Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Minchin
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

What you're saying is a car where the main motive force is the
battery/motor with a small petrol engine to recharge efficiently as you
go along (range increaser). That doesn't seem to be the main focus of
manufacturers at the minute.

Yes that is about it Tim.
Maybe manufacturers will take more of an interest as the fossil fuel
only vehicle ban becomes more definite unless a battery swap or near
instant charge method can approach what we are used to at a filling
station.
Eg 5 minute pause off the road extends range by 500 miles.

There's all these folk touting electric cars but without examining the
charging requirements. There was one such on Twitter I saw yesterday.
What was amusing was the response (which unfortunately I didn't keep)
of a sensible person. He was talking about next gen cars with 700 mile
range. Unfortunately that would take 3.5 days to charge up at home
using an ordinary 13A connection. Or faster at a station, but you'd be
plugging in a cable that had 1000V or more on it, or at a lower voltage
a cable which would have to pass 400A which you'd have trouble lifting.

I could pump 50 litres of diesel into my old C4 in about a couple of
minutes. The 50 litres is about 500KWh of energy. At 10 amps I'd need
50kV for an hour. Even at 100A I'd need 50kV for 6 minutes.

There's no magic here, what is being exposed is the reason why the
internal combustion engine for personal transport has been where it's
at for the last 100 years and electric power nowhere.


As an earlier poster commented: "we have not progressed an enormous
amount" - and the limitation is battery technology.

However the imperatives to minimise pollution and reduce reliance on
fossil fuels will give the incentive to alter the way we use cars.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...ars-says-study

.... this indicates that a large proportion of journeys are very short -
to quote: "95 percent of them travelled less than 40 miles to work, with
the average commute distance being 13.6 miles". Earlier in the same
piece: "The average single-trip distance? Just 5.95 miles".

An all-electric car is ideally suited to such distances. Further,
charging can be either at home or the place of work. The non-continuous
nature of renewable sources such as solar, wind, and tide can be
accommodated because the car already contains the necessary storage battery.

What this doesn't address is congestion. Mass transit can help with
that but the long-term solution will be to remove the need for travel.

Longer journeys are more of a challenge. Trains are good for one person
travelling, and the the option would be to have an electric vehicle to
hire at the destination station. But the electricity for trains is more
likely to come from fossil sources. Here again the solution will be to
remove the need for travel. The concept of commuting long distances to
work is silly, anyway.

--
Graham J

"Graham J" wrote in message
news
As an earlier poster commented: "we have not progressed an enormous
amount" - and the limitation is battery technology.

Irrespective of the battery technology you need to put in phenomenal amounts
of electrical energy, which means dangerously high charging voltages or
current that needs very thick cables - or a combination of the two. 500 kWhr
delivered in 5 mins is 6 MW - how the hell do we solve the problem of
delivering electrical energy at that rate

That's why you need either a swappable pre-charged battery or else an
on-board generator powered by an IC engine if you want to avoid the very
long charging times.

When electric cars can match my present car, which has a range of 700 miles
on 60 litres of diesel, and I can replenish that 700 miles range in a few
minutes, then pure-electric cars will be a viable alternative. Until then,
you have to make sacrifices:

- have two cars (petrol/diesel for long journeys, mainly avoiding congested
town/city centres, and electric for shorter journeys into town)

- use public transport for longer journeys and hire a car locally when you
go on holiday for touring (this is not feasible if you want to take bikes or
lots of luggage)

- charge the car overnight or while you're at work, and live with the fact
that you cannot travel more than 100 miles or so (on current technology)
before you need to repeat this palaver.


So you need a hybrid or else a car with a fuel cell - either way, to convert
very "compact" energy of something like petrol/diesel or compressed gas
(LPG, hydrogen) into motion (via electricity).


I hope the government has correctly predicted the rate at which technology
will progress in the next 20 years, or there is going to be a very
****ed-off population who have to accept a drastic reduction in standard of
living (live closer to work or at least to public transport, no long
holidays touring around).

On 29/09/2017 13:54, Bob Minchin wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Since one can only go a mile or so on the battery, I suspect the state
of charge at fill time has little effect on the figures.

What sort of figures do you get in practice (as opposed to OEM claims)?
Motorway cruising and town driving ?

Is this for real?? Only a mile on battery?? WTF

You might manage a bit more on a long downhill stretch or less uphill.

But basically yes - the battery is there to allow the petrol engine to
run for short periods at absolute maximum efficiency acting more like a
capacitor or reservoir for the energy that it produces and then feeding
it to the electric drive train as needed. I do wonder how well the
battery will tolerate this regime long term but they claim it works OK.

Surely you want enough electric propulsion to get you to a filling
station of being green, through a town and out the other side.
I cant really see how there can be much saving in running costs
A bit of saving on regenerative braking and maybe a bit more smoothing
out engine demand I suppose.

I wonder how it damages the vehicle more than running out of petrol in a
normal vehicle and running crud from the bottom of the tank through.
Anyone have an explanation ?


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 29/09/2017 14:34, Huge wrote:
On 2017-09-29, Bob Minchin wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2017-09-29, Bob Minchin wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Since one can only go a mile or so on the battery, I suspect the state
of charge at fill time has little effect on the figures.
Is this for real?? Only a mile on battery?? WTF
Surely you want enough electric propulsion to get you to a filling
station of being green, through a town and out the other side.
I cant really see how there can be much saving in running costs
A bit of saving on regenerative braking and maybe a bit more smoothing
out engine demand I suppose.

You obviously have no idea how hybrids are supposed to work.

Absolutely correct. I had assumed a greater proportion of electric power
capacity, the possibility of home charging and a "get you out of
trouble" petrol engine.
To be honest, never really looked at them before and now I have a vague
interest with the possible fossil fuel vehicle ban in the future.

Is there a name for the technology nearer to what I described?

"Range extender".

210 mile extension lead?


--
Adam

On 29-Sep-17 3:19 PM, NY wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , NY
wrote:

If the car has a range of only a mile or so on battery, how is a
hybrid any better than a petrol-mechanical car where the engine runs
all the time. I presume hybrids like the Toyota Yaris are
petrol-mechanical rather than petrol-generator-motor during the times
that the engine is running - ie that there is a mechanical
transmission (whether manual, torque converter or CVT).

I don't remember the proper term for the gear-box type but it can
accept two sources of input power (from the petrol engine and the
electric motor) and feed that to the wheels.

Oh, so the electric motor still goes through the variable-ratio gearbox
rather than being a single ratio from 0 to maximum road speed? Seems to
defeat one of the big advantages of an electric motor - that unlike an
IC engine it has torque at zero rpm and over the whole operating speed.

The Toyota device is called a "power split device".

Planet gearbox has 3 shafts.
1: IC engine.
2: Motor/gen 1.
3: Motor/gen 2 and output to diff.

The "gear" ratio is changed by the speed of Motor/gen 1.

http://prius.ecrostech.com/original/...plitDevice.htm

Lt. Col. L. F. R. Fell patented a 3 differential, 4 engine power
combiner used on Loco 10100.
http://www.paxmanhistory.org.uk/paxfell.htm

On 29/09/2017 15:19, NY wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , NY
wrote:

If the car has a range of only a mile or so on battery, how is a
hybrid any better than a petrol-mechanical car where the engine runs
all the time. I presume hybrids like the Toyota Yaris are
petrol-mechanical rather than petrol-generator-motor during the times
that the engine is running - ie that there is a mechanical
transmission (whether manual, torque converter or CVT).

I don't remember the proper term for the gear-box type but it can
accept two sources of input power (from the petrol engine and the
electric motor) and feed that to the wheels.

Oh, so the electric motor still goes through the variable-ratio gearbox
rather than being a single ratio from 0 to maximum road speed? Seems to
defeat one of the big advantages of an electric motor - that unlike an
IC engine it has torque at zero rpm and over the whole operating speed.

My C350e PHEV Merc has an all-electric range of about 13 miles with
Eco+E-mode selected, in Hybrid mode the ICE stops and starts whenever it
thinks it should (I presume/hope the oil pump is electrically driven),
light braking or over-run is regenerative and the hydraulic brakes come
on with slightly heavier braking. In Sport or Sport+ mode it forgets any
eco pretensions, lowers its suspension, tightens its steering and uses
the electric motor and ICE together to generate about 300BHP with very
rapid throttle response. Overall it's a great car but it's sometimes a
bit like HAL in 2001, and a longer all-electric range would be good.

On 29-Sep-17 4:25 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
minutes. The 50 litres is about 500KWh of energy. At 10 amps I'd need
50kV for an hour. Even at 100A I'd need 50kV for 6 minutes.

Your 500KWh of fossil fuel energy becomes 150KWh of traction, 175KWh of
heat and 175KWh of noise and other losses. That's using a very (very)
generous 30% efficiency.

So that's really 15Kv at 100A for 6min.

Or 240v at 78A for 8 hours.

Can you fill your tank brim full at home every night while you sleep?

240V 32A for 8 hours is 61KWh. Chevy Bolt EV has 60KWh battery and a
range in excess of 200 miles (/ day). So on high days and holidays you
might want to go a bit further than 200 miles. Then you stop at a public
charger and get a rapid charge in 1/2 hour.

In uk.d-i-y Martin Brown wrote:
I wonder how it damages the vehicle more than running out of petrol in a
normal vehicle and running crud from the bottom of the tank through.
Anyone have an explanation ?

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the car is designed with petrol and
electric systems as complements of each other. This enables each system to
be optimised for the functions it's best at, rather than having to cover
every eventuality as a single-mode car would be.

If you run the car with only one system operational, that system is run out
of its usual operating range, which can cause undue stress. In a hybrid the
petrol engine is the ultimate source of energy and the fallback system in
case of problems. Running without it means the car has no option but to run
the electric system out of tolerance if you make excessive demands on it
(the car not being able to tell whether not responding might cause danger to
the occupants; it is safe to not start but it is not safe to shut down
without warning).

Theo

In uk.d-i-y Peter Hill wrote:

The Toyota device is called a "power split device".

Planet gearbox has 3 shafts.
1: IC engine.
2: Motor/gen 1.
3: Motor/gen 2 and output to diff.

There's a nice video of the parts in action he
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmHpSyTsfm0

Theo

On 29/09/2017 20:44, Peter Hill wrote:


240V 32A for 8 hours is 61KWh. Chevy Bolt EV has 60KWh battery and a
range in excess of 200 miles (/ day)

Yes with a new battery maybe. The battery makers only guarentee that the
battery will charge to 70% once it's been used a while then they will
rent you a new one to get the mileage back up.

The battery will be the deciding factor of whether EV's ever get taken
seriously. I don't want to rent one I want to buy one and one that
lasts a while too.

On 29/09/2017 21:20, Tim Streater wrote:


On busy days at Morrisons (or Tesco) there may well be 10 or so cars
filling up at once. How big d'ye expect a charging station to be so
that on a busy day you can just roll up and plug in for 30 mins?

A pump is occupied for a few minutes, say 5 once payment is included.
You want to crank that up to 30. So you'll need 6 times as many
charging points as pumps, to service the demand. So 60 charging points
at, as someone upthread (IIRC) mentioned, 6MW each. You're asking the
grid to supply 350MW or so to every supermarket. You really think
that's practical?


Extremely efficient solar panels are what's needed.

On 29/09/2017 22:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Theo
wrote:

In uk.d-i-y Peter Hill wrote:

The Toyota device is called a "power split device".

Planet gearbox has 3 shafts.
1: IC engine.
2: Motor/gen 1.
3: Motor/gen 2 and output to diff.

There's a nice video of the parts in action he
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmHpSyTsfm0

Thanks. That clarifies things a lot. What is nice too is that you're
not just adding weight to the standard petrol-only setup. Two electric
motors are added, but you delete the starter and alternator. Looks like
the gear box is effectively made much smaller/simpler too.



The cludge of these stop-start vehicles is terrible: extra heavy duty
battery and starter (god knows what they will cost, I do know you need
the ecu reprogrammed when you get a new special type battery). They
sound terrible when you drive them too.

Prius engine is spun up so nicely in comparison, you scarcely know it
has been started

Graham J wrote:

There's no magic here, what is being exposed is the reason why the
internal combustion engine for personal transport has been where it's
at for the last 100 years and electric power nowhere.


As an earlier poster commented: "we have not progressed an enormous
amount" - and the limitation is battery technology.

However the imperatives to minimise pollution and reduce reliance on
fossil fuels will give the incentive to alter the way we use cars.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...could-be-made-
in-electric-cars-says-study

... this indicates that a large proportion of journeys are very short -
to quote: "95 percent of them travelled less than 40 miles to work, with
the average commute distance being 13.6 miles". Earlier in the same
piece: "The average single-trip distance? Just 5.95 miles".

An all-electric car is ideally suited to such distances. Further,
charging can be either at home or the place of work. The non-continuous
nature of renewable sources such as solar, wind, and tide can be
accommodated because the car already contains the necessary storage battery.

What this doesn't address is congestion. Mass transit can help with
that but the long-term solution will be to remove the need for travel.

Longer journeys are more of a challenge. Trains are good for one person
travelling, and the the option would be to have an electric vehicle to
hire at the destination station. But the electricity for trains is more
likely to come from fossil sources. Here again the solution will be to
remove the need for travel. The concept of commuting long distances to
work is silly, anyway.

I work for what was a traditional oil company - but is now a provider of
'integrated energy solutions'... we have investments in hydrogen and
electric as well as fossil fuels.

The big, big challenge with electric cars is behavioural patterns.

Most people get range anxiety when they see the fuel light flashing -
the reality is that this is enough to take you 40-50 miles. With the
current state of play regarding home charging and battery capacity, a
Nissan Leaf or similar is at 50% charge with that kind of range showing.

In order to balance demand, we're expecting consumers to be happy to
jump in a car with only 40-50 miles range without worrying about it.
Most people are getting range anxiety at this point.

And that's not taking into account the fact that people like to know
they can make an 'emergency' long trip at short notice if they have to.
It only takes one incident of not having enough charge to get to visit a
relative on death's door or not being able to take a beloved pet to the
vet for people to get into a really negative place with regards to
vehicles that cannot be 'recharged' in a few minutes at the local
supermarket etc.

And where's the sense in carrying half a tonne of batteries just to
drive a few miles to work and back? Remember, that half tonne is there
all the time, doesn't matter if you have 200 miles or 2 miles range, you
still carry it.

Hydrogen seems sensible - you can make it on site (yes, you need a big
electric cable - but so does a forecourt of charging stations) - you can
fill a lightweight kevlar / carbon tank in minutes and get 500 miles of
driving with only water / steam as the tailpipe emmissions. The beauty
here is that you can produce a hydrogen and battery version of the same
car with minimal changes (swap batteries for a fuel cell and tank - the
propultion method is the same) - so you can serve 2 markets with the
same base vehicle.
--
Steve H

Peter Hill wrote:
On 29-Sep-17 4:25 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
minutes. The 50 litres is about 500KWh of energy. At 10 amps I'd need
50kV for an hour. Even at 100A I'd need 50kV for 6 minutes.

Your 500KWh of fossil fuel energy becomes 150KWh of traction, 175KWh of
heat and 175KWh of noise and other losses. That's using a very (very)
generous 30% efficiency.


[snip]

The apparently waste heat generated by the IC engine is a serious point.
Most days in the UK heat in the passenger cabin is a necessary safety
measure.

It's very difficult to drive safely while wearing sufficient bulky
outdoor clothing that would keep the driver warm while being almost
totally inactive - by contrast a pedestrian walking briskly will keep
warm in a typical UK winter with only light outdoor clothing.

Also heat is needed to maintain a warm dry airflow over the screen to
ensure good visibility.

Providing heat for these requirements - even if the vehicle is
spectacularly well insulated - will be an additional drain on an
electrical vehicle.

By contrast cooling from an air conditioning system isn't really
necessary in the UK. There are of course a few days most summers when
it's nice to have ...

--
Graham J

On 30/09/2017 00:43, Graham J wrote:
Peter Hill wrote:
On 29-Sep-17 4:25 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
minutes. The 50 litres is about 500KWh of energy. At 10 amps I'd need
50kV for an hour. Even at 100A I'd need 50kV for 6 minutes.

Your 500KWh of fossil fuel energy becomes 150KWh of traction, 175KWh of
heat and 175KWh of noise and other losses. That's using a very (very)
generous 30% efficiency.


[snip]

The apparently waste heat generated by the IC engine is a serious point.
Â*Most days in the UK heat in the passenger cabin is a necessary safety
measure.

It's very difficult to drive safely while wearing sufficient bulky
outdoor clothing that would keep the driver warm while being almost
totally inactive - by contrast a pedestrian walking briskly will keep
warm in a typical UK winter with only light outdoor clothing.

Also heat is needed to maintain a warm dry airflow over the screen to
ensure good visibility.

Providing heat for these requirements - even if the vehicle is
spectacularly well insulated - will be an additional drain on an
electrical vehicle.

By contrast cooling from an air conditioning system isn't really
necessary in the UK.Â* There are of course a few days most summers when
it's nice to have ...


I never turn the AC off.

On Friday, 29 September 2017 14:29:32 UTC+1, Bob Minchin wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2017-09-29, Bob Minchin wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Since one can only go a mile or so on the battery, I suspect the state
of charge at fill time has little effect on the figures.
Is this for real?? Only a mile on battery?? WTF
Surely you want enough electric propulsion to get you to a filling
station of being green, through a town and out the other side.
I cant really see how there can be much saving in running costs
A bit of saving on regenerative braking and maybe a bit more smoothing
out engine demand I suppose.

You obviously have no idea how hybrids are supposed to work.

Absolutely correct. I had assumed a greater proportion of electric power
capacity, the possibility of home charging and a "get you out of
trouble" petrol engine.
To be honest, never really looked at them before and now I have a vague
interest with the possible fossil fuel vehicle ban in the future.

Is there a name for the technology nearer to what I described? I just
don't feel I could ever be comfortable with purely battery power with
the risk of running flat on a journey, or touring holidays which we
enjoy currently.

A Plug in Hybrid can be charged at home from the mains (optionally)
An "ordinary" hybrid is charged soley fromthe petrol engine.

On Friday, 29 September 2017 14:29:32 UTC+1, Bob Minchin wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2017-09-29, Bob Minchin wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Since one can only go a mile or so on the battery, I suspect the state
of charge at fill time has little effect on the figures.
Is this for real?? Only a mile on battery?? WTF
Surely you want enough electric propulsion to get you to a filling
station of being green, through a town and out the other side.
I cant really see how there can be much saving in running costs
A bit of saving on regenerative braking and maybe a bit more smoothing
out engine demand I suppose.

You obviously have no idea how hybrids are supposed to work.

Absolutely correct. I had assumed a greater proportion of electric power
capacity, the possibility of home charging and a "get you out of
trouble" petrol engine.
To be honest, never really looked at them before and now I have a vague
interest with the possible fossil fuel vehicle ban in the future.

Is there a name for the technology nearer to what I described? I just
don't feel I could ever be comfortable with purely battery power with
the risk of running flat on a journey, or touring holidays which we
enjoy currently.

It's called a PHEV. Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle.

