On Thursday, 29 December 2016 10:37:47 UTC, charles wrote:
In article , tim...
wrote:


"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 27/12/2016 16:42, tim... wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 27/12/16 17:12, tim... wrote:
For example, there are supposed to be some new battery technologies
that are a couple of orders of magnitude better than currently
available.

I can assure you there are not....

I know, you have told me before

but you are just a random person on the internet so why should I
attribute more weight to you than to all the other "random" persons on
the internet who disagree with you.

Some of whom are actually academic physicists (even if I have never
heard of them) and some people with a very real interest in it
actually being right.

I have no personal opinion on who is right, but you really do not have
the visibility for me to believe that it is you.

Especially when, without these two orders of magnitude improvement,
electric cars for the masses, that automotive companies are investing
billion in, are never going to happen.

Tim, I'll be amazed if you can find any scientist who thinks you can
get two orders of magnitude more storage in a chemical battery. The
limits are down the the reaction energy of the elements involved, and
these are well known.

So why aren't these scientists explaining to politicians that their
aspiration of 100% electric cars/vans/lorries is unachievable.

To get mass take up of electric cars you have to have a range of 350
miles (in real use), a residual value after 5 years (so the initial
battery needs to be useful for 10) with base models (still with that 350
range) selling for under 15 grand (today's money).

At least 3 times a year, I have a requirement for a 400 mile, one day,
journey - each way.

Get on the train.