistry being tested now that may take battery life out to 20-30 years.

  53. Deaf Spy says:

    That’s nonsense

    Energy-wise? Perhaps. Economy-wise? Definitely not so.

    I gave you the numbers. In EU, a Tesla is 75K EUR starting price, which doesn’t include even transportation; you need to pick it from the factory yourself. You need to take it to the factory for servicing. On top of that, Tesla is still being sponsored. For 60K you can get a premium car of your choice, with more extras, better servicing and all.

    There is no possible way to break even of these 15K.

  54. oiaohm says:

    Fifi, no need to ask question right. You’re still an idiot.
    So still referring to made up fictitious people wounder when you are going to get medical help you need for that Grece.

    So you deny that an electric motor can charge batteries?
    Learn to read. If someone said something were is your cite. Basically you want everyone else to read for you because you cannot read right Grece.

    Robert, your hypothesis assumes that mileage for ICE is static, when it is not.
    The rules of ICE design are static you idiot Grece. So increased millage with a ICE design you are trading away torque at low end and range of RPM the engine in fact supports. Very quickly this becomes big problem being pure ICE with a gearbox as the complexity of the Gearbox keeps on increasing then the reliability starts going down as well.

    Yes the opal achieved high millage at highway cruising speed in sweet spot but by today standards that complete crap.

    http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1105785_the-1000-mpg-bmw-i3-56000-miles-on-50-gallons-of-gas
    Modern day hybrid. Takes all the advantage of what was developed for the opal and makes it usable in all driving conditions and achieves even more. Yes the gearbox in the opal was consuming 3/4 of the possible power. Yes the i3 is a mass produced hybrid doing 1000 MPG without wall charging it so running purely off the power from the on-board generator that can be designed using what was from what was discovered opal. Opal required quite a complex gearbox due to its lack of torque and Opal end up a failure due to that complexity causing breakdowns. Even something like the i3 there is room for improvement.

    Hybrid removes gearbox issues of the Opal design.
    http://www.trueactivist.com/volkswagens-new-300-mpg-car-not-allowed-in-america-because-it-is-too-efficient/
    This is a modern day Opal without any of the engine improvements since the Opal but with better effectiveness at all types of driving be it highway, city… Yes it another hybrid using the electric drive train fixes the Opal cars gearing issues.

    The best millage of a pure ICE vehicle per L cannot compete with some of the worst hybrids and is less than 1/3 of the best hybrids.

    Reality USA people want to talk about big oil conspiracy for why we don’t have super effective cars for a long time. Reality has been technological issues. First electric car was recalled to prevent it killing people and that was related to the battery chemistry used.

    Items like the Opal run into issues with gear boxes and drive chains due to the rules of efficiency of a ICE engine and how this effects torque and operational RPM. Most effective fuel burn in ICE engine does not result in the best torque and also results in very low torque at low RPM.

    Basically you have a triangle Millage, Complexity, Reliability. Simple ICE engine are low complexity and low on millage but really great on Reliability. Items like the Opal are high on complexity and Millage low on Reliability. Hybrids are extremely high on the millage moderate on the complexity and Reliability appears lower than a Simple ICE but still quite decent.

    300+ MPG should come standard with move to hybrid. We should see 300+MPG at some point for city driving in hybrids. Of course it does not take much to work out going from USA standard of 50MPG to 300+MPG for city driving will massively reduce population in the cities even if we remained burning fuel. Please do note items like the Opal were not usable for city driving.

  55. Grece says:

    Robert, your hypothesis assumes that mileage for ICE is static, when it is not.

    https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2007/05/01/big-oil-conspiracy-376-mpg-opel-uncovered/

  56. Grece says:

    So you deny that an electric motor can charge batteries?

  57. Grece says:

    Fifi, no need to ask question right. You’re still an idiot.

  58. oiaohm says:

    Grece and you are still mega chicken idiot. Who cannot ask question right or do basic politeness.

