Electric Cars - Saviours of our environment or just another fad?

Fun fact. Tesla sent out a software upgrade to certain of its owners impacted by Hurricane Irma. Turns out when you buy one of the lessor Model S Teslas, in this case a 65 instead of 100, you get the same battery but the battery is software controlled to the lower range. Owners know that they can upgrade to the higher range at anytime by purchasing the extended range. In the case of Irma, Tesla sent out temporary code allowing the extended range to help give owners in heavy traffic sufficient range to evacuate ahead of the storm. In the next week or so the code reverts to the normal reduced range. So our iPhones are watching and so are our Teslas!

Clay Bingham posted:

Fun fact. Tesla sent out a software upgrade to certain of its owners impacted by Hurricane Irma. Turns out when you buy one of the lessor Model S Teslas, in this case a 65 instead of 100, you get the same battery but the battery is software controlled to the lower range. Owners know that they can upgrade to the higher range at anytime by purchasing the extended range. In the case of Irma, Tesla sent out temporary code allowing the extended range to help give owners in heavy traffic sufficient range to evacuate ahead of the storm. In the next week or so the code reverts to the normal reduced range. So our iPhones are watching and so are our Teslas!

If winky continues to chastise motorists on this forum, A quick word with Tesla might soon cut his potential mileage !

ynwa250505 posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...y-senior-merkel-aide

I remain baffled by the inability of the mainstream makers (and Don) to see the game-changer that electric vehicles represents.

From the subsequent posts it seems it's not just me (and the mainstream makers) who are baffling you, winky.

Now my plan to stay over in Chilliwack was changed. So today I wound up leaving Vernon at 07:00 and driving to Vancouver 450 km away for my 12:00 meeting. No problem in the CRV. A quick 15 min stop at Hope to stretch the legs and top-up the fuel to make sure I avoid the pricey stuff in Vancouver. It would need about 50 to 100 recharge points to service the cars I saw, with people spending 45 mins rather than 15. Park in the Sutton Place underground and note there are TWO electric recharge points. If they weren't occupied I guess I could have recharged an electric vehicle, but they were occupied when I arrived. But TWO chargers.......they need more like 102.......  and a 500 km range for a 450 km journey is pushing your luck IMHO.

Meeting over and on my way out of town by 14:30 with another 15 min stop at Hope and back in Vernon in time for supper by 19:30.

Tomorrow, about 600 km to Canmore.

Now I don't do journeys like these too often. So, do I hire  a petrol vehicle for these "special" occasions or do I need two cars, one for the local journeys and the other in reserve for the big ones.

Nah, I'll stick with the CRV for the time being.

Will BC Hydro be able to cope if we all changed to all-electric cars ? Or would they need to import French/Chinese nuclear stations ?

 

Forget the CRV - get a big truck! F350 ... Harley version ��

Good idea.....

Meanwhile we'll stick with the CRV and borrow the kids Tundra crew cab when we need a bit more clearance !

Don Atkinson posted:

 

.....and borrow the kids Tundra crew cab when we need a bit more clearance !

 

Outta my way nature!

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

.....and borrow the kids Tundra crew cab when we need a bit more clearance !

 

Outta my way nature!

Well, it might come in handy if I join the bison cull in the Grand Canyon......

I can still hike more than 12 km per day for over a week with a 25kg back pack and based on the last time I was on a range I could hit a paper plate at 200 yards.

So, environment protection, here I come, Tundra and all........

......some of us really do care about people and the environment !

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

.....and borrow the kids Tundra crew cab when we need a bit more clearance !

 

Outta my way nature!

Well, it might come in handy if I join the bison cull in the Grand Canyon......

I can still hike more than 12 km per day for over a week with a 25kg back pack and based on the last time I was on a range I could hit a paper plate at 200 yards.

So, environment protection, here I come, Tundra and all........

......some of us really do care about people and the environment !

Nothings says "I care for the environment" more than driving a Toyota Tundra through the no-longer-wilderness for recreation.

I think car ownership is very likely to change in the medium near future with level 4 and 5 autonomous cars becoming commonly available in the next 10-15 years, probably less. Imagine if you could just whistle up a car using an app to your location then be driven to your destination (if it a long way then you might have to swap vehicles en-route but there will be one waiting for you). Once at your destination it drives itself away, no need for a drivers licence, no insurance and most importantly no parking.  Just think of all the space we could get back in our homes and on our streets if the number of cars was reduced by 50% or even 70%.  Obviously a number of things will have to change our relationship with workplaces, more flexible hours to allow time shifting to reduce peak vehicle demand though not owning a car might mean more car pooling.   Less single occupant cars would be a revelation in and of itself.

Obviously curmudgeonly audiophiles are unlikely to leap to to this option given how attached we are to the physical ownership of items but the young people with their subscription services will lap it up without a second thought.

Also just on the need for additional generation there is practically no demand, should all cars get converted to electricity, the amount of generation now available is there to service the maximum peak demand, a lot of the time that generation is just not required and some cases large consumer (aluminium smelters) are virtually given free electricity to use overnight when there is no demand, some generation e.g. nuclear you just can't turn off.  

A lot of the scare stories about additional generation are just based on out-dated thinking, just because you come home and plug in your car at 7pm doesn't mean you have to start charging straight away, most cars will allow you to program when to start charging so why wouldn't you wait until 11pm when it's much cheaper.  Once the critical mass of electric cars is reached say ~1m in the UK then technology exists to allow the use of some of the cars battery charge to flow into the local grid to help with the 7pm peaks requiring less investing in the distribution network.  There are also lots of options for micro-grid and distributed generation which along with local storage solutions mean that some of the energy distribution businesses I work with, have no idea if they will even have a business model in 10 years.  It's all about making the generation and consumption more aligned through time shifting demand.  Also as an observation fuel refining takes a massive amount of electricity, as less petrol is required then that is electricity available to be used elsewhere, same for car manufacturing.

Finally there are very promising trials using salt as a battery, in fact the professor most closely aligned with the commercialisation of Lithium batteries at Oxford is involved with the team, his 90+ years not withstanding, the current team is based in Texas, Austin perhaps, anyway no need for expensive or rare materials.  There are home based fuel cells that no longer require platinum and can run on practically any carbon based fuel that are commercially available in the UK.

The future holds lots of promise but that doesn't mean the Daily Mail etc won't continue to tell you that is all a terrible nightmare waiting to be come real because that's what they do, they want no advancement.

In many ways that may prove true - and I hope it does - but I think the timeframe to widespread takeup will be much longer than the predcicted 10-15 year availability might suggest. A few observations (not opposing the above thoughts, but practical barriers that have to be overcome):

On the plus side, another theoretical benefit of autonomous cars is the removal of the need for a driver to refrain from alcohol, so people could go out for a drink and simply get into the car and say the equivalent of "home, James". However, at present the only indication I have seen in the UK is that for the forseeable future autonomous cars will continue to require a person in a fit state to drive and ready to take the controls, presumably also insured though that could change to vehicle rather than person based, which defeats the potential advantage, and on a long journey is likely to be more of a problem than a short one as the lack of driving stimulation would be likely to result in inattention at best. I think it will not be until at least the majority of cars on the road are autonomous that this would be likely to change - but I am sure that time will come eventually.

Being wedded to car ownership is quite unrelated to audiophile posessiveness of gear and music, and the impression I have is that young people generally are far more posessive of their cars and right to use them than people of my generation. 

Regarding long distances, for at least a proportion of people that can mean a car packed to the limit with the paraphernalia of the trip, holiday or whatever, and changing cars several times would be neither instant nor smooth, so unlikely to be considered a minor inconvenience, especially if the next cars are not identical.

http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...088/1748-9326/aa8850

TLDR Summary: Diesel cars illegally produced to cheat emissions regulations during the "diesel-gate scandal" are killing 5,000 Europeans per year....

I have been watching this thread and unfortunately the most relevant discussion has yet to begin. In the future, mankind is going to have to adjust to living with much less available energy. Trying to replace our hydrocarbon energy usage with renewables is mandatory. It's just not possible to achieve a transition that will allow for the same quantity of available energy. In other words, mankind is going to have to adjust to a scenario where much less total energy is used.

Here is a very cogent article explaining my point...

100 Percent Wishful Thinking: The Green-Energy Cornucopia - Resilience

Until this is understood, this discussion completely misses the point.

BB

Global population has increased from 2.5bn in 1950 to c. 7.5bn today and set to increase by another 3bn over the next 40 years.

A much higher % of the current (and future) population is seeking to enjoy Western levels of energy use. 

Nuclear energy is the only solution we have at the moment. Hopefully some bright spark will come up with a better solution in the next few years.

.....and some other bright spark will sort out the food and water .....

.....and.....well, you get the picture.

But winky, spending £100k on a new car is a good start......... 

Just a few small problems with nuclear power, Don...

Peak Uranium: The Uncertain Future of Nuclear Energy - Resilience

World Has Much at Stake in Nuclear Power Decision - Resilience

So there's lots of reading to keep you busy...

There are many folks with much greater knowledge than you could possibly have, who have already concluded that nuclear power is not a viable energy bridge during the necessary transition.

There are many bright "sparks" working on this problem. Unfortunately, using much less energy in the future is the best solution that has come to light so far.

Nice try though...

BB

Don Atkinson posted:

Well, it might come in handy if I join the bison cull in the Grand Canyon......

I can still hike more than 12 km per day for over a week with a 25kg back pack and based on the last time I was on a range I could hit a paper plate at 200 yards.

 

I used to nail a 4" disk at 200 (Win 308 / Sierra Matchking round).

Monster posted:

Just a few small problems with nuclear power, Don...

Peak Uranium: The Uncertain Future of Nuclear Energy - Resilience

World Has Much at Stake in Nuclear Power Decision - Resilience

So there's lots of reading to keep you busy...

There are many folks with much greater knowledge than you could possibly have, who have already concluded that nuclear power is not a viable energy bridge during the necessary transition.

There are many bright "sparks" working on this problem. Unfortunately, using much less energy in the future is the best solution that has come to light so far.

Nice try though...

BB

Nuclear doesn't equate to Uranium; it doesn't even equate to fission (BTW Monty Burns's boat is called "Gone Fission"!).

The answer is nuclear fusion.

And it's only a matter of time before the technical challenges are overcome.

Huge posted:

Monster posted:

Just a few small problems with nuclear power, Don...

Peak Uranium: The Uncertain Future of Nuclear Energy - Resilience

World Has Much at Stake in Nuclear Power Decision - Resilience

So there's lots of reading to keep you busy...

There are many folks with much greater knowledge than you could possibly have, who have already concluded that nuclear power is not a viable energy bridge during the necessary transition.

There are many bright "sparks" working on this problem. Unfortunately, using much less energy in the future is the best solution that has come to light so far.

Nice try though...

BB

Nuclear doesn't equate to Uranium; it doesn't even equate to fission (BTW Monty Burns's boat is called "Gone Fission"!).

The answer is nuclear fusion.

And it's only a matter of time before the technical challenges are overcome.

As I understand things, nuclear fusion is still very much a pipe dream. We need solutions now so we can get started on transition...

BB

Monster posted:

Just a few small problems with nuclear power, Don...

Peak Uranium: The Uncertain Future of Nuclear Energy - Resilience

World Has Much at Stake in Nuclear Power Decision - Resilience

So there's lots of reading to keep you busy...

There are many folks with much greater knowledge than you could possibly have, who have already concluded that nuclear power is not a viable energy bridge during the necessary transition.

There are many bright "sparks" working on this problem. Unfortunately, using much less energy in the future is the best solution that has come to light so far.

Nice try though...

BB

Huge has provide a clear, far more concise response that I could have done.

I referred to nuclear energy/power. That covered fission as we have now and fusion that we might be able to harness in the (near ?) future.

Nuclear fission is the only (medium term) sustainable energy/power source that we currently have, in sufficient quantity to meet our demands or even our essential needs.

Coal, gas and oil are short-term sources - once used, they are gone, and in a relatively short time-frame.

Bio-fuels (wood chip etc) are renewable, but only if we look after the soil in which they grow, and in many cases deny the possibility of other, more useful crops. Quantity is severely limited. The UK was de-forested in the initial industrial revolution.

Wind and solar rely on storage systems that we haven't yet developed in sufficient quantity. The UK has exploited most, if not all of its pumped storage opportunity. Wind and solar rely on nuclear, oil, gas, coal as back-up and as storage. Battery storage is an option but currently very limited.

As I made clear above, we need innovation to identify and develop new, or novel sources of high quality energy/power. I notice in your last post, that you seem to agree.

The point I was trying to make is that there are insufficient uranium reserves to fuel nuclear fission expansion at the required scale. That was the gist of the first link I supplied. No company or government will pursue a large expansion of uranium based nuclear power for this reason. As I noted in response to Huge's comment on nuclear fusion, this is still a pipe dream at the present time. We need workable solutions now, not in 20 to 30 years time.

BB 

Monster posted:

As I understand things, nuclear fusion is still very much a pipe dream. We need solutions now so we can get started on transition...

BB

 So what is the solution for transition right now?

If there isn't a solution that presents itself right now; then is it not preferable to have a medium / long term workable plan for a solution rather than to have no plan at all?

Monster posted:

The point I was trying to make is that there are insufficient uranium reserves to fuel nuclear fission expansion at the required scale. That was the gist of the first link I supplied. No company or government will pursue a large expansion of uranium based nuclear power for this reason. As I noted in response to Huge's comment on nuclear fusion, this is still a pipe dream at the present time. We need workable solutions now, not in 20 to 30 years time.

BB 

Uranium availability is not the constraint. Fuel costs for nuclear are very small, and increased demand and price will lead to increased exploration and mining as required, without affecting the economics of power generation by too much.

The reason that nuclear is constrained is purely due to uninformed public opposition, and the government policies that entails. Nuclear is by far the safest form of energy production ever undertaken. Safer even than solar, wind and hydro. And much, much safer than fossil fuels, of which coal is the worst. Unfortunately alarmist opposition has slowed uptake, costing many thousands of lives.

winkyincanada posted:

Monster posted:

The point I was trying to make is that there are insufficient uranium reserves to fuel nuclear fission expansion at the required scale. That was the gist of the first link I supplied. No company or government will pursue a large expansion of uranium based nuclear power for this reason. As I noted in response to Huge's comment on nuclear fusion, this is still a pipe dream at the present time. We need workable solutions now, not in 20 to 30 years time.

BB 

Uranium availability is not the constraint. Fuel costs for nuclear are very small, and increased demand and price will lead to increased exploration and mining as required, without affecting the economics of power generation by too much.

The reason that nuclear is constrained is purely due to uninformed public opposition, and the government policies that entails. Nuclear is by far the safest form of energy production ever undertaken. Safer even than solar, wind and hydro. And much, much safer than fossil fuels, of which coal is the worst. Unfortunately alarmist opposition has slowed uptake, costing many thousands of lives.

We live on a finite planet with finite resources, but hey, enjoy your little electric car. When you consider the energy supplied by hydrocarbons for transportation alone, you will see that electrifying the whole works is simply not possible. If it was easy, we would have done it a long time ago. You must consider ships, planes, rail, and heavy trucks in your calculus, as well as massive upgrading of transmission lines and related systems. The costs are incomprehensible for such a transition. We are far better off not even attempting such a fool's errand, and should spend our effort on mass public transport, electrified rail for freight, and living less energy intensive lifestyles. The era of unrestricted personal transportation will draw to a close, and will be viewed in hindsight as a one time extravagance. You really must do more research, because it's not as simple as "everyone is just going to buy electric cars". I'm no fan of burning hydrocarbons, but there's a reason why we have continued to use them...

I know you will no doubt disagree, especially since you've already bought in to Elon Musk's worldview, but I have better things to do than argue about this. I was having this discussion 30 years ago, and nothing has changed appreciably since then. Says a lot, really...

BB

Monster posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Monster posted:

The point I was trying to make is that there are insufficient uranium reserves to fuel nuclear fission expansion at the required scale. That was the gist of the first link I supplied. No company or government will pursue a large expansion of uranium based nuclear power for this reason. As I noted in response to Huge's comment on nuclear fusion, this is still a pipe dream at the present time. We need workable solutions now, not in 20 to 30 years time.

BB 

Uranium availability is not the constraint. Fuel costs for nuclear are very small, and increased demand and price will lead to increased exploration and mining as required, without affecting the economics of power generation by too much.

The reason that nuclear is constrained is purely due to uninformed public opposition, and the government policies that entails. Nuclear is by far the safest form of energy production ever undertaken. Safer even than solar, wind and hydro. And much, much safer than fossil fuels, of which coal is the worst. Unfortunately alarmist opposition has slowed uptake, costing many thousands of lives.

We live on a finite planet with finite resources, but hey, enjoy your little electric car. When you consider the energy supplied by hydrocarbons for transportation alone, you will see that electrifying the whole works is simply not possible. If it was easy, we would have done it a long time ago. You must consider ships, planes, rail, and heavy trucks in your calculus, as well as massive upgrading of transmission lines and related systems. The costs are incomprehensible for such a transition. We are far better off not even attempting such a fool's errand, and should spend our effort on mass public transport, electrified rail for freight, and living less energy intensive lifestyles. The era of unrestricted personal transportation will draw to a close, and will be viewed in hindsight as a one time extravagance. You really must do more research, because it's not as simple as "everyone is just going to buy electric cars". I'm no fan of burning hydrocarbons, but there's a reason why we have continued to use them...

I know you will no doubt disagree, especially since you've already bought in to Elon Musk's worldview, but I have better things to do than argue about this. I was having this discussion 30 years ago, and nothing has changed appreciably since then. Says a lot, really...

BB

Finite resources - absolutely. Transport systems are just one part of a much bigger issue. But one thing is for sure, sustainable transport will never be possible based on fossil fuels.

So because electric vehicles aren't the whole solution, we should just continue business as usual? Should we all just keep driving V8 monster trucks to the mall? From a public health perspective alone, there is great incentive to change.

It's not "massive upgrading" of electrical supply. A 20% increase in electrical generation and reticulation would easily power all private vehicles if they switched to electric. Heavy Vehicles are about 20% of the total, so in rough terms the increase needed would be another 5% increase in electrical capacity.

I do agree regarding the efficiency and merits of mass transportation. I'd love to see the end of private vehicles. I don't think that's likely in the short-term, though. We love our flexible mobility far too much.

I think there is a transition away from private ownership via shared vehicles. Car-sharing services are expanding in cities. The elimination of private vehicles will be a hybrid of car-sharing and public transport. Cars spend less than 5% of their lives driving. A shocking inefficiency of capital allocation that car sharing and public transit can and must address for sustainability.

But where have I ever said the it's as simple as everyone buying electric cars?  Electric cars may, or may not, be a necessary element of a truly sustainable transport system. But other things must also happen for sure. Efficiency improvements. Low transport lifestyles (live local!). Reduced populations. Public transport improvements. Active transport. Looking far enough ahead, electric cars will probably just be part of a transition.

The reason we've continued to burn hydrocarbons in our cars is because it was the best option for that use - until now. That has just switched. Electric cars 30 years ago were essentially useless. That's far from the case now. Things change. I don't know of a better alternative for private vehicle ownership from this point forward. But yes, we may also look back on the whole era of private vehicle ownership and wonder what the hell we were thinking.

Heavy vehicles are actually more amenable to electrification than are passenger cars. I actually think we'll see a transition in this space even faster than we do in passenger cars.

Monster posted:

We need workable solutions now, not in 20 to 30 years time.

BB 

Solutions to what, exactly?

winkyincanada posted:

Monster posted:

We need workable solutions now, not in 20 to 30 years time.

BB 

Solutions to what, exactly?

Sustainable lifestyles within the inherent limits we are facing. You need to look much farther into the future. If I must tell you this, then you probably won't really understand.

I'm not going to go on and on about this with you. Enjoy your EV.

BB

Monster posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Monster posted:

We need workable solutions now, not in 20 to 30 years time.

BB 

Solutions to what, exactly?

Sustainable lifestyles within the inherent limits we are facing. You need to look much farther into the future. If I must tell you this, then you probably won't really understand.

I'm not going to go on and on about this with you. Enjoy your EV.

BB

I guess I just don't believe that an instantaneous change to sustainable living is likely, or even possible for society. But nevertheless I do believe choices we make have an effect. I don't understand why you think I disagree with you.

Monster posted:

We live on a finite planet with finite resources, but hey, enjoy your little electric car. When you consider the energy supplied by hydrocarbons for transportation alone, you will see that electrifying the whole works is simply not possible. If it was easy, we would have done it a long time ago. You must consider ships, planes, rail, and heavy trucks in your calculus, as well as massive upgrading of transmission lines and related systems. The costs are incomprehensible for such a transition. We are far better off not even attempting such a fool's errand, and should spend our effort on mass public transport, electrified rail for freight, and living less energy intensive lifestyles. The era of unrestricted personal transportation will draw to a close, and will be viewed in hindsight as a one time extravagance. You really must do more research, because it's not as simple as "everyone is just going to buy electric cars". I'm no fan of burning hydrocarbons, but there's a reason why we have continued to use them...

I know you will no doubt disagree, especially since you've already bought in to Elon Musk's worldview, but I have better things to do than argue about this. I was having this discussion 30 years ago, and nothing has changed appreciably since then. Says a lot, really...

BB

Whilst changes in terms of using fossil fuels and causing pollution have been slower than one might like or believe is needed, it is disingenuous to suggest that nothing appreciable has changed since then - witness the very subject of this thread. You may not believe that electric personal transport is an answer, but it is a very substantial shift, and the statement "if it was easy we would have done it a long time ago" highlights the point: it was not easy, but advances in technology are beginning to bear fruit, again witness the scope of the recent crop of electric cars, and the alternative 'renewable' energy sources that are already in use, and present research on others.

I agree that more change is definitely needed, which inludes personal transport (and encoragement of non-motorised transport is one, as discussed in the Cyclists!!!! thread.), as is other transport, and getting whole countries on board (and not backing out as per Trump's moves), etc.