In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The places, as I have said before, where battery cars score is
- if nuclear electricity is available off peak dirt cheap

That's a very big 'if'. I'm old enough to remember when it was said
nuclear power stations would provide electricity so cheaply there would be
no need to meter it. This of course never happened. And *even* if the
running costs of a nuclear station are relatively low, the vast capital
costs have to be paid for somehow. Same with wind, wave or water power.

- in urban situations, where the idling of an IC engine is particularly
wasteful..and extreme range is not an issue.

I'd concede that - the first economic uses should be taxis and delivery
vehicles. However, apart from milk floats and Harrods vans this seems
never to have been the case. And modern technology ups the purchase price.

- in luxury cars, where the drive qualities make for a very smooth ride.

Not the way the makers see it. Apart from the Lexus SUV which is a hybrid
anyway, all the concentration has been on small vehicles.

That's where I expect to see the greatest market penetration.

--
*Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

Batteries will be even cheaper and better. Technology has moved
vastly prompted by mobile phones.

Or using dribbles simplistic arguments price up a replacement mobile
phone battery then multiply by x times to arrive at the likely cost of
a car one. Oh - and do the same with the charger...

Anybody remember the shenanigans with knock-off Nokia batteries exploding?

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Let say we can get an average performance car, for under £20k that will
do about 3p a mile fuel costs, 200 mile range, and apart from tyres,
zero maintenance for 150k miles. Would you buy it?

Fuel costs on a standard IC engined car are vastly inflated by tax. Make
electric the norm and those will be taxed in the same sort of way.

To do real comparisons you need to look at the current base prices of the
fuel you're using - and not move goalposts around to make some point.
Leave that to dribble.

--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article . 170,
Adrian wrote:
I remember saying that there wasn't, and inviting you to do the maths
to prove that it wasn't - but you waved your hands and bull****ted
instead.

And you were expecting, what, exactly ?

I'm posting from uk.transport. Dribble is a new character here...

Do I take it he has a history over in uk.d-i-y?

Yup. Every figure he quotes is straight out of an advert. Average or worst
case actual results don't exist on his planet.

--
*Eat well, stay fit, die anyway

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article . 170,
Adrian wrote:
The Natural Philosopher ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Indeed. And, when you add in the 70% charging losses estimated
elsewhere,

Drivel. That IS drivel. About 5% charging and about 2% discharging.
Real world figures. Not wavy hand magic estimates.

Furry muff. Thought I'd seen 70% (although I think I meant efficiency,
therefore 30% charging losses - mea culpa) quoted elsewhere in the
thread.

The losses involved in converting say natural gas running a power station
to a charged battery might well be around 70%. They're certainly far more
than 5%.

--
*You can't teach an old mouse new clicks *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message . 170,
Adrian writes
Doctor Drivel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

So we abandon clean simple tranport because some goons want to drive
around in antiquated technology on one long shot.

Not at all.

a. EVs aren't clean until the power generation is clean. Which it isn't.
b. EVs just will not work for those who do real miles. Who are the ones who
use the most fuel.

d. EVs seem to be best suited to the kind of short intra-urban journeys
for which cars are least necessary in the first place.

e. Cleaning up filthy public transport vehicles would have more of an
effect on urban air quality. In Oxford, for example, buses and coaches
account for 18% of traffic and 64% of NOx emissions.

See section "2.1 Where does the Pollution come from?" In :

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/files/seeal...aft%20AQAP.pdf

f. In any case, it's only fair to let the city-dwellers breathe in their
own filth rather than exporting it via power stations. London's
sanitation was largely prompted by the stinking Thames running past
parliament.


--
Steve Walker

"Conor" wrote in message
t...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel says...

Batteries will be even cheaper and better. Technology has moved vastly
prompted by mobile phones.

But mobile phones don't have ****ing electric motors in which is where
it all turns to ****.

You made that up.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ,
Conor wrote:

Batteries will be even cheaper and better.
Technology has moved
vastly prompted by mobile phones.

But mobile phones don't have ****ing
electric motors in which is where
it all turns to ****.

Or using

** snip senility **

Have you wiped the blood of those tools yet?

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 244.170...
Doctor Drivel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

So one with a range of at least 200 miles at motorway speeds costs...

You can see where I was going with that....

...yep, 200 miles.

Not at motorway speeds.

You made that up.

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 244.170...
Doctor Drivel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

There is no infrastructure to distribute
similar amounts of energy as
electricity.

Read back on the thread.

Tell you what, point us to it, because
I don't remember anything in this
thread saying there was.

If you can't read properly, get help.

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message . 170, Adrian
writes
Doctor Drivel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

There is no infrastructure to distribute
similar amounts of energy as
electricity.

Read back on the thread.

Tell you what, point us to it, because I don't remember anything in this
thread saying there was.

I remember saying that there wasn't, and inviting you to do the maths to
prove that it wasn't - but you waved your hands and bull****ted instead.

And you were expecting, what, exactly ?

Maxie, he was expecting me to agree with stupidity. That is sad Maxie.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence he put the taps in wrong and then wrote in message
...
In article . 170,
Adrian wrote:
I remember saying that there wasn't, and inviting you to do the maths
to prove that it wasn't - but you waved your hands and bull****ted
instead.

And you were expecting, what, exactly ?

I'm posting from uk.transport. Dribble is a new character here...

Do I take it he has a history over in uk.d-i-y?

Yup.

** snip senility **

Are you still using buckets to take water to the kitchen?

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 244.170...
Doctor Drivel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

No current electric vehicle can average 80+mph for 600miles and then
return the same evening; my petrol car can, with ease.

How often do you go across deserts?

Lemme think... Yep, I've driven across
three separate deserts.

Three times then. Wow.

Some of you people are in cloud
cuckoo land with no idea of reality.

Not us, mate.

You are the one totally prepared for desert runs and live hear a Hemel
Hempstead. Boy!

"Conor" wrote in message
t...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel says...

"Alistair J Murray" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:

[...]

But I do do high-mileage runs.

Me too.

I only do ~8-15,000miles/year but most of it is in 5-900miles/day
chunks.

There's a LOT of people who do a LOT more miles than that.
For them, electric vehicles are unusable. THAT is my point.

No current electric vehicle can average 80+mph for 600miles and then
return the same evening; my petrol car can, with ease.

How often do you go across deserts?

You don't need to. In my job I drive 400 miles a day. Stopping for an
hour several times a day just to fuel up isn't an option.

Is this in an average family car?

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 244.170...
Doctor Drivel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Until alternative fuels offer equivalent convinience there will be
little demand

That is the whole point, electric can. Once in numbers charging
stations emerge that charge up in 3 to 5 mins.

Mmmm. And have you done the sums
yet as to the amount of power that's going
to have to be delivered to those stations?

It will vary with the size.

"Conor" wrote in message
t...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel says...

That is the whole point, electric can. Once in numbers charging stations
emerge that charge up in 3 to 5 mins.

Yet hydrogen fuel cells are a far better alternative.

You made that up.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:35:15 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
All of Drivel's theories are blown away by the poor thermal
characteristics of current battery technology. The high charge density
lightweight batteries have much lower thermal efficiencies than
lead-acid batteries.

I find it interesting that many car makers are going to expensive
lengths
to save weight - extensive use of aluminium etc. But still fit lead acid
batteries - where cost really isn't a consideration.

It's because lead acid batteries don't need complex charge controllers,
work across a wide range of environmental temperatures and provide huge
cranking currents time after time. They are big, rough and tough and
also extremely efficient compared to any of the alternatives around.
Where they fail is on charge per kg which is where Lithium based
batterys win. Where Lithium batteries fail is on charge/discharge
cycles, efficiency and the need for complex charge cycles and careful
management of discharge.

Actually, most of that is utter tosh.

What is new.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 04 Jan 2006 14:41:11 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Doctor Drivel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

As 90% plus of us live in towns and cities our lungs matter.

Doesn't "North London" count as a "town or city", then?

Because you've already claimed that pollution from an industrial accident
arising from the generation/transmission/storage of energy for
transportation will drift over North London.

The fact that Buncefield's fire was primarily aviation fuel seems to have
slipped you by, too.

Or will your utopia have electric planes, too?

I already fly them :-)

However no, energy density is not and will never be enough for commercial
planes...those will lilely be repalced by high speed trains for overland
routes, and by biofuel or hydrogen for intercontinental flight.

I'd say you COULD get a lightplane up on batteries, with about a hundred
miles or so range - maybe a bit more.


How about the trucks that the food is delivered to these towns and cities
in? Will they be electric? I wonder what the average daily mileage for an
HGV is...?

Nope. Biodiesel. But te short haul delivery vans WOULD be electric.

No one is saying its the answer to all problems - except drivel -

The largest trucks in the world use electric motors. The largest moving
vehicle, a German strip miner, uses electric motors. Right now EV cars and
light commercial are totally feasible with current technology, all it need
is the manufacturing up and the charging infrastructure. All that can be in
place "well within" 10 years. Then it is a matter of time as battery
technology improves to go full over to all commercial vehicles.

Then cars can also be used as backup power, by plugging into the house.

Dave Plowman (News) ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

- in luxury cars, where the drive qualities make for a very smooth
ride.

Not the way the makers see it.

Because the restricted capacity of the batteries (yes, you could put more
in a bigger vehicle) mean that bigger vehicles use energy faster, so the
range would be lower. The bigger batteries would just focus more attention
on the lack of charge speed.

Apart from the Lexus SUV which is a hybrid anyway, all the concentration
has been on small vehicles.

I followed an RX400h the other day. They've obviously sold at least one
here...

But in the states, there are hybrid SUVs available.

Dave Plowman (News) ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

I'm posting from uk.transport. Dribble is a new character here...

Do I take it he has a history over in uk.d-i-y?

Yup. Every figure he quotes is straight out of an advert. Average or
worst case actual results don't exist on his planet.

Is he a sock of IMM's?

Doctor Drivel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Batteries will be even cheaper and better. Technology has moved
vastly prompted by mobile phones.

But mobile phones don't have ****ing electric motors in which is
where it all turns to ****.

You made that up.

Which bit? That mobiles don't have electric motors? Or that electric motors
aren't as efficient as pure electronics?

TBF, I'm not sure whether the vibrating "ring" is a motor whirling a weight
about or a solenoid or what.

Doctor Drivel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

That is the whole point, electric can. Once in numbers charging
stations emerge that charge up in 3 to 5 mins.

Mmmm. And have you done the sums
yet as to the amount of power that's going
to have to be delivered to those stations?

It will vary with the size.

OK, let's take the Mitsu MIEV as an example.

150 mile optimum range, 2300Ah batteries.

Compare that to a typical modern family car with an optimum range of (say)
a 65 litre fuel tank, giving a range of about 400 miles, for about 2
minutes to fill.

Doctor Drivel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

You are the one ... live hear a Hemel Hempstead.

There is only ONE Hemel Hempstead. Thankfully.

But you seem to forget that the Buncefield fire was the Aviation fuel
tanks.

In message . 170,
Adrian writes
No engine, exhaust, cooling system, fuel tank, 4wd transmission... Just
batteries and lightweight hub motors.
This is rubbish, it'll be lighter to have a smaller motor running faster
and geared down. A hub motor would have very low starting torque
extremely high currents and need to be force ventilated at town speeds.
--
Clive

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
.. .
On 05 Jan 2006 22:55:51 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Doctor Drivel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

So we abandon clean simple tranport because some goons want to drive
around in antiquated technology on one long shot.

Not at all.

a. EVs aren't clean until the power generation is clean. Which it isn't.

But they can be 15% cleaner..

...and don't ruin people's lungs in cities.

b. EVs just will not work for those who
do real miles. Who are the ones who
use the most fuel.

No, actually you are not.

The vast majority of fuel goes
in short hop private transport.

Yep.

For every daily loing s=dsitance
driver, there are 4-5 'sunday motorsists
'who use gallons of fuel starting up
and begotiation urban traffic to get
to the supermarket and back almost
every day, not to mention the school
run.

All that pollution around the kids lungs too.

The avreage yearly mileage is about
10k..with biger commutersr up around
20-30k and retired folk around 5k.

I think I heards sales rep boast once
of having put 65k on a car in a year.
Now asuming he used that car daily
and weekends, over lets say a 200 day
period, his average daily mileage was 325.

Most users at 10k, will be averageing
50 miles a day. Well within 'electric
range' if charged nightly.

....or zapped at a station.

Let say we can get an average performance car, for under £20k that will do
about 3p a mile fuel costs, 200 mile range, and apart from tyres, zero
maintenance for 150k miles. Would you buy it?

I would.

They aren't for sale right now...but they could be in 5-10 years time.

They will be. Mitsubishi has a whole new range of EVs designed from the
wheels up. By the time they bring it out batteries will have improved too.

Look what Calcars have done to the Prius. 120-180mpg and no mpg if the car
does not go over 41mph, so cheap charging overnight and no pexpensive petrol
used. http://www.calcars.org And the Prius can also be used a backuo genny
for your house (UPS) and run for two weeks on one tank if needed.

from http://www.boingboing.net/

"If the grid goes down - by dint of natural disaster, terrorist strike or a
spike in demand - Richard Factor has a Prius that can supply power to his
home. Factor, an electronics buff who lives in New Jersey, spliced a
heavy-duty outlet right into the car's electrical system and wired his
home's appliances to the Prius via a standard computer-backup system. When
the car's own potent battery loses too much energy, running the engine
recharges it. "If you are frugal, one tank of gas can power the house for a
couple of weeks," he says."

"Conor" wrote in message
t...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel says...

But your petrol car is an antiquate piece of junk that pollutes and
wastes
like mad.

And I suppose the UK powerstations are perfectly harmless?

They are not cars. They pollute less than vehicles and don't pollute in
front of people's lungs ruining them

"Conor" wrote in message
t...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel says...

So we abandon clean simple tranport because some goons want to drive
around
in antiquated technology on one long shot. Get real.

I and 450,000 other people drive hundreds of miles a day as a matter of
course.

450,000 out of 60 odd million is small change.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 01:54:56 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Adrian wrote:

Indeed. If you're not 500 miles from the spare battery pack. Or do you
just
carry half a ton of spare battery in the boot?

All of Drivel's theories are blown away by the poor thermal
characteristics of current battery technology. The high charge density
lightweight batteries have much lower thermal efficiencies than
lead-acid batteries.

As you wil notice if you try charging any LiIon, NiCd or NiMH battery.
See how toasty and warm it gets while charging? And feel how warm if
gets while discharging as well. It's a lose/lose technology.

You are talking as much drivel as drivel.

I do not talk drivel at all. I note and snip drivel as needed.

Adrian wrote:
Doctor Drivel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Batteries will be even cheaper and better. Technology has moved
vastly prompted by mobile phones.

But mobile phones don't have ****ing electric motors in which is
where it all turns to ****.

You made that up.

Which bit? That mobiles don't have electric motors? Or that electric
motors aren't as efficient as pure electronics?

TBF, I'm not sure whether the vibrating "ring" is a motor whirling a
weight about or a solenoid or what.

It is.

http://www.huahongnet.com/Vibration.htm

Doctor Drivel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

I'd say you COULD get a lightplane up on batteries, with about a
hundred miles or so range - maybe a bit more.

Mmmm. Not going to get very far from Heathrow, then...

100 miles.

Yep. Useless.

Doctor Drivel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

a. EVs aren't clean until the power generation is clean. Which it
isn't.

But they can be 15% cleaner..

..and don't ruin people's lungs in cities.

So? Cities are where private cars are least necessary anyway.

The vast majority of fuel goes
in short hop private transport.

Yep.

So wouldn't it make more sense to get those journeys - within cities - onto
public transport?

not to mention the school run.

All that pollution around the kids lungs too.

So get the kids to walk to school.

They aren't for sale right now...but they could be in 5-10 years
time.

They will be. Mitsubishi has a whole new range of EVs designed from
the wheels up.

Link?

Both their most recent EV concepts have been converted petrol cars.

Clive ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

No engine, exhaust, cooling system, fuel tank, 4wd transmission... Just
batteries and lightweight hub motors.

This is rubbish, it'll be lighter to have a smaller motor running faster
and geared down. A hub motor would have very low starting torque
extremely high currents and need to be force ventilated at town speeds.

http://www.japanesecarfans.com/news....id/2050824.001

is the best article I've found on the MIEV.

PC Paul ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying
:

TBF, I'm not sure whether the vibrating "ring" is a motor whirling a
weight about or a solenoid or what.

It is.

It is which?

http://www.huahongnet.com/Vibration.htm

Ah, it's a small "thingy" of varying shape. Helpful.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Likewise the manufacturers 'efficiencies' on petrol and diesel engines
are with respect to vehicles running at optiumum efficiencies, on fully
warm engines.

Not idling with a cold engine at the traffic lights..at which point the
efficiency is zero, whereas a battery car is actually 100% efficient that
that point : -)

Now you're being simplistic too. At most times of the year a vehicle at
the traffic lights will still need energy - HVAC, wipers, lights etc. This
all comes for 'free' with an IC engine. Not so with an electric vehicle.

Most electric vehicle claims are even more optimistic about range than the
efficiencies claimed by IC engines.

You made that up.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The places, as I have said before, where battery cars score is
- if nuclear electricity is available off peak dirt cheap

That's a very big 'if'. I'm old enough to remember when it was said
nuclear power stations would provide electricity so cheaply there would be
no need to meter it. This of course never happened. And *even* if the
running costs of a nuclear station are relatively low, the vast capital
costs have to be paid for somehow. Same with wind, wave or water power.

- in urban situations, where the idling of an IC engine is particularly
wasteful..and extreme range is not an issue.

I'd concede that - the first economic uses should be taxis and delivery
vehicles. However, apart from milk floats and Harrods vans this seems
never to have been the case. And modern technology ups the purchase price.

- in luxury cars, where the drive qualities make for a very smooth ride.

Not the way the makers see it.

They do.

Apart from the Lexus SUV which is a hybrid
anyway,

With an electric motor.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through ahaze of senile
flatulence with blood on his tools wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Let say we can get an average performance car, for under £20k that will
do about 3p a mile fuel costs, 200 mile range, and apart from tyres,
zero maintenance for 150k miles. Would you buy it?

Fuel costs on a standard

** this had to be snipped **

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
In message . 170, Adrian
writes
Doctor Drivel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

So we abandon clean simple tranport because some goons want to drive
around in antiquated technology on one long shot.

Not at all.

a. EVs aren't clean until the power generation is clean. Which it isn't.
b. EVs just will not work for those who do real miles. Who are the ones
who
use the most fuel.

d. EVs seem to be best suited to the kind of short intra-urban journeys
for which cars are least necessary in the first place.

e. Cleaning up filthy public transport vehicles would have more of an
effect on urban air quality. In Oxford, for example, buses and coaches
account for 18% of traffic and 64% of NOx emissions.

See section "2.1 Where does the Pollution come from?" In :

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/files/seeal...aft%20AQAP.pdf

f. In any case, it's only fair to let the city-dwellers breathe in their
own filth rather than exporting it via power stations.

Filth from power stations should cast over retard bumpkins. They don't
matter.

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 244.170...
Doctor Drivel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Batteries will be even cheaper and better. Technology has moved
vastly prompted by mobile phones.

But mobile phones don't have ****ing electric motors in which is
where it all turns to ****.

You made that up.

Which bit?

all of it.

In message . 170,
Adrian writes
This is rubbish, it'll be lighter to have a smaller motor running faster
and geared down. A hub motor would have very low starting torque
extremely high currents and need to be force ventilated at town speeds.

http://www.japanesecarfans.com/news....id/2050824.001

is the best article I've found on the MIEV.
It's still rubbish, even the fastest railway locos which have low torque
to get high speeds are geared at 3:1.
--
Clive

Adrian wrote:
PC Paul ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying


TBF, I'm not sure whether the vibrating "ring" is a motor whirling a
weight about or a solenoid or what.

It is.

It is which?

http://www.huahongnet.com/Vibration.htm

Ah, it's a small "thingy" of varying shape. Helpful.

Sorry... it *is* a small electric motor with an eccentric weight attached.