"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 10/08/2013 19:52, Steve Firth wrote:
"harryagain" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Nightjar wrote:
On 09/08/2013 19:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
As your pricing example points out, EV's are *nearly* there, and
the
Renault pricing deal will be enough to bring-in more early
adopters.

Not with a ****y 130 mile range they aren't; I get a 600 mile range
with
a dizzle C4.


I doubt many people actually need a 600 mile range. Few would drive
that
distance without stopping - especially in the UK.


I bought the long range tank for my car specifically to give me a
better
range than that for when I go touring in Europe. I won't do it
non-stop,
but I also don't have to buy fuel at motorway prices.

Also on those sorts of drives fuel stops are a significant drag
consuming
as much as a half hour every few hundred miles. With a long range tank
it's
possible to get much further with less stress. And of course there's
"fill
up in Luxembourg" syndrome. A fill there with a large tank can save
"quite
a bit" of money.


But it costs a lot (of fuel) to haul that weight of fuel around.

Yes harry, having to lug around 80kg of fuel is a real burden when
compared
to having to lug around 300-600kg of batteries in order to have half the
range (at best) of a petrol car.

I've always thought that extra weight is a significant penalty when
climbing hills and when accelerating, but relatively little penalty when
travelling at a more or less constant speed on a moderately flat motorway.

That would tend to make the battery-carrying impact even more on the
stop-start/short range electric car than the fuel weight on long journeys.

But kinetic energy is retrieved through regeneration.
And the "equivalent" mpg of my car is 187.
On an energy for energy basis.