  59. oiaohm says:

    Hey Hammy, they should just run the EV off the batteries and let the electric motor charge the batteries.
    Grece maybe you should do some research before giving moron response. The biggest cause of EV range reduction when battery is failing is reduced regenerative breaking functionality. Turns out about 1/3 of some modern EVs range comes from regenerative breaking. So it very important that the electric motor in a EV can charge the batteries if you want decent range.

    Issues that make pure ICE non completive as a car.
    1) Lack of regenerative breaking
    2) ICE engines having a sweet spot for best fuel to power.
    3) General driving changes engine load around all over the place so never staying in ICE engine sweet spot. Being outside the ICE engine sweet spot costs you up to 3 times the fuel for the same power this is why losses due to conversion to electricity by generator and back to kinetic by electric motor are not that bad.

    Some diesel electric trains run without regenerative breaking or batteries. Generator on diesel engine with electric motor on drive wheels save fuel. Those trains do have some capacitors to level out the difference between drive motor and generator so that the diesel engine can stay at sweet spot even with changing loads on the train. Even with all the losses this causes it still beats direct drive.

    The advantages of hybrids have been known for long time.

    https://www.geotab.com/blog/why-hybrid-electric-vehicles-are-more-efficient-than-conventional-ones/
    The power curves here gives clear reasons why.

    When you are attempting to get a vehicle moving that is when you want the most torque. Pure ICE you have gear boxes gearing the engine down to try to allow the engine to run at higher RPM to be up nearer to the the sweet spot and have torque. Electric 0-3000 rpm at least the torque profile is flat and very high exactly what you are looking for to make moving a vehicle using the least amount of power.

    By the way a fuel engine designed for hybrid can burn fuel way more effectively than a normal solution due to the fact the engine does not have to be designed to be a all rounder. The electric engine is a super good all rounder. Biggest issue with pure EV is power storage. Fuel engines have great power storage density but as a pure solution absolutely wasteful application of that power because Fuel engines are not really all rounders.

    Even how clean the fuel burn is from a fuel engine lines up with how much time it spends in the sweet spot. So start/stop in a city makes a pure fuel engine solution highly polluting. So a hybrid and pure fuel gets interesting
    1) the hybrid will do more range for the same L of fuel if it designed well.
    2) the hybrid will produce less pollution per L of fuel burnt. This is particulate emissions and the like due to burning that fuel in the sweet spot.

    So pure fuel solution have to disappear at some point in cars and trucks because they don’t make sense in that usage.

  60. Grece says:

    Hey Hammy, they should just run the EV off the batteries and let the electric motor charge the batteries.

  61. oiaohm says:

    Deaf Spy also don’t forget areas in China, France and other places where you can have days when you are due to pollution levels forbid from using fuel based engines. So pure diesels and petrols in some areas can basically be paper weights.

    And hybrids like the Audi A3 e-Tron are not exactly cheap either. The good hybrids are cheaper than the Tesla and slightly more than the pure fuel. And the pure electric form of a A3 is cheaper than pure diesel/petrol in the same chassis.

    Nissan Leaf is too small for a family, and its range of 160km is a laugh, making it suitable for city driving only.
    Where are you going to be forbid from using your fuel engine? Yes city driving. So so you need a car for long haul that at this stage fuel. You also need a car that is electric for city driving due to not being able to use fuel in cities at times.

    So the reality for a lot of place the choices are against hybrid or pure electric because you don’t want be stranded due to rules in place forbidding engine usage due to pollution.

    https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/05/volvo-will-only-make-electric-and-hybrid-cars-starting-in-2019/
    This was announced in 2017. Deaf Spy in a few years you will not be able to buy a pure petrol or diesel new. Quite a few of the hybrids will be electric drive trains because this works out to be more effective than mechanical.

    EVs are much less efficient than IC cars.
    Drop this idea. EV on cost to owner not that great. But in power to road most EV are more efficient than IC cars. This is why we will be seeing a lot more hybrids with pure electric drive trains. Yes putting the IC engine into a generator then using the power output from generator to drive electric motor on drive axle is more effective than using a gear box. So the age of pure IC cars is coming to the end.

  62. Deaf Spy wrote, “EVs are much less efficient than IC cars”.

    That’s nonsense. EVs have energy losses in charging and discharging and running the motor. They are about 80% efficient over all those steps. ICEd cars have to run hot, so they waste energy heating up and sending a lot of heat out the exhaust and cooling systems. ICEd cars waste more than half the energy in the fuel they burn so the MPGe is >200 mpg for EVs and usually less than 50 mpg for gas-guzzlers.

    e.g. The last time I looked at my utility bill 1kWh was costing us an average of about 9. The nominal 100 mile range costs Solo 16.1kWh X $0.09 = $1.449. Meanwhile, our gas-guzzler uses about 19L of gasoline to drive that far and a litre costs about $1.10, so the SUV costs $20.90, 14.4 times as much. A diesel might do twice the mileage say $10.45, 7.2 times as much.

    So, don’t think EVs are less efficient than gas-guzzlers. Further, for commuters there are no trips to the filling stations. They can stay charged plugged in at home or work. Time is money, remember? More efficiency for EVs. Then there are oil-changes, timing belt changes, replacement of pumps and alternators and the cost of cooling the damned ICEs and preventing the coolant from freezing. There’s just no comparison between the efficiency of an ICEd vehicle and an EV. EVs are clear winners.

    It’s only range or low temperatures where ICEd vehicles can compete and that’s not a deciding issue for many. I can deal with winters by eliminating longer trips in winter. I can deal with range by sticking to major routes and using databases of public charging stations. Certainly, on a long trip, gas-guzzlers are more convenient but I don’t like to drive long hours any more. I’m older and wiser and need more naps and walks… 100 mile range is good for me and likely 80% of drivers out there. The single seat of Solo makes it a niche within a big niche but there are still many who drive alone.

  63. Deaf Spy says:

    Used VW Jetta diesel is the way to go

    Perhaps with the exception of very small EV (like Solo), EVs are much less efficient than IC cars. I gave the example with Tesla, which is absolutely impossible to pay back. Even with its price currently sponsored, it is still a no-deal. Nissan Leaf is too small for a family, and its range of 160km is a laugh, making it suitable for city driving only. Once you need to go out there, you need a “gas guzzler” again.

    So, viva the good diesels, old or new!

  64. oiaohm says:

    Used VW Jetta diesel is the way to go.
    Depends where you are when you have places like Paris banning usage of fuel based engines when pollution gets above particular levels. VW Jetta diesel might be a brick and might have you stranded in the EU due to conditions. So there is no 100 percent answer.

  65. Grece says:

    Used VW Jetta diesel is the way to go.

  66. oiaohm says:

    These governments come up with regulations that distort the market.
    Deaf Spy so what its the job of government If that was not done we would still have cars without seat belts.
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/22/the-rise-diesel-in-europe-impact-on-health-pollution.

    Reducing the number of petrol and diesel engines in cities reduced the medical cost. So in some ways the discount given by governments for people having electrics is correct a distort in the market. The other option by government would be tax petrol and diesel like cigarettes to recover the cost in medical it costing them. Yes you are seeing the UK registration taxes on petrol and diesel engine creep up.

  67. Deaf Spy says:

    The world is thinking my way now, seeing the great advantages of efficiency

    As a matter of fact, only leftist, green-infested governments see “great advantages”. These governments come up with regulations that distort the market.

    I told you already, I did the Math. Buying a new Tesla for my family would offset me at least 75K EUR. A premium diesel car is about 50-60K. The Tesla has additional costs like transportation (not included) and service, and transport for service (not included). Even without these, there is no possible way these 15-25K EUR would ever pay off.
    This is all without comparing the specs of the cars, where Tesla would start to lose greatly.

    Tesla’s are for hipsters who can afford expensive toys.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *