How practical is an electric car in London? If you revel in the independence a car gives you, then electric is not for you. The quoted range of 100 miles (161km) sounds fine, but that's a bit like a quoted ADSL speed. Your mileage may vary. The truth is that if and when the car goes flat, you are in deep doo-doo. Run out of petrol and you can walk to a petrol station, …
Unless you want to see parking garages built like most other cities, then no. The answer is going to be to move.
Personally, when the part of town I live in has more residential cars than parking spaces, it IS always time to move. It usually means I can no longer afford the rent, anyway.
That said, electric cars will be the dominant car within the next 20 years. Fast charging, 250+ mile range at ~$30k will spell the end of the ICE almost overnight.
Thank god.
"spell the end of the ICE". Err, right. Not everyone lives in cities, you know. And some people even live near to power stations, which is simply where your pollution (in fact, a great deal more - given the inherently wasteful nature of electric generation and motive power) gets pushed.
I've an idea: re-build Battersea Power Station for the exclusive use of electric vehicles. Then London would see EXACTLY the consequences of all this "free, clean" electricity.
Regarding pollution and electric cars - yes, there is a risk of simply pushing off the pollution. But less-polluting electricity generation is being actively pursued in a number of ways (renewables, carbon capture, even nuclear), needs to be solved anyway for other purposes, and is certainly in principle feasible. The ICE by contrast is inherently polluting, and the best to be expected is more efficient engines or small-scale remediation of their effects.
That said, it would be very interesting to do a comparison of carbon emissions (and other pollutants) from an ICE vs the equivalent emissions from a standard gas- or coal-fired power station, for the generation of sufficient power to drive a car a certain distance. And then of course, as Thomas Gray suggests, to look at the local distribution of those pollutants.
"That said, it would be very interesting to do a comparison of carbon emissions (and other pollutants) from an ICE vs the equivalent emissions from a standard gas- or coal-fired power station"
For me the difference is obvious: A car is less efficient than a power station. And whereas a car spews out fumes at street level, in densely populated areas, power stations don't. Electric is the future of cars... it's just going to take us a while getting there. Remember that the first petrol engined cars weren't exactly practical, either.
Remember that the first petrol engined cars weren't exactly practical, either.
You have to remember that the first petrol engined cars were competing for market share with a horse.
The horse had very limited range, low top speed, little comfort, was expensive to keep, and required daily maintenance.
An electric car that had free parking (in London), free charging, and could use bus lanes would work for me as a daily driver / snotter to get me to work. At £30k, it'd only need to work for 5 years to beat the train on price. I'd still keep my petrol cars for longer trips / fun (a mans gotta have a hobby), and have the eleccy car in addition.
Unfortunately ecofeco is wandering about in fantasy land if s/he expects the changes described to come about in 20 years. They won't. Nor will most of our power be provided by windmills.
An electric car that had free parking (in London), free charging, and could use bus lanes would work for me as a daily driver / snotter to get me to work. At £30k, it'd only need to work for 5 years to beat the train on price. I'd still keep my petrol cars for longer trips / fun (a mans gotta have a hobby), and have the eleccy car in addition.
So as long as you get everything for free, without any of the restrictions imposed on other equivalent personal transport, then it "works" for you? Well, I'm sure it does...
So as long as you get everything for free, without any of the restrictions imposed on other equivalent personal transport, then it "works" for you? Well, I'm sure it does...
I was trying to be positive :) Leccy cars just won't work for me in any realistic scenario.
While I simply don't buy the whole MMGW/AGW/AAGW/Whatever the mentalists are calling it this week, I am pleased we're at least looking at alternative fules in case the petrol runs out in 50 years when my potential grandchild wants to learn to drive. I don't believe it will, but only my wife is *always* right, so a plan b is ok with me.
"You have to remember that the first petrol engined cars were competing for market share with a horse."
Err... they were primarily competing with electric, diesel and steam driven cars and horse-drawn carriages, rather than simply horse-back riding.
"The horse had very limited range, low top speed, little comfort, was expensive to keep, and required daily maintenance."
Horses don't have a very limited range, or a low top speed compared to early cars, and carriages were more comfortable than early petrol driven vehicles. Old car also require daily maintenance.
The electric vehicles were also ahead on the comfort front and far more popular for a while. What finally gave petrol engines the edge they needed were decreased running costs (cheaper petrol), better range than the competing electric cars and an electric starter motor which meant they no longer needed to be hand cranked (which had pretty much made them useless for anyone who can't hand-crank an engine or afford a lacky to do it for them).
"it'd only need to work for 5 years to beat the train on price."
The ridiculous cost of public transport is indeed...ridiculous. It should not cost us more to catch a train than for one person to drive to London and park there all day.
"I'd still keep my petrol cars for longer trips / fun (a mans gotta have a hobby), and have the eleccy car in addition."
Likewise. But that is indeed because I am a motoring enthusiast and WANT more than one vehicle, rather than for a legitimate, practical reason. If I was simply a 'car gets me from A to B' person, it would make more sense for me to have the one car and rent when required.
Err... they were primarily competing with electric, diesel and steam driven cars and horse-drawn carriages, rather than simply horse-back riding.
Sure, but electric, steam, and diseasel cars were worse than the horse, so the horse was the best option available. Once the car could achieve a similar daily range (albeit at a lower speed per hour), the future of transport was set.
Horses don't have a very limited range, or a low top speed compared to early cars, and carriages were more comfortable than early petrol driven vehicles. Old car also require daily maintenance.
Sure they did. A horse can optimistically go about 40 miles per day. The Benz Patent Wagon, the frist commerically available petrol car, could do that in 5 hours. The first long distance trip in one was some 66 miles in a day, during which the lady driver (Mrs Benz) invented brake shoe lining, and had to locate pharmacies at which to replenish the fuel. The vehicle carried 3 people on this occasion, which no horse could do over a similar distance even if it could cover the ground.
The very first petrol powered car had already beaten the horse in all but top speed.
To compete with a modern car which can hold say 70mph all day with a few fuel stops, you'd need more than 8000 horses (assuming a 200 horsepower car). The modern leccy car has 120 years of automotive development to overcome, which is a very different and difficult challenge.
Likewise. But that is indeed because I am a motoring enthusiast and WANT more than one vehicle, rather than for a legitimate, practical reason.
I need a cheap track day car (for when I run out of talent or get collected by someone else that has), and my proper car. The wife also needs a car (something less powerful and costly to run than mine).
Realistically, my wifes car could be replaced by a Leaf - but since it cost £500 to buy and has been reliable for the past 3 years, she may be waiting a while before Nissan want to do a like for like swap.
"Sure, but electric, steam, and diseasel cars were worse than the horse, so the horse was the best option available."
The horse was not the best option available though, as evidenced by the increasing popularity of electric cars and bicycles in the era. The horse wasn't even the best option against the horse-drawn carriage. For non-urban transport the steam locomotive was the best option.
"Once the car could achieve a similar daily range (albeit at a lower speed per hour), the future of transport was set."
That's selecting a line of reason after the matter to fit the modern issue, though. It was not solely increased range that sealed the deal, as said: It was the increased practicality due to other technical advances improving the design, that they became cheaper to run AND the range outstripped electric cars (which were slowly starting to win the battle against horses). Range was not the deciding factor... because of the train again. And remember we're talking old cars. 100 miles in a 100 year old car is a bit of an adventure, not a trivial matter.
"Sure they did. A horse can optimistically go about 40 miles per day."
[Heard of the Pony Express? ;) I know it's not overly relevant, but every long-distance horse messaging or courier or stage-coach network changed horses regularly.]
"The vehicle carried 3 people on this occasion, which no horse could do over a similar distance even if it could cover the ground."
Which would be relevant if the late Victorians were covering long distances on horseback, but they were not. They used carriages (which held more than the cited vehicle) for shorter runs and trains for longer runs. Trains left cars of any kind and horses standing for long-distance travel.
Which is relevant today: The combination of short-range electric car and long-range public transport normally moots the need for a long-range electric car... or would do if public transport didn't suck balls quite as hard as it does. *grumble*
"you'd need more than 8000 horses (assuming a 200 horsepower car)."
HP != BHP, remember. And 'horsepower' doesn't even equal horse power.
"The modern leccy car has 120 years of automotive development to overcome"
It can bootstrap a lot of that by simply using existing automatic tech though. We don't need to invent windscreen wipers again. Most of what we have learned is relevant to electric cars. It will take a lot less time, this time around.
Petrol cars spent the first half of their existence as pretty much a luxury product, rather than a mainstream one. I doubt it will take electricity as long to catch up. It'll be a bit rubbish if it does!
"I need a cheap track day car "
No such thing, is there? ;)
"but since it cost £500 to buy and has been reliable for the past 3 years, she may be waiting a while "
This is my problem, too: I do so *few* miles that coughing up for a new car that's much more efficient would be an epic waste of cash. Especially given that my motor only costs about £250 a year to service and maintain.
It would have been impressive if the first petrol cars had been competing with Diesel. Look at the dates of the Diesel and the semi-Diesel (Ackroyd Stuart) patents. The Otto patent was in 1862. And neither the Diesel nor the semi-Diesel were suitable for use in cars for many years after they were invented.
Steam driven cars were never more than a joke, and the usual steam driven road transport was the traction engine.
The GPP is quite right because the horse was the motive power for the various carriages in use. It was slower than quite early petrol cars, which was why a 20mph speed limit was instituted (and there were many cases of prosecution of motorists for exceeding it.)
In the early days just about all cars had chauffeurs as they were fabulously expensive, so the starting method wasn't a disadvantage - in fact it was an advantage as it further reduced the chance that a knowledgeable employer would dispense with his chauffeur.
No, what limited the replacement of horse drawn carriages and electric cars in the esrly days was the availability of petrol, which had to be bought from pharmacists in 1 litre quantities. In other words, distribution and range were the same factors that are affecting electric vehicle adoption today.
"The ridiculous cost of public transport is indeed...ridiculous. It should not cost us more to catch a train than for one person to drive to London and park there all day."
Believe it or not, the UK has the lowest cost public transport in the EU.
Lowest OVERALL cost. Lowest subsidies. In some EU countries, rail and local tram/bus subsidies are over 80%.
What that means is that the trains in Holland are cheaper for the end user, but only because the dutch taxpayer is pumping money in on the other side to keep it all running. If average tax rates were 50-60% in the UK like they are in webfootland, there would be all sorts of scams cooked up to keep service levels rotten and prices high whilst sucking at the govt cash spigot.
The real problem with electric cars right now, is the VHS/Betamax problem. Nobody wants to buy a car until the charging stations are everywhere, and nobody wants to build charging stations until they know which system everybody will use.
The recent patent airdrop by Tesla has the power to kick-start the industry. I would say 20 years is realistic. Some cars already go 100 miles before needing charged or swapped, so I only see that improving.
40% of Scotland's electricity comes from renewable sources, and there is investment in more. Reducing our reliance on oil (be it American, Russian, Middle Eastern, or our own) and other finite fuel sources has got to be a good thing.
I don't think it will totally replace petrol in 20 years, but I think the industries will run concurrently until petrol cars occupy the same classic niches as horse-drawn carriages, steam trains and sailing boats (which are still thriving industries, if reduced from their heyday).
I would say using a combination of solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, and hydro, we could eventually make all our electricity renewable. Efficiency will increase. With car companies competing for custom and more customers bringing better mass production, the price of the technology will come down. 20 years is quite realistic.
Tesla is bringing out a budget model next year or so. It won't be long before those start being sold second-hand, and we'll all be buying them. If his system wins out, other companies will develop their own compatible versions, and the technology will become standard.
Oh dear....
no we won't
as of last year the 1GW offshore wind generation input (offshore tends to feed in at 400kV) required 500MW of diesel jennys standing by for when the wind didn't blow.
the paltry amount generated by onshore wind (generally fed in to the 132kV network) really didn't matter.
As of now, the capacity for embedded generation (mostly solar, but some wind, biomass.. hamsters in wheels etc etc) on the 11 & 33 networks is maxed out, even using suicide tactics like dynamic line rating wont buy much more, and the overall capacity could run a few calculators (assuming the sums weren't too hard).
the renewables business in this country is about subsidy farming and that is ALL.
Kill the subsidy and get serious about meeting demand (this will happen in a couple of years after regular power cuts become de-rigeur) and we'll be in the nuke building business again.
"Tesla is bringing out a budget model next year or so. It won't be long before those start being sold second-hand, and we'll all be buying them."
Oh, that's alright then.
And who amongst the less well-off will be able to afford to buy, or at least maintain all this wonderful technology? Even second or third hand. New battery pack? How much to renew those?
Mind you it's as bad now with a lot of modern cars. It's OK for the first owner, and maybe even the second owner, but when the bits start going wrong, how is the 3rd hand owner to afford that.
$400 to replace a key which allows you to unlock you doors, switch off your alarm, and allow the engine to start. It's a joke.
OK for those on regular, reasonable incomes.Tough if you are unemployed and looking for a job, and no adequate public transport for your region.
"The horse had very limited range, low top speed, little comfort, was expensive to keep, and required daily maintenance."
Compared to horses, petrol engines _are_ low pollution for locomotion purposes. There was a real fear in mid-19th century London that mid-20th century londoners would be wading through knee-deep horse shit (It was already ankle deep most of the day and thousands of tons was taken off the streets every day)
"A clear case of: out of sight out of mind..."
No, it isn't.
It's a clear case of cars pollute at street level and their pollution gets breathed in by everyone on the street, whereas power stations aren't right outside nursery schools and have bloody great chimneys.
The two might cause the same pollution overall, but having it away from a population centre is very different on a practical level to having it concentrated in our densest populated areas.
whereas power stations aren't right outside nursery schools and have bloody great chimneys fitted with exhaust scrubbers that put any catalytic converter to shame.
FTFY
Power stations put less overall pollution into the environment than cars even when slag ponds are added into the equation. (Coal ash can be used in making bricks), but more to the point, the remaining lifespan of fossil fuel plants should be fairly short.
Someone did a study, it was in MTZ a year or so ago, I was looking for it recently but couldn't find it.
Comparing the CO2 output of a modern diesel vs an electric car using typical current UK electricity mix, they were level, with the diesel obviously being more practical.
Now there is the matter of particulates and NOX, which diesels are rather bad for, but gas/coal stations probably produce *some* other pollutants (gas not so much I know, but still *some*).
This, iirc, didn't include manufacture and disposal, but I could be wrong on that.
The reason we're not all chasing electric cars because they are not the best/cheapest/most practical/going to happen soon enough.
E-cars do not scale. Period. That's the message of the article.
How come there isn't a wee feisty trailer with a wee feisty petrol- or propane-powered generator? Such an accessory would pretty much solve the entire Range Anxiety issue.
Also, looking at the picture: I can understand why petrol filler necks have to be on one side or the other. But given the simplicity of an electrical socket, why not have a charging port on both sides of the car?
".....I can understand why petrol filler necks have to be on one side or the other. But given the simplicity of an electrical socket, why not have a charging port on both sides of the car?" To keep build costs cheap. Each socket or petrol filler cap requires a hole punched in the car body panels, each hole means another stamping operation, so more cost. And then each socket require the socket and more wiring, so even more cost. Luxury cars like the Jags often used to have two filler caps.
"Because they had two tanks, both of which had to be filled."
The tanks had a link tube, but it was of limited flow capacity ( to prevent sloshing between tanks on corners) and was often easily outrun by a petrol pump. The only way to reliably fill up was to use 2 pumps or to alternately fuel each side (which was tedious as it took 3-5 swaps to get it done) in one session.
"How come there isn't a wee feisty trailer with a wee feisty petrol- or propane-powered generator? "
People have been doing this for a while on their e-vehicles. Some trailers are the front end and complete drivetrain of a donor vehicle (pusher trailers), which is even more efficient on long trips than running a generator.
That's a myth - Google "ev pollution generated by electricity for charging"
Despite the source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#Air_pollution_and_carbon_emissions is pretty good. The actual results vary greatly depending on what mix of power stations is used, but remember these are 1st Gen EVs (things will only get better as the tech matures) and most countries are looking to reduce their electricity grid's CO2 emissions over time. And already EVs are mostly better overall...
""spell the end of the ICE". Err, right. Not everyone lives in cities, you know. And some people even live near to power stations, which is simply where your pollution (in fact, a great deal more - given the inherently wasteful nature of electric generation and motive power) gets pushed.
I've an idea: re-build Battersea Power Station for the exclusive use of electric vehicles. Then London would see EXACTLY the consequences of all this "free, clean" electricity."
Mr Gray, a large gas plant with in-situ scrubbing and filtration would probably be a whole lot cleaner than the sort of catalytic converters you can sensibly squeeze onto a small vehicle. So yes, going to electric from ICE is a sensible idea, provided your stations are equitably located so as not to incur horrendous transmission losses.
And, you know, get the flock on and build the Gen IV nuke stations that should have been greenlit during Premier Blair's reign if our politicians weren't so utterly spineless when it comes to energy security.
Clean, safe, low carbon, can be turned on and off at will instead of (literally) going with the wind. Ensure at least one utilises a fuel cycle conducive to recycling our existing waste stocks, and sort out the boneheaded rules of what classes as "hazardous". Putting a watch with tritium elements into a drum of soil does not render that soil irradiated or hazardous in any sane sense of the term. Landfill the stuff that's less harmful than coal ash, recycle the good stuff and bury the vitrified remains of the relatively small remainder that are no good.
The end of the ICE in 20 years is most unlikely. In the absence of some unforeseeable brand new energy storage technology, neither physics (ultracapacitors) nor chemistry (batteries) can get within an order of magnitude of the energy density of petrochemicals. If you're seeking something with minimal CO2 emissions, technology to produce petrochemicals (or simply methane) using electricity is a much more probable scenario.
Indeed. The only way that the ICE will disappear is if somebody comes up with a cost effective fuel cell which can work off high energy content liquid fuels (perhaps ethanol). I discount liquid (or compressed) hydrogen as producing it is thermodynamically highly inefficient and it's tricky to store and distribute.
Batteries have fundamental capacity constraints dictated by electrochemistry. Lithium is already just about the best candidate we have, as it is the third lightest of the elements, but it still has very poor energy storage (in battery form) when compared to hydrocarbon fuels. Battery powered vehicles could well have a role in short range, commuting and delivery functions, but not for long range delivery or a general purpose family vehicle. For those, some form of easily transportable liquid fuel will surely still be best, and at the moment, the ICE is what we have.
Using a fuel cell to break down ethanol then using the power liberated to turn an electric motor is not significantly more efficient than burning the ethanol in an ICE to get the motive force also the materials needed to make fuel cells are expensive and get spoilt quite quickly so a fuel cell would probably have a far shorter life span than a ICE.
Heart patients will often carry nitrolingual spray, which is just harmless nitroglycerine dissolved in tasty ethanol with a hint of mint oil. This stuff burns like petrol and without the mint oil could be a possible petrol replacement.
"Using a fuel cell to break down ethanol then using the power liberated to turn an electric motor is not significantly more efficient than burning the ethanol in an ICE to get the motive force"
ICEs are ~30% efficient AT BEST - which is near full load with a wide open throttle. The rest of the time they're more like 1-5% (or 0% if idling).
That's not to mention all the complex gubbins and necessary compromises required to try and allow the engine to run at a huge range of speeds and loads, all of which pull down on the ideal efficiency and the hugely complex pollution control shite which goes with thet gubbins to ensure that it's keeping within emissions regulations across that entire range.
The real contest is between using a fuel cell and a small IC engine which is either switched off or running at optimal load to charge batteries. Of course once you get to that stage you could dump the IC engine entirely and put in a small stirling motor, as they have substantially lower maintenance costs and are just as efficient.
"Batteries have fundamental capacity constraints dictated by electrochemistry. "
Yes & no.
From time to time I like to take battery capacity and calculate how much of that volume is (roughly speaking ) made up of electrons (which provide the power) and "everything else."
Roughly speaking the electrons are somewhere between 1/10000 and 1/1000 of the whole volume.
There's a lot of wasted space in a battery. Anyone who made a battery that 1% efficient in electron storage volume would be a f**king genius.
"From time to time I like to take battery capacity and calculate how much of that volume is (roughly speaking ) made up of electrons (which provide the power) and "everything else."
Roughly speaking the electrons are somewhere between 1/10000 and 1/1000 of the whole volume."
My bad. I've been running with a 1nm cube for electrons but actually I should have gone with about 1/100 smaller in each dimensions.
So the actual volume of electrons in a modern battery is about 1/1000 000 of my estimate.
IOW If you can reduce the volume of non electron storing material battery capacity can rise.
A lot.
5 down votes?
Just to be clear I don't think batteries are the way to go.
My ideal solution would a fuel cell battery hybrid running on a sugar solution. Readily extractable directly from plants, carbon neutral, high energy density.
However whenever someone tells me "This tech's gotten as good as it gets, there's just no big improvements left to be made" my reaction is to go back to first principles.
A modern battery is maybe 1/1000 of 1% by volume made up of charge carriers.
That' means this tech is a long way from reaching it's limits.
Ethanol is less energy dense. You'll need a bigger tank and also you'll have a lower MPG than with petrol. Talk to anyone who's raced petrol and alcohol burning cars.
As for air quality.. are you talking about at the tailpipe or for the whole chain of growing, fermenting, distillation and delivery as well as tailpipe emissions? Methanol is actually more efficient to produce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol). But politics play a big part of this
Ah, thanks for that. I remember now so yes, ethanol fueled cars don't seem like a good idea any time soon. For air quality I was referring to at the car end. I'm well aware that it is just shifting the problem elsewhere but as far as I'm concerned, the entire chain should begin with Nuclear power and end with either batteries or (potentially better from what I've just learned) hyrdogen fuel cells.
According to Wikpedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent) Ethanol has about 66% of the energy of petrol (or gasoline as they call it). So the tank would need to be 50% bigger for the same range.
The problem with Ethanol is the energy used to produce it and the fact that it uses farmland that would be better used for growing foods. Recent price rises in some foods can be blamed on the rush to grow crops for Ethanol instead of for people [citation needed].
Anyway, wouldn't you rather drink the Ethanol? Watered down with suitable flavouring, of course!
"Lithium is already just about the best candidate we have, as it is the third lightest of the elements, but it still has very poor energy storage (in battery form) when compared to hydrocarbon fuels."
Flow batteries have much better characteristics for vehicle use, but they're a lot harder to engineer for mobile applications.
Amongst other things you can dump/refill used/charged electrolyte, which would reduce recharge times considerably, without the hassle associated with changing out a single several-hundred-kg lump, and would enable fixed-side electrolyte polishing, without preventing use of charging posts for day-to-day short-run operations.
Yeah, it would be great to see methane produced using technologies unsuitable for electricity generation (eg, wind, solar). We already have the distribution networks to store and pipe this stuff around, and no dangerous or expensive batteries or exotic slush hydrogen required :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
"Yeah, it would be great to see methane produced using technologies unsuitable for electricity generation (eg, wind, solar)."
Volume, mate. That's your problem. Total wind and solar output is around 3 million tonnes of oil equivalent (MTOE) annually. Total transport fuel demand is around 63 MTOE. Factor in the 50% end to end losses of renewable power to transport gas and all the wind and solar energy in the land would meet 2% of your transport demand. How much more of the country do you want coating in PV and wind farms?
From a performance point of view chemical fuels are a far better bet than batteries, so power to gas is a more promising technology, but it relies on huge volumes of electricity to cover an worthwhile fraction of electricity demand. If you electrified most UK transport you'd need about four times the generating capacity we have at present, and the only technology going to deliver that is a vast build out of nuclear.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
