Naim Audio Forum Archive

Posted on: 28 October 2012 by Tony Lockhart

Well, Ken Rockwell had me chuckling ages ago with this: "Electric cars are a crock. I've been too polite to share, but since a reader asked, there are some huge practical and environmental problems if everyone started doing the wrong thing and driving electric cars. This whole thing is sponsored by companies that stand to make billions if people started buying these things. The big gotcha that most non-electronic engineers don't realize is that electric cars consume huge amounts of electric power. One electric car consumes as much power in typical operation as four homes! Why do you think they need special wiring and take forever to charge? Why do you think the batteries fill up half the trunk? All the power to charge these things has to come from somewhere; it's not like charging the little battery in your D300. (PS - as soon as I can find the box, since I haven't used my D300 since 2007, I ought to sell it.) Here's the big problem: If we all got electric cars, we'd need four times as many new electric power plants, and four times as many transmission towers to get that power to our homes! Imagine a landscape cluttered with power lines; how else will we get four times as much electric power home or at work to charge all these things? These aren't just golf carts. It's ironic that the same people who worry about replacing real bulbs with carcinogenic CFL bulbs loaded with mercury, lead, EMI and EMF just to save five watts are the same ones mislead to think that an electric car that charges at 10,000 watts overnight on 440V three-phase is saving energy. Each horsepower requires about 745 watts, but only if the car is 100% efficient, which they are not. It will need a lot more power for each horsepower in practice, and most small cars can make a maximum of at least 150 HP today. Wimpy electric cars might make do with just 20 HP maximum, or 10 HP for cruising at 55 MPH, still needing 15,000 watts to make just that! When you ignore all the free subsidies handed out like cocaine to get people hooked, electric cars need to burn about four times as much to fuel at a power plant compared to burning it in your car. 75% of the heat energy of combustion is wasted converting heat to spinning motion in a power plant, converting that motion to electricity, transmission to your home, storage in a battery, and conversion back to motion in your car, all with more heat losses over simply burning the same fuel in your car to make that motion directly. Yes, power plants burn much lower grades of oil and/or clean, safe nuclear power, but we still would need about four times as much energy at a power plant to get the same "go" in our car as just burning the fuel in our own cars in the first place — and those 360 kV powerline towers are going to have to go in someone's backyard. Electric cars are just another way to get some people richer, using everyone else's money. Technically, all they do is relocate pollution from your car back to power plants, and more of it, too. Repressive governments love electric cars, because as soon as power is cut during an uprising, no one can recharge their cars until the civil unrest subsides and government chooses restores power....." Don't flame me! Tony

Posted on: 28 October 2012 by Kevin-W

Originally Posted by Tony Lockhart:

Well, Ken Rockwell had me chuckling ages ago with this: "Electric cars are a crock. I've been too polite to share, but since a reader asked, there are some huge practical and environmental problems if everyone started doing the wrong thing and driving electric cars. This whole thing is sponsored by companies that stand to make billions if people started buying these things. The big gotcha that most non-electronic engineers don't realize is that electric cars consume huge amounts of electric power. One electric car consumes as much power in typical operation as four homes! Why do you think they need special wiring and take forever to charge? Why do you think the batteries fill up half the trunk? All the power to charge these things has to come from somewhere; it's not like charging the little battery in your D300. (PS - as soon as I can find the box, since I haven't used my D300 since 2007, I ought to sell it.) Here's the big problem: If we all got electric cars, we'd need four times as many new electric power plants, and four times as many transmission towers to get that power to our homes! Imagine a landscape cluttered with power lines; how else will we get four times as much electric power home or at work to charge all these things? These aren't just golf carts. It's ironic that the same people who worry about replacing real bulbs with carcinogenic CFL bulbs loaded with mercury, lead, EMI and EMF just to save five watts are the same ones mislead to think that an electric car that charges at 10,000 watts overnight on 440V three-phase is saving energy. Each horsepower requires about 745 watts, but only if the car is 100% efficient, which they are not. It will need a lot more power for each horsepower in practice, and most small cars can make a maximum of at least 150 HP today. Wimpy electric cars might make do with just 20 HP maximum, or 10 HP for cruising at 55 MPH, still needing 15,000 watts to make just that! When you ignore all the free subsidies handed out like cocaine to get people hooked, electric cars need to burn about four times as much to fuel at a power plant compared to burning it in your car. 75% of the heat energy of combustion is wasted converting heat to spinning motion in a power plant, converting that motion to electricity, transmission to your home, storage in a battery, and conversion back to motion in your car, all with more heat losses over simply burning the same fuel in your car to make that motion directly. Yes, power plants burn much lower grades of oil and/or clean, safe nuclear power, but we still would need about four times as much energy at a power plant to get the same "go" in our car as just burning the fuel in our own cars in the first place — and those 360 kV powerline towers are going to have to go in someone's backyard. Electric cars are just another way to get some people richer, using everyone else's money. Technically, all they do is relocate pollution from your car back to power plants, and more of it, too. Repressive governments love electric cars, because as soon as power is cut during an uprising, no one can recharge their cars until the civil unrest subsides and government chooses restores power....." Don't flame me! Tony

Rockwell is a bit of a bellend, truth be told - one of those opinionated American bores that the Internet seems to be full of. If he reckons electric cars are rubbish, you can be certain they're actually pretty good.

His opinions on photography and cameras have led to him being a laughing stock among the photographic community for some time.

He is patently a shill, who'll talk up the latest bit of Canon, Fuji or Nikon kit if it means getting a freebie or putting a PPC link through to Amazon, Adorama or some other retailer. He changes his mind every week or so as to the best camera ever (it's the M9. No, it's the Mamiya 7. No, its the 5D MkIII. Or perhaps not - it's the D800. Oh no, it's the X-Pro 1. Or is it the D600?). He reckons Sigma lenses are crap (some of them are rather good actually).

His photos are crap - most of the pics in the "Nice Photos" thread here blow his endless pics of his kids and midwestern shacks out of the water. Then he has the gall to ask for PayPal donations.

If you fancy a good giggle, you should read his "audio" "reviews". This one is one of the biggest piles of shite I've read in a long time:

Why CDs sound great

Posted on: 28 October 2012 by Tony Lockhart

Steady on Kevin! I think most people take Ken with a pinch of salt, much as I take wiggley amp cars with a pinch of salt. They've no place on my drive yet, much like hybrids. Once there's a clear, life-of-ownership saving I'll reconsider, but the fact that people have to ask advice means that we are years away from that situation. Tony

Posted on: 29 October 2012 by tonym

Not a good time of year to be buying a Leaf.

Posted on: 29 October 2012 by Kevin-W

Originally Posted by tonym:

Not a good time of year to be buying a Leaf.

Heading for a fall?

Posted on: 29 October 2012 by JamieWednesday

Anyone would think they just grew on trees...

Posted on: 29 October 2012 by Frank Abela

In answer to the OP...

There are several reasons why using an electric car is better for the planet.

Energy conversion rates.

The energy conversion is much more efficient when done via electricity. The conversion rate of a typical internal combustion engine (ICE) is between 20% and 25%. At best, the theoretical maximum you can get is around 27%. So approximately 3/4 of the fuel you burn goes into turning the engine over and producing heat, waste gasses etc.

The conversion rate of an electric engine is between 80% and 90%. You have zero idling use (don't start me on the much vaunted stop/start technologies in conventional cars - they're actually more wasteful than idling half the time).

Fuel production.

The production of refined fuel such as petrol and diesel is a relatively inefficient process. You can forget bio-fuels for a while too, as they've found that the exhaust gasses are carcenogenic. Once they've sorted that out, then bio-fuels might become interesting again. Either way, when you factor in the distribution of the crude, the chemical processes and burnoffs etc., followed by the local distribution of the fuel to filling stations, the seemingly pollutant power stations make much more sense. The fact that the plants themselves use a lower grade of fuel as well as different typers of fuel (coal, nuclear, solar, wind) which are simply not viable for on the road use, just makes it an even stronger case.

Downsides of Electric cars

You need to use the car relatively quickly after charging as otherwise stored power is lost

Batteries age relatively quickly - 3 years is the recommended lifetime.

The elements used in batteries are very nasty indeed, difficult to mine, diffiult to refine and yet more difficult to recycle. This aspect of electric cars is the single worst thing about them and the most damaging to the environment. At the moment it's not a big deal because there aren't many of them, but if their numbers do grow significantly, then it becomes a definite problem. I suspect much R&D is going into elements which do not need to be so nasty. Once this problem is cracked and more friendly elements used, the electric car will be a truly excellent alternative to ICEs.

Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.

Posted on: 29 October 2012 by Tony Lockhart

And then you want to drive 200 miles in winter, in the dark and cold. How long til it's possible in a purely electrical car? I do 100 miles each day, liftsharing, but four-up when it's my turn. And there's nowhere to recharge at Wattisham airfield. The theories are nice, for the future. Tony

Posted on: 29 October 2012 by winkyincanada

Originally Posted by Tony Lockhart:

Well, Ken Rockwell had me chuckling ages ago with this: "Electric cars are a crock. I've been too polite to share, but since a reader asked, there are some huge practical and environmental problems if everyone started doing the wrong thing and driving electric cars. This whole thing is sponsored by companies that stand to make billions if people started buying these things. The big gotcha that most non-electronic engineers don't realize is that electric cars consume huge amounts of electric power. One electric car consumes as much power in typical operation as four homes! Why do you think they need special wiring and take forever to charge? Why do you think the batteries fill up half the trunk? All the power to charge these things has to come from somewhere; it's not like charging the little battery in your D300. (PS - as soon as I can find the box, since I haven't used my D300 since 2007, I ought to sell it.) Here's the big problem: If we all got electric cars, we'd need four times as many new electric power plants, and four times as many transmission towers to get that power to our homes! Imagine a landscape cluttered with power lines; how else will we get four times as much electric power home or at work to charge all these things? These aren't just golf carts. It's ironic that the same people who worry about replacing real bulbs with carcinogenic CFL bulbs loaded with mercury, lead, EMI and EMF just to save five watts are the same ones mislead to think that an electric car that charges at 10,000 watts overnight on 440V three-phase is saving energy. Each horsepower requires about 745 watts, but only if the car is 100% efficient, which they are not. It will need a lot more power for each horsepower in practice, and most small cars can make a maximum of at least 150 HP today. Wimpy electric cars might make do with just 20 HP maximum, or 10 HP for cruising at 55 MPH, still needing 15,000 watts to make just that! When you ignore all the free subsidies handed out like cocaine to get people hooked, electric cars need to burn about four times as much to fuel at a power plant compared to burning it in your car. 75% of the heat energy of combustion is wasted converting heat to spinning motion in a power plant, converting that motion to electricity, transmission to your home, storage in a battery, and conversion back to motion in your car, all with more heat losses over simply burning the same fuel in your car to make that motion directly. Yes, power plants burn much lower grades of oil and/or clean, safe nuclear power, but we still would need about four times as much energy at a power plant to get the same "go" in our car as just burning the fuel in our own cars in the first place — and those 360 kV powerline towers are going to have to go in someone's backyard. Electric cars are just another way to get some people richer, using everyone else's money. Technically, all they do is relocate pollution from your car back to power plants, and more of it, too. Repressive governments love electric cars, because as soon as power is cut during an uprising, no one can recharge their cars until the civil unrest subsides and government chooses restores power....." Don't flame me! Tony

Rockwell is no physicist nor engineer is he? He gets the basic science so wrong, so often, in this piece that it is embarrassing.

Posted on: 29 October 2012 by Tony Lockhart

That's why I like Ken! He's like the clueless F-wit at work. But I do like his reviews of cameras, because if a button layout is wrong, for example, he'll say so. I can still try one for myself, but at least I'd be forearmed. Says Tony with his five year old 40D

Tony

Posted on: 29 October 2012 by maze

We are already seeing the government looking at ways to re coup lost tax revenue on these types of vehicle. When most have been conned into changing just watch the tax go way up on these cars. In last years bad winter weather I didn't see many people being rescued with electric cars, but were happy to see a 4x4 come to the rescue. A bit like the old wind farm argument, ho don't get me started, i'm outta here already.

Posted on: 29 October 2012 by Don Atkinson

Frank,

I accept much of what you say, but........

As a society we can't get started on replacement nuclear power stations even though we are committed to closing down coal-fired and oil-fired power stations. What chance do we have if we need to build 4xthe existing total power capacity in the UK. Non-starter IMHO.

Your calculations need to take account of primary energy production (oil-fired power generation and transmission isn't 100% efficient)

Tax !!!! petrol/diesel is a cash-cow for the government. c.£40bn pa in, c.£10bn pa spent on roads etc = c.£30bn surplus into the exchequer. Plugging the Naim system into the car-power-recharger could prove expensive in future if the government is to retain some semblance of this cash-cow.

Your point about battery production, battery life and battery re-cycling being a problem is real. It needs a lot of primary research before we commit to electric vehicles IMHO, i'm not convinced there is a sensible solution.

Who knows, it might all work, but I have personal doubts.

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 30 October 2012 by Jan-Erik Nordoen

Originally Posted by Don Atkinson:

Now if 30 million UK car owners switched to all-electric cars..........how many extra power stations would we need to build?

About 30 (for a mid-sized power station, i.e., 500 MW).

Some convincing facts here (from my employer) :

http://www.hydroquebec.com/tra...n/facts-figures.html

Posted on: 30 October 2012 by Don Atkinson

Listening to John Humphry on the drive to work this morning, I heard that Hitachi have agreed to build 6 new nuclear power stations in the UK - enough to power 14m UK homes.

Not nearly enough to power electric cars to any great extent, just enough to replace a few of the big coal fired ones in Yorkshire that we have agreed to close due to environmental lobbies.

How much will we pay for this new power ?

Hitachi will fund the new capital costs and run the show. So we, the end users will pay Hitachi to use their power. World gas prices are rising, so Hitachi will (inevitably) be able to charge just slightly less than gas-fired power supplies and gas fired domestic supplies. What was telling, was that the Government haven't discussed pricing with Hitachi according to the Minister - (that means they have) and Humphries couldn'r get the Minister to set out the charging policy (which means they have agreed that Hitachi can fleece the public for as much as possible and the Government will top that up with taxation if necessary)

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 30 October 2012 by Jan-Erik Nordoen

Originally Posted by Don Atkinson:

Listening to John Humphry on the drive to work this morning, I heard that Hitachi have agreed to build 6 new nuclear power stations in the UK - enough to power 14m UK homes.

Not nearly enough to power electric cars to any great extent...

The standard design of the pressurised water reactors is 1350 MW, which translates to about 11 new reactors if you were to "fuel" 30 million electric cars. With six new reactors online, you're more than halfway there, assuming that every petrol-fueled car is replaced by an electric one, which is a highly optimistic scenario.

... just enough to replace a few of the big coal fired ones in Yorkshire that we have agreed to close due to environmental lobbies.

Assuming each coal plant generates about 300 MW annually, then a single nuclear plant can replace 4 to 5 coal plants.

How much will we pay for this new power ?

Hitachi will fund the new capital costs and run the show. So we, the end users will pay Hitachi to use their power. World gas prices are rising, so Hitachi will (inevitably) be able to charge just slightly less than gas-fired power supplies and gas fired domestic supplies. What was telling, was that the Government haven't discussed pricing with Hitachi according to the Minister - (that means they have) and Humphries couldn'r get the Minister to set out the charging policy (which means they have agreed that Hitachi can fleece the public for as much as possible and the Government will top that up with taxation if necessary)

No comment !

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 30 October 2012 by Don Atkinson

Jan,

These 6 are to replace existing capacity, not to expand the existing capacity.

11 additional reactors seems fine by me. We just need an electrical vehicle with the range, speed, power and rapid refuelling capability of petrol/diesel vehicles that is affordable in terms of initial cost and through-life costs.

As an alternative thought, how about a car-sized nuclear power-plant. A bit like a nuclear sub-marine engine, only a bit smaller ? (ok, a bit risky in a terrorist's hands - ferget I mentioned it)

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 31 October 2012 by Don Atkinson

Just watched a repeat episode og Top Gear on Dave.

The one where they ran a Prius against a BMW 4-litre job at the same speed, ie as fast as the Prius could go, with the BMW simply tagging along behind.

The Prius got 17mpg. The BMW got 19mpg.

Factual but mis-leading science, as usual. But entertaining.

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 31 October 2012 by Jan-Erik Nordoen

Originally Posted by Don Atkinson:

As an alternative thought, how about a car-sized nuclear power-plant. A bit like a nuclear sub-marine engine, only a bit smaller ?

Like this ? :

Posted on: 31 October 2012 by Cbr600

ROriginally Posted by Jan-Erik Nordoen:

Originally Posted by Don Atkinson:

As an alternative thought, how about a car-sized nuclear power-plant. A bit like a nuclear sub-marine engine, only a bit smaller ?

Like this ? :

Maybe Naim could harness this for a new power amp, maybe a Nap500DR?

Posted on: 31 October 2012 by Don Atkinson

Jan, fantastic, this looks just the job to me. (subject to the small print)

I assume its about the size of a Rubik Cube and drives an external steam engine ?

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 31 October 2012 by Don Atkinson

Originally Posted by Cbr600:

ROriginally Posted by Jan-Erik Nordoen:

Maybe Naim could harness this for a new power amp, maybe a Nap500DR?

Could eliminate mains-fed interference.

cheers

Don

Posted on: 31 October 2012 by Jasonf

Originally Posted by Jan-Erik Nordoen:

class="quotedText">

Originally Posted by Don Atkinson:

As an alternative thought, how about a car-sized nuclear power-plant. A bit like a nuclear sub-marine engine, only a bit smaller ?

Like this ? :

I like it, but perhaps not ideal for the green lobby. How about a mini fuel cell based on hydrogen and water. I have been considering an idea for a mini power supply for domestic homes. Not keen on the nuclear version as possibly too complicated.

Cheers.

Posted on: 31 October 2012 by Don Atkinson

storing hydrogen is risky.

Better to have a nuclear "battery"

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 31 October 2012 by Jasonf

Yes risky, I was thinking the type that uses electrolysis of water or liquid hydrogen types as they are testing in cars, small compact power unit all ready works for cars. I don't know how big one would need to be to run an average domestic house. Everyone's off grid and no discernable waste, perhaps...I think this idea has some mileage, excuse the pun.

In the minds of the public, Nuclear is all right in a power station in far away places but put one in an airing cupboard next to the bedroom? It's not a goer.

Cheers.

Nissan Leaf................

Posted by: Don Atkinson on 28 October 2012