Eg:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsub...Plug-in_hybrid

On Saturday, 30 September 2017 00:43:49 UTC+1, Graham J wrote:
Peter Hill wrote:
On 29-Sep-17 4:25 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
minutes. The 50 litres is about 500KWh of energy. At 10 amps I'd need
50kV for an hour. Even at 100A I'd need 50kV for 6 minutes.

Your 500KWh of fossil fuel energy becomes 150KWh of traction, 175KWh of
heat and 175KWh of noise and other losses. That's using a very (very)
generous 30% efficiency.


[snip]

The apparently waste heat generated by the IC engine is a serious point.
Most days in the UK heat in the passenger cabin is a necessary safety
measure.

It's very difficult to drive safely while wearing sufficient bulky
outdoor clothing that would keep the driver warm while being almost
totally inactive - by contrast a pedestrian walking briskly will keep
warm in a typical UK winter with only light outdoor clothing.

Also heat is needed to maintain a warm dry airflow over the screen to
ensure good visibility.

Providing heat for these requirements - even if the vehicle is
spectacularly well insulated - will be an additional drain on an
electrical vehicle.

By contrast cooling from an air conditioning system isn't really
necessary in the UK. There are of course a few days most summers when
it's nice to have ...

--
Graham J

Tsk Some have heat pumps/reversible AC.

MrCheerful wrote:

[snip]


By contrast cooling from an air conditioning system isn't really
necessary in the UK. There are of course a few days most summers when
it's nice to have ...


I never turn the AC off.

With a well-designed system you should not need to. Using a Variable
Displacement Compressor the load on the engine will be minimal in all
but hot weather. Even on sunny days in winter the interior of the car
may get quite hot while parked, so the compressor will circulate
refrigerant at a reasonable pressure for a few minutes when the engine
is started, thereby ensuring the moving parts in the compressor are
properly lubricated.

Most cars have a sensor for incoming air temperature and this will
disable the compressor operation at about 4 degrees C to ensure that the
cooling system does not ice up.

With an older fixed displacement compressor the load on the engine when
the compresor is running probably represents about 5% drop in mpg for a
UK car. But some years ago I drove a small American car in the USA
where the a/c load slowed the car significantly and it would not go up
hills - there it probably represented 50% drop in mpg !!!


--
Graham J

On 29/09/2017 23:01, MrCheerful wrote:
On 29/09/2017 22:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Theo
wrote:

In uk.d-i-y Peter Hill wrote:

The Toyota device is called a "power split device".

Planet gearbox has 3 shafts.
1: IC engine.
2: Motor/gen 1.
3: Motor/gen 2 and output to diff.

There's a nice video of the parts in action he
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmHpSyTsfm0

Thanks. That clarifies things a lot. What is nice too is that you're
not just adding weight to the standard petrol-only setup. Two electric
motors are added, but you delete the starter and alternator. Looks like
the gear box is effectively made much smaller/simpler too.



The cludge of these stop-start vehicles is terrible: extra heavy duty
battery and starter (god knows what they will cost, I do know you need
the ecu reprogrammed when you get a new special type battery). They
sound terrible when you drive them too.

I couldn't agree more. We have it on one of our cars but (fortunately)
you can turn it of. It is the first thing we do after starting the engine.

Besides concerns over the 'wear and tear' there is a noticeable delay
which is a pain at roundabouts etc.


--

Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud

MrCheerful wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

Theo wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmHpSyTsfm0

Two electric motors are added, but you delete the starter and
alternator.

The cludge of these stop-start vehicles is terrible: extra heavy duty
battery and starter (god knows what they will cost, I do know you need
the ecu reprogrammed when you get a new special type battery). They
sound terrible when you drive them too.

Prius engine is spun up so nicely in comparison, you scarcely know it
has been started

That *is* a prius engine, not a stop/start "BIK reduction" engine.

On 29/09/2017 23:30, Steve H wrote:
Hydrogen seems sensible - you can make it on site (yes, you need a big
electric cable - but so does a forecourt of charging stations) - you can
fill a lightweight kevlar / carