EV’s

[fmmv]

....A fusion reactor uses Hydrogen and/or isotopes of it rather than producing it ....

True. But certainly at one time it was thought relatively low voltage DC could be extracted directly from the plasma ( no messing with steam turbines and alternators) and could be used to electrolyse a handy lake. 

[landroversforever]

2 minutes ago, fmmv said:

....A fusion reactor uses Hydrogen and/or isotopes of it rather than producing it ....

True. But certainly at one time it was thought relatively low voltage DC could be extracted directly from the plasma ( no messing with steam turbines and alternators) and could be used to electrolyse a handy lake. 

Interesting! Never heard that one before, and Fusion is what I do for a living  

 

[Snagger]

There were massive storms where I spent last night.  What a pity there isn’t a way to capture and store all that electricity.

[Snagger]

4 minutes ago, landroversforever said:

Interesting! Never heard that one before, and Fusion is what I do for a living  

 

So, you have this under your bonnet? 

[landroversforever]

 

 

[Snagger]

I suspected you were going to tell me how bored you are of hearing that joke by now!

[bishbosh]

I think hydrogen paste is an interesting concept - nullifies the gaseous H2 risk and could be provided as a cassette you could buy at any corner store on an exchange basis. Of course, all manufacturers would have to agree to a standard format for the cassette so it will probably go nowhere....

[geoffbeaumont]

1 hour ago, Snagger said:

Absolutely.  Get the batteries sorted and it’s a no-brainier.

That's the thing - you need to compare the whole system. The motor may be much smaller and lighter, but a good deal of that advantage, probably all of it*, disappears when you include the power storage for both.

That's not disagreeing that EV has some definite advantages.

* Definitely all of it if you have identical range.

[FridgeFreezer]

6 minutes ago, geoffbeaumont said:

That's the thing - you need to compare the whole system. The motor may be much smaller and lighter, but a good deal of that advantage, probably all of it*, disappears when you include the power storage for both.

It's below par right now but the energy densities and performance (and safety) are advancing rapidly - improved processes, materials & chemistry are all coming down the line in next-model production cars.

A very cursory search shows energy densities have been on a sort of Moore's Law march upwards at pace, while the cost falls in a similar fashion. Sure, the Nissan Leaf or Tesla you can buy today has a relatively poor battery that's not a super-attractive powertrain swap, but we can't be very many years from a battery pack that will fit unobtrusively where the fuel tank &/or engine used to be and give a perfectly usable range & charge time.

[monkie]

2 hours ago, FridgeFreezer said:

Another way to look at EV's is this: If someone offered you a motor for your car that had full torque from 0rpm, was way more efficient than any existing ICE engine, was 1/4 the size of an ICE engine, needed 3 wires to make it go, didn't need a multi-speed gearbox or clutch, didn't need an exhaust, required minimal cooling & lubcrication, and had only one moving part that was perfectly balanced rather than reciprocating, most sane people would jump at it.

Yes batteries are still catching up, and yes there's a load of electronics around the basic system like any modern car - but on paper the electric drivetrain is miles ahead on everything except making fruity noises.

And EVs are so smooth and easy to drive. I've got to the point now where I don't want to drive my wife's diesel car because it's slow, noisy, manual gearbox and I'm finding myself using my land Rover less and less. 

[landroversforever]

5 hours ago, Snagger said:

I suspected you were going to tell me how bored you are of hearing that joke by now!

Never seen it before!

[Snagger]

11 hours ago, monkie said:

And EVs are so smooth and easy to drive. I've got to the point now where I don't want to drive my wife's diesel car because it's slow, noisy, manual gearbox and I'm finding myself using my land Rover less and less. 

The do have some major advantages, which is why I continue to follow several YouTube channels and Facebook groups on converting vehicles.   Teslas are horrible, but not because they are EVs but because of their dire quality, stupid instrumentation and control screen and desperately uncomfortable seating, among other things, but the same is true of many ICE cars while some EVs are very comfortable.  It all has to be taken on a case by case basis, just like the debate on how practicable an EV is for an individual owner.  The environmental claims are still being pushed hard by the manufacturers and authorities, but the public has largely seen through all that now, so the cars will be judged more on their true merits of costs and usability, as they should.

[monkie]

1 hour ago, Snagger said:

The do have some major advantages, which is why I continue to follow several YouTube channels and Facebook groups on converting vehicles.   Teslas are horrible, but not because they are EVs but because of their dire quality, stupid instrumentation and control screen and desperately uncomfortable seating, among other things, but the same is true of many ICE cars while some EVs are very comfortable.  It all has to be taken on a case by case basis, just like the debate on how practicable an EV is for an individual owner.  The environmental claims are still being pushed hard by the manufacturers and authorities, but the public has largely seen through all that now, so the cars will be judged more on their true merits of costs and usability, as they should.

I was worried about the build quality of a Tesla before I tested one. I think they have addressed this because there is nothing wrong with the one I have (72 reg) and is better apparent build quality than many other cars I've had. There are many now that have covered huge mileage and are still going strong. As for the screen - you get used to that in the first 30 miles of driving and not having to deal with loads of daft little buttons and switches all over the place is so refreshing. I had to use a hire car for work a few months ago while my Tesla was having some bodywork done (something falling off a lorry hit it), the hire car was a 23 reg ICE car, it felt like I had gone backwards in time several steps and I couldn't wait to get rid of it. But this is personal preference, you don't have to have a Tesla if you wanted to have an EV.

There are rightly environmental concerns, there is a cost to everything - again I think these are exaggerated on both sides of the debate. However it's clear to most that burning fossil fuels must come to an end.

When people talk about the impact metals for EVs have they often don't realise that fuels have a lot of CO2 associated with them from the production and distribution before you even burn them. Also metals on large quantity (eg cobalt) are required for removing sulfur (and other processes) from petrol and diesel. I understand that some of these metals can't always be recycled and must be dumped, whereas metals used in EVs can be recycled for making new EVs in the future.

 

[Ed Poore]

1 hour ago, monkie said:

and not having to deal with loads of daft little buttons and switches all over the place is so refreshing

I think there's the crux of the matter "refreshing", it's something new. I've not driven a tesla, nor been in one but I did have a Jag on hire which had moved most of the functions to the screen and I hated it. The main reason was it was badly executed but a decent chunk of it was having to look down to find things.

It's personal preference but I like stuff I don't have to look at to turn on and off. I recently built a new bespoke controller for a big sheet metal controller and the screen I used came with a touch controller. It wasn't used and a completely new PCB made to mount some physical buttons on it because again it just wasn't appropriate not being able to push buttons.

[Snagger]

The recycling of EV batteries is a myth, though.  The amount carried out is insignificant and done only as greenwashing.  Maybe (hopefully) that will change, but there is little sign of significant increase in recycling of any waste materials, not just batteries.  Meanwhile, the most environmentally friendly car will continue to be a well maintained car that already exists, not the next high-tech new kid on the block that has to be built from more new materials with components being shipped all over the planet.

Touch screen controls are not directly associated with any particular type of car - some ICE cars have them like Teslas do, while many EVs have conventional controls.  I am solidly and intractably in the “touch screens are a lethal distraction and should be banned outright” camp.

[jeremy996]

2 hours ago, Snagger said:

The recycling of EV batteries is a myth, though.  The amount carried out is insignificant and done only as greenwashing.  

Most recycling of traction batteries is as packs of cells into home batteries, where the loss of performance is nowhere near as critical. (Or to power EV conversions). The bit of battery recycling that is not happening at scale is the teardown and chemical recovery of dead and non-viable individual cells. There are a number of small scale trials of chemical recovery, but to say there is no recycling is incorrect.

Renault's attempt to join the home battery market was placed on hold when some smart arse worked out that there were not enough depleted traction batteries to justify the investment at this stage, (the traction batteries were holding up better than expected).

[monkie]

There are several companies in their infancy who are seeking to recycle EV metals, American Battery Metals being an example I know of in the USA. Because we aren't doing something well now, doesn't mean that won't change in the future - it will have to change. But to my wider point, to my understanding there is much greater scope to recover and recycle metals from EVs than it is to recover and recycle metals associated with cleaning up oil based fuels.

Fiddling about with anything in a car whilst driving is a distraction. Fiddling about countless switches all over the place is as equally distracting as fiddling about with a touch screen. I would argue that trying to find something from a single touch screen is preferable to me than buttons all over the dash, steering wheel and console. Banning touch screens wouldn't do anything to improve road safety in my opinion. Better and continuous mandatory driver training is what is needed, but that's a different subject entirely.

[Snagger]

Touch screens require reading and scrolling through menus.  Conventional controls are operated by feel and do not require the driver to look away from the road.  They are completely different in that regard, but that is not related to the EV/ICE issue.

While recycling of EV batteries may be technically feasible, it is not currently undertaken and not likely to be done at useful scale in the near or mid term future, so as an argument to support the benefits of EVs, it is misleading.  It’s not that recycling doesn’t occur, just that it is minimal.  Look at the numbers of unsold EVs in China and the lack of recovery of the unused batteries in them.

[monkie]

I don't think you have any experience of driving a Tesla as it isn't necessary to scroll through menus to control the cabin temperature or operate other things like the radio, lights, wipers etc. whilst driving. It's very easy to control, so isn't a valid argument against them at all. I can't speak for other cars with a touch screen as I don't know.

I agree much more needs to be done in terms of recycling metals from EVs, but like a say this is in progress and happening at a pace so I would point to it as an argument to support EVs as the metals will happily sit there until we recycle them, they aren't being chemically poisoned. I wouldn't say China is a great place in general to look at for examples of good environmental practice right now.

 

[Snagger]

20 hours ago, monkie said:

I agree much more needs to be done in terms of recycling metals from EVs, but like a say this is in progress and happening at a pace so I would point to it as an argument to support EVs as the metals will happily sit there until we recycle them, they aren't being chemically poisoned. I wouldn't say China is a great place in general to look at for examples of good environmental practice right now.

 

If you can make money from something, the Chinese will do it.  They don’t have to worry about labour law, minimum pay, safety or environmental issues, and still it is uneconomical for them to recycle lithium batteries.  If they can’t make viable business from it, what chance in the far more regulated west?

[monkie]

1 hour ago, Snagger said:

If you can make money from something, the Chinese will do it.  They don’t have to worry about labour law, minimum pay, safety or environmental issues, and still it is uneconomical for them to recycle lithium batteries.  If they can’t make viable business from it, what chance in the far more regulated west?

I think you've answered your own point... Regulation.

Solar panels are an example of this. The EU had the first legislation around recycling solar panels, this is now spreading across the world including China.

[FridgeFreezer]

5 hours ago, Snagger said:

They don’t have to worry about labour law, minimum pay, safety or environmental issues, and still it is uneconomical for them to recycle lithium batteries.  If they can’t make viable business from it, what chance in the far more regulated west?

And yet there are multiple EV battery recycling companies starting up & getting serious funding... and solar panel recycling too... and wind turbine blades which is the other one people love to grumble about. One of the original high-ups in Tesla left to set up a battery recycling plant because he foresaw the demand and how much valuable material was tied up in batteries for the taking.

It does feel like this is one of those stories the grumpy old curmudgeons with their frothy brown beer desperately want to be true but isn't. Perhaps because their preferred media outlets love to make out like the woke mob are going to break down their doors in the middle of the night and crush their beloved old bangers? Meanwhile the truth that 95% of the population happily treat cars like appliances and don't care what makes it go as long as it gets them from A to B reliably and smoothly, and no-one is going to miss 90% of the anodyne ICE-powered appliances currently on the roads when they are replaced by electric appliances that are functionally no different as far as anyone cares.

 

[geoffbeaumont]

Where solar panels are concerned I've read (but can't remember where) that the main issues are not so much lack of will to recycle as the need to develop the (expensive) technology to do it coupled with low supply of materials as not many (in the grand scheme of things) solar panels are life expired yet. But the companies investing in this field are expecting big returns as larger numbers of panels need to be changed out.

I'd imagine the same would apply to EV batteries.

[Snagger]

Several of those recycling business already closed.  Some are still getting going.  The key thing you mentioned, John, is that they got some heavy investment.  Tell Black Rock or Vanguard or most western governthat you have some big green invention and they will through money at you.  So much of the green energy, battery development and all other “environmental industries “ are scams and get-rich-quick business that take in money then quickly disappear or go bust without making anything.  There are announcements of new battery chemistries every fortnight or so promising to end all the issues, almost none of which make any progress.  There are so many schemes going on under ESG investment that you can’t trust any of it.

[sean f]

2 hours ago, Snagger said:

Several of those recycling business already closed.  Some are still getting going.  The key thing you mentioned, John, is that they got some heavy investment.  Tell Black Rock or Vanguard or most western governthat you have some big green invention and they will through money at you.  So much of the green energy, battery development and all other “environmental industries “ are scams and get-rich-quick business that take in money then quickly disappear or go bust without making anything.  There are announcements of new battery chemistries every fortnight or so promising to end all the issues, almost none of which make any progress.  There are so many schemes going on under ESG investment that you can’t trust any of it.

Though I tend to agree there are a lot of people milking the system and getting money for at best dubious schemes (it happens in all aspects of business, environmental stuff is just getting a lot of money thrown at it at the moment), there are other schemes and ideas which genuinely look good, most probable won't pan out in the long run but it only needs the one and there can be a step change in technology in some form, no idea what form that will take, if I did I would be investing!.

At the moment a lot of the schemes are only viable in the real world due to huge grants in some form, either direct payments or guaranteed purchases prices at above market price, tax rebates at over 100% etc etc. It says something about relative costs that the government sale of rights to build offshore wind farms didn't get a single bid as the subsides offered weren't high enough but Rosebank field has investors (mostly Equinor and Ithica) willing to pay out £2-3 billion in investment to bring it on line risking being shut down at any point but its still financially worth it even with the current 70% tax on all profit being paid by oil companies.

Edited November 5, 2023 by sean f
spelling