Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[Andres125sx]

...Ultra powerful EVs are just a consequence of adding a huge battery to improve range as people is asking for. Not silly, just what people is asking as once you have a huge battery only few kg more of a bit bigger motor and you have hypercar perfomance almost for free.
...

It's marketing Andres, that was my initial point that started this tangent...

Very few people care if a BEV SUV can out-perform the odd ICE powered super-car to 100kmh.., and absolutely no one cares if it can perform a 'tank turn' because a 'tank turn' is totally and utterly ridiculous.
Marketing departments focus on what they can sell as a positive, whether it's useful or not. I dare say that (in Oz) a BEV's totally unnecessary acceleration capability will be eventually declared as dangerous and restricted. I'm quite sure that Australian regulators will exclude 'tank turn' from ever being allowed in anything but pure off-road situations, possibly even prevented from implementation in the Australian Design Rules..?

What isn't marketable is the statement that 'it only takes 30 minutes to re-fuel to 80%' when the existing competition can do it in 5...

Before you respond, just remember that I'm on your team with the BEV thing, but let's not let marketing cloud our judgment on what is useful and what is marketable.

But is that any different from a 500hp ICE SUV? There are some manufacturers offering that, so it's normal EV manufacturers also offers that nosense, specially when it's much less costly than on ICEs cars.

Tank turn is far from ridiculous, when off road doing a 180 or even just a 90degrees turn in no space can be really really useful, specially with a 5m long SUV. At least in tight spaces, in the desert it will be useless but or rough terrain or between trees or rocks it can be the difference between passing and continue, or be forced to go back and look for alternatives.

Not in tarmac tough, doing a tank turns in tarmac will destroy the tires in no time and it's not that useful on road anycase, but for off road it's something I'd love in my car

[nzjrs]

It's funny, with viable in the title of this thread I thought it would be about the viability of the energy systems of EVs and the energy economy in which they operate, I didn't expect so many to think viable meant "do one unnesseary shiny thing more than the last unecessary shiny thing marketers convinced me my last car needed to to"

There is a lesson there wrt. human decision making, social signalling, and the EV future, but it's not an enjoyable one.

[AJI]

But is that any different from a 500hp ICE SUV? ...

Yes and no. It's just a function of torque translated into 0-100 time for marketing. My Audi Q7 has 800Nm of torque, but only 250kW of power. It has a 6.4 second 0-100 time and let's be serious, that is properly fast, but Audi don't promote the 0-100 time, they promote the torque, because it's an SUV and it'll tow massive loads all day long.

Tank turn is far from ridiculous, when off road doing a 180 or even just a 90degrees turn in no space can be really really useful, specially with a 5m long SUV. At least in tight spaces, in the desert it will be useless but or rough terrain or between trees or rocks it can be the difference between passing and continue, or be forced to go back and look for alternatives.

Context Andres. How many vehicles currently have 'tank turn'? None, because there are ways around the problem. Reverse works just fine on my car, but proper navigation works much better. I'll give you that tank turn may be useful on a very odd occasion, but how often do you actually need it? This goes back to my 'do we need blah, blah, blah rant', so I ask again, do we actually need it?

I can see we're going to go around in circles on this and that's my main fear. You and me are actually on the same page, but we argue about the stupid stuff.
[/quote]

[AJI]

It's funny, with viable in the title of this thread I thought it would be about the viability of the energy systems of EVs and the energy economy in which they operate, I didn't expect so many to think viable meant "do one unnesseary shiny thing more than the last unecessary shiny thing marketers convinced me my last car needed to to"

There is a lesson there wrt. human decision making, social signalling, and the EV future, but it's not an enjoyable one.

You sir, get my up-vote for that comment!

[izzy]

2. From 1 January 2020, this Regulation sets an EU fleet-wide target of 95 g CO2/km for the average emissions of new passenger cars and an EU fleet-wide target of 147 g CO2/km for the average emissions of new light commercial vehicles registered in the Union, as measured until 31 December 2020 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 together with Implementing Regulations (EU) 2017/1152 and (EU) 2017/1153, and from 1 January 2021 measured in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/1151.

