"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article

rg,
Steve Firth wrote:

"harryagain" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message

rg...
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.

It's all about energy density you see harry. I know that's a bit hard for
you to understand, but there it is.


No it's not.
There's energy recovery to consider.
I get energy back whilst descending a hill or slowing down.

There's efficiency of use.
The electric motor is around 85% efficient

1 Kwh of energy takes me around five miles.
Around one fifth of a petrol/diesel car.

It's the overall weight of the car that counts.