EV range in winter

[Las Palmas]

3 hours ago, dutchie01 said:

 iphone already gives your location away now so.. 

On Android you can disable location. On Iphone you can close it.

[steve2006]

I’m waiting for the first “Where there’s a blame there’s a claim” case where someone trips over that EV charging cable lying across the pavement 😀

[ganzoom]

On 1/5/2022 at 8:21 PM, paulrnx said:

BEVs will be a temporary solution. Once fully synthetic fuel can be made, that burns in an engine with no harmful emissions, we’ll be back to internal combustion engines. I’m sure it’s possible.

Nothing more to say if that is your dream.

[Phil xxkr]

10 hours ago, steve2006 said:

I’m waiting for the first “Where there’s a blame there’s a claim” case where someone trips over that EV charging cable lying across the pavement 😀

I agree Steve, lots of unintended consequences waiting in the wings 

[paulrnx]

7 hours ago, ganzoom said:

Nothing more to say if that is your dream.

And yet you had to do exactly that. Say something more.

[rayaans]

Cant say ive noticed any significant decrease in the UXe range despite colder weather. Its gone down by 10 miles at most. We have everything running too

[Steve_S]

On the topic of EV range consumers can look at the EV database linked below which gives estimated ranges in cold and mild conditions for every model listed. Obviously these are estimates. Note that "cold" is defined as -10C and "mild" as +23C. For example, the UXe combined cycle range is given as 120 miles (cold) to 165 miles (mild). I guess in practice most EV UK EV users won't see this variation as UK average monthly temperature varies from about ~ +4C to ~ +17C though the year.

ev-database

On the more contentious topics discussed it would be absolutely spiffing if I could put one of the many possible varieties of net-zero-carbon synthetic fuel into my car in most garage forecourts. I would even be willing to pay a premium to do so (just as millions of people are prepared to pay something of a premium to drive past and current EVs). But I can't today and am not likely to do so in the near future despite people pulling links to various pilot schemes around the world. The reason for this is not technical, it is lack of previous and serious investment by the fossil fuel industry to make this happen in a timely manner. By timely I mean on timescale that would have enabled the fossil fuel industry to present a viable alternative strategy to an outright ban on new ICEs. But they didn't and by their (let's be kind) lack of foresight they have just helped open the door to a competitor technology and industry that is going to capture a significant part of their customer base. But, you know this is a democracy. All they need to do is construct such a viable strategy for the mass roll-out of such such fuels before the next general election and persuade one of the main political parties to adopt it as a reason to reverse the ban. Then you can vote for them. Cheers 🙂

 

[Linas.P]

4 minutes ago, Steve_S said:

But they didn't and by their (let's be kind) lack of foresight they have just helped open the door to a competitor technology and industry that is going to capture a significant part of their customer base. But, you know this is a democracy.

If you think it was "lack of foresing" then you are mistaken. Problem with modern ICEV is that they last they longer than profitable and despite best efforts to introduce planned obsolescence of some companies (making plastic engine components etc.) it was not enough to force all people to orderly throw away completely good 5 years old cars and buy new ones.

BEV is a perfect solution to force everyone to upgrade, fossil fuel companies have their funds well diversified into renewable energy, hydrogen, Battery technology and they are even receiving government (that is our taxes) subsidies to build even more "renewable" energy sources.

Key thing to consider is that cars are not even important as far as global warming and CO2 pollution is concerned (they produce merely 2.4%, or which 2.1% is diesel and 0.3% is petrol and hybrid). You may call it conspiracy theory, but current proposed bans on ICEV and so on have nothing to do with climate, but it is rather convenient way to force people to upgrade their cars.

As well BEV does not eliminate all the pollution, average BEV produces ~30% less CO2 compared to average ICEV, so the difference of converting all the cars to BEV will be total of 0.8% of CO2... what about remaining 99.2%?! And when it comes to long-range BEVs like many Tesla models, they actually pollute more than average ICEV car, because they are not "average" BEV car. The 30% claim is based on lifecycle pollution over long test period of very early BEVs - like first generation Leaf with 24kWh batteries, that does not apply to modern high capacity BEVs with 100+kWh, because majority of lifetime pollution in BEV comes built into the Battery production and bigger Battery means more pollution. Now sure technology has improved and 100kWh Battery does not produce 4 time more pollution, but it still produces 60% more!.. 

Now where I agree BEVs makes sense is ... city centres. Here we have completely different issues not related to climate change. That is kerbside emissions and they have negative effect on people's health. BEVs works here, because they have no tailpipe emissions, but let's not confuse this issue with climate changes. Besides methodology of measuring "kerbside emissions" is absolutely ridiculously wrong and maybe makes sense for cyclists the most, but not much to anyone else (they measure gases at kerbside, 1 metre from the ground). And where they measure that cars contributes 60% to kerbside emission, that does not mean that pollution in your living room is 60% from the cars, it is most likely to be 80% from gas heater instead.

Anyhow... to conclude. To make best of BEV technology, it seems to me that their Battery capacity should be limited to say 25kWh and range no more than 50-100miles, making them ideal city cars, but not suitable for anything else. Making long range BEV just means a lot of pollution, even more than ICEV, and benefit of that is so minute, that it isn't even worth worrying about. Simply said BEV is not replacement for ICEV, it is replacement for bicycle/public transport - car for local/city centre commute.

[Phil xxkr]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

If you think it was "lack of foresing" then you are mistaken. Problem with modern ICEV is that they last they longer than profitable and despite best efforts to introduce planned obsolescence of some companies (making plastic engine components etc.) it was not enough to force all people to orderly throw away completely good 5 years old cars and buy new ones.

BEV is a perfect solution to force everyone to upgrade, fossil fuel companies have their funds well diversified into renewable energy, hydrogen, battery technology and they are even receiving government (that is our taxes) subsidies to build even more "renewable" energy sources.

Key thing to consider is that cars are not even important as far as global warming and CO2 pollution is concerned (they produce merely 2.4%, or which 2.1% is diesel and 0.3% is petrol and hybrid). You may call it conspiracy theory, but current proposed bans on ICEV and so on have nothing to do with climate, but it is rather convenient way to force people to upgrade their cars.

As well BEV does not eliminate all the pollution, average BEV produces ~30% less CO2 compared to average ICEV, so the difference of converting all the cars to BEV will be total of 0.8% of CO2... what about remaining 99.2%?! And when it comes to long-range BEVs like many Tesla models, they actually pollute more than average ICEV car, because they are not "average" BEV car. The 30% claim is based on lifecycle pollution over long test period of very early BEVs - like first generation Leaf with 24kWh batteries, that does not apply to modern high capacity BEVs with 100+kWh, because majority of lifetime pollution in BEV comes built into the battery production and bigger battery means more pollution. Now sure technology has improved and 100kWh battery does not produce 4 time more pollution, but it still produces 60% more!.. 

Now where I agree BEVs makes sense is ... city centres. Here we have completely different issues not related to climate change. That is kerbside emissions and they have negative effect on people's health. BEVs works here, because they have no tailpipe emissions, but let's not confuse this issue with climate changes. Besides methodology of measuring "kerbside emissions" is absolutely ridiculously wrong and maybe makes sense for cyclists the most, but not much to anyone else (they measure gases at kerbside, 1 metre from the ground). And where they measure that cars contributes 60% to kerbside emission, that does not mean that pollution in your living room is 60% from the cars, it is most likely to be 80% from gas heater instead.

Anyhow... to conclude. To make best of BEV technology, it seems to me that their battery capacity should be limited to say 25kWh and range no more than 50-100miles, making them ideal city cars, but not suitable for anything else. Making long range BEV just means a lot of pollution, even more than ICEV, and benefit of that is so minute, that it isn't even worth worrying about. Simply said BEV is not replacement for ICEV, it is replacement for bicycle/public transport - car for local/city centre commute.

Beautifully argued case, particularly against climate hysteria /religious fervour 

[paulrnx]

The BEV disciples are of course completely and utterly devoted to their cult

[paulrnx]

47 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Beautifully argued case, particularly against climate hysteria /religious fervour 

Yeah I thought the same too 👍

[dutchie01]

So, what will be the way forward? In one corner we have the 1970 s designed 8 cylinder drinking petrol like a local whino, in the other the ultra modern diesel 4 cylinder twinturbo that is hopeful but not allowed to enter the party, in the third corner the latest BEV heavily subsidized and the darling of the masses. 

What is in the fourth corner, how can we reduce pollution and still keep moving??

[Linas.P]

19 minutes ago, dutchie01 said:

So, what will be the way forward? In one corner we have the 1970 s designed 8 cylinder drinking petrol like a local whino, in the other the ultra modern diesel 4 cylinder twinturbo that is hopeful but not allowed to enter the party, in the third corner the latest BEV heavily subsidized and the darling of the masses. 

What is in the fourth corner, how can we reduce pollution and still keep moving??

First of all nobody uses 1970 V8s anymore. Modern petrol engines are mostly very efficient. Diesel is ok, but only suitable for long journeys, making them very compromised, BEVs are opposite - only suitable for short drives. That said Hybrid or PHEV is probably best compromise? 

I think the key question is if we even need to reduce pollution from privately owned cars. In the end we talking about less than 3% of pollution. Perhaps we need to leave the cars alone and stop this hysteria for the sake of justifying crazy taxes on motorists (which is basically the whole premise of entire discussion and ICEV bans)?

What is contributes the most? Manufacturing - 40%, so we need to stop consuming, but problem is that our entire economy based on forever growing GDP, meaning that our economic policy requires never ending consumption and is thus inherently unsustainable. Cars are chosen just as scape goat to divert attention from real issues.

For example instituting mandatory long warranties and introducing penalties for 200% of annual profit if company is found to use planned obsolescence, this would make companies to make more reliable and longer lasting things, but those things would cost more, this would reduce consumption and pollution. But remember this is exactly opposite of what our economic policy requires - it requires more consumption, and more production and cheap disposable items.

In short - what sits in final corner is unsustainable economical, social and financial policy, which encourages never ending growth, which encourages never ending raise in pollution. So to fight the climate change we need to fundamentally change how our economy works... and nobody is interested in even admitting it, never mind solving it.

[Malc]

and these darned EVs will have absolutely no use in many or even most parts of the world .. e.g  traversing the Gobi or indeed just wandering the Andes or the Rift or the great Australian Outback for which there is a great deal of that 

Malc

[Steve_S]

Linas, I am not really a forum debater. Generally I just join forums like these to get help on specific questions that arise like recent issues with my 12V Battery. I found it refreshing that your last post especially indicates you know there is a problem that needs solving and that over-consumption is a serious contributor to that. Thanks for that. It's nice to find another "leftie" like me on something like a LEXUS forum 🙂 But, I can't help being a bit picky on some of the numbers you are quoting. Organisations such as the US EPA, UK BEIS and the IEA provide numbers on the contribution of passenger vehicle road transport to total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and they come out at about 15% globally or a bit higher in the western world so I am curious where you get your 3% figure. All forms of transport in total is generally is a bit higher contributor than manufacturing. For example, in 2019 in the US 29% GHG contribution came from all forms of transport (58% of that 29% is small road vehicles...dominated by passenger cars) and 23% for industry according to the EPA). On that basis you get a better understanding of why Western governments target passenger vehicle transport as part of their GHG emissions policy. For the record, I don't think BEVs are the only solution.