So if they want to sell lots of big fat ICE suv's, they have to offload some treehuggers' EV's too, as part of the fleet

so the EU viability of EVs is in part compelled such that .... (in EU states where generation involves high coal usage)

... EV CO2/km will be higher than ICEV CO2/km (but is to be called 'zero emissions')

well you'd have to do the exact actual math wouldn't you, for each country, and then work out the EU as a whole by population, and then project forwards with generation plans for the life of the cars and also factor in night time charging, and where the extra MWh are coming from including home solar

@Henry has done some calculations a few days ago, istr a factor of 3 for a diesel Golf vs an EV, for CO2, so that's a starting point, and Wikipedia says

Typical thermal efficiency for utility-scale electrical generators is around 37% for coal and oil-fired plants, and 56 – 60% (LEV) for combined-cycle gas-fired plants.

so based on that i think even in heavily coal dependent countries it'd be close, worst case

[Tommy Cookers]

well ....
counting EVs as zero emission helps the sales of ICEVs ? .....
ie every EV sold allows the sale of maybe 10 or 20 fancy ICEVs that have CO2 emissions higher than the magic 95 gm

[izzy]

It's funny, with viable in the title of this thread I thought it would be about the viability of the energy systems of EVs and the energy economy in which they operate, I didn't expect so many to think viable meant "do one unnesseary shiny thing more than the last unecessary shiny thing marketers convinced me my last car needed to to"

There is a lesson there wrt. human decision making, social signalling, and the EV future, but it's not an enjoyable one.

surely the lesson is that when you're designing something for people, you have to make it suit them, not try and insist they do what you tell them to do. If life can be a rich, pleasant experience, having fun, people will choose that over doing tasks you set sitting in judgment on them. That is part of 'viable' when you want people to choose your design

so if you have a car you can just park and have it magically charged in the morning, that is a little bit more viable than one you have to mess about with. Not for everybody, but for 'people' as a whole

[izzy]

well ....
counting EVs as zero emission helps the sales of ICEVs ? .....
ie every EV sold allows the sale of maybe 10 or 20 fancy ICEVs that have CO2 emissions higher than the magic 95 gm

95 is lower than now, that's why they're having to add EV's to their 'fleet'. So the average emissions will come down

But yes, personally i would ban SUV's in a heartbeat don't get me started!!

[nzjrs]

surely the lesson is that when you're designing something for people, you have to make it suit them, not try and insist they do what you tell them to do.

Tank. Steering.

We are all being told what to do. Some people like the smell of regulation doing it, some prefer instagram ads or TV commercials (I "chose" this tank steering wireless 0-100 3s cybertruck )

Whatever flavour you prefer, I would hope that at least the things we get told to do are viable things (and I DO think we need to move to EVs of some flavour if the generation side is sustainable)

[izzy]

Tank. Steering.

We are all being told what to do. Some people like the smell of regulation doing it, some prefer instagram ads or TV commercials (I "chose" this tank steering wireless 0-100 3s cybertruck )

Whatever flavour you prefer, I would hope that at least the things we get told to do are viable things (and I DO think we need to move to EVs of some flavour if the generation side is sustainable)

the difference is that if you're designing something, you have to make it so that people choose to buy it. You don't 'tell' people to buy it. So i was thinking more about wireless charging really but it's the same with tank steer really. And the whole SUV/truck thing is ridiculous but if you had one in little old UK and were trying to park the stupid great thing in a supermarket car park you actually would need tank steer to swivel it and line it up with a parking slot!

so tank steer does make it more viable

[Big Tea]

Part of this it he knock on effect on others. If a truck is stationary at a junction or alongside the curb, 99% of people waiting to cross the street or emerge from a junction or drive way is not going to expect the vehicle that was stationary a blink ago to be arriving at the same point they are so soon. That sort of figure is downright dangerous in a built up area. I know it is a byproduct of available power, and most people will hardly ever use it (apart from demonstrations) but humans were not grown to make this sort of judgement when in the prime, let alone when young or old.

[henry]

well you'd have to do the exact actual math wouldn't you, for each country, and then work out the EU as a whole by population, and then project forwards with generation plans for the life of the cars and also factor in night time charging, and where the extra MWh are coming from including home solar

@Henry has done some calculations a few days ago, istr a factor of 3 for a diesel Golf vs an EV, for CO2, so that's a starting point, and Wikipedia says

Typical thermal efficiency for utility-scale electrical generators is around 37% for coal and oil-fired plants, and 56 – 60% (LEV) for combined-cycle gas-fired plants.

so based on that i think even in heavily coal dependent countries it'd be close, worst case

Here’s some actual maths.

In the Tesla example I gave earlier it uses 0.4 kWh/mile, 0.25 kWh/km.

I used CO2 figures from: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-map ... sessment-4

In 2016 the EU average gCO2/kWh was 298.5. So the average real world emission rate in 2016 for the Tesla was 75 g/km.

As a check the U.K. they give the gCO2/kWh as 281 which would make the Tesla gCO2/mile 112, higher than the 88 figure I calculated but I was using more recent generation figures with more renewables on line.

Using the same source I calculated g/km for:

EU 75
U.K. 70
Poland 193 - lots of coal
France 15 - lots of nuclear
Germany 110

So as @Tommy Cookers said some electric vehicles in the EU will be exceeding the 95 g/km limit but rated as Zero. Perversely this will allow makers to sell ICE vehicles well in excess of 95.

But it will also ensure a reduction. For a diesel car to meet the 95 limit it would need to do around 95mpg, 76 USmpg, 3 l/100km.

As for your points about home charge etc. The Tesla I refer to is mostly charged off the roof or from a renewables only electricity provider. So it’s exhaust print is mostly lower than UK average. It also is a bit more economical than I quoted since it only uses about 75kWh of its 85 nameplate rating.

[strad]

Reverse works just fine on my car,

.
While I understand your point I have also been in a place where I had to back up for almost five miles to find a turn around point. In that rare situation it would be cool to be able to turn in the length of the vehicle. Ever back up for miles on a dirt mountain road with steep fall offs on one side? Not fun

[izzy]

Here’s some actual maths.

In the Tesla example I gave earlier it uses 0.4 kWh/mile, 0.25 kWh/km.

I used CO2 figures from: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-map ... sessment-4

In 2016 the EU average gCO2/kWh was 298.5. So the average real world emission rate in 2016 for the Tesla was 75 g/km.

As a check the U.K. they give the gCO2/kWh as 281 which would make the Tesla gCO2/mile 112, higher than the 88 figure I calculated but I was using more recent generation figures with more renewables on line.

Using the same source I calculated g/km for:

EU 75
U.K. 70
Poland 193 - lots of coal
France 15 - lots of nuclear
Germany 110

So as @Tommy Cookers said some electric vehicles in the EU will be exceeding the 95 g/km limit but rated as Zero. Perversely this will allow makers to sell ICE vehicles well in excess of 95.

But it will also ensure a reduction. For a diesel car to meet the 95 limit it would need to do around 95mpg, 76 USmpg, 3 l/100km.

As for your points about home charge etc. The Tesla I refer to is mostly charged off the roof or from a renewables only electricity provider. So it’s exhaust print is mostly lower than UK average. It also is a bit more economical than I quoted since it only uses about 75kWh of its 85 nameplate rating.

great thanks, real figures. Looking on https://carfueldata.vehicle-certificati ... -cars.aspx a Fiesta 1.0 produces 138gm/km and a 5.0 Range Rover 289. Poland are a bit naughty aren't they, but even so an EV there produces less CO2 than a badboy ICE. The EU's 95gm/km is an average for a maker's fleet so some vehicles are supposed to be over and some under, the main thing is the total. If they don't manage it they get some huge fines! And yes as you've shown EV's will bring the average down to help save them. But also of course it motivates them to make all their vehicles produce less CO2

Then the individual vehicles pay more road tax (in the UK) if they make a lot of CO2 and also of course the fuel costs a lot more than charging an EV. Plus they are so much better to drive and listen to music in, miles less to maintain, and all the scope that's yet to be developed with apps, Summon, pre-heating, tank steer and who knows

[AJI]

Reverse works just fine on my car,

.
While I understand your point I have also been in a place where I had to back up for almost five miles to find a turn around point. In that rare situation it would be cool to be able to turn in the length of the vehicle. Ever back up for miles on a dirt mountain road with steep fall offs on one side? Not fun

Yes, I've had to do exactly that. More than once unfortunately, and while it was a pain in the ass, I didn't die because I can reverse. Even with a trailer, off road, on a single lane fire trail.
But just so I've got this straight, you are now in favour of EV's because you once had to reverse 5 miles and 'tank steer' might have helped in that particular situation?
You must understand my confusion strad. You have previously talked about how people can't drive anymore (even citing anecdotes of your particular driving skills) but now you are in favour of adding a facility to a vehicle that will possibly be used by 0.0001٪ of the population once or twice in their entire driving lives..?
I'll throw you a bone though. In the recent Oz bushfires, 'tank turn' could have possibly been used by the short wheel base rapid response vehicles. That said, I'm not sure I'd want a BEV fire fighting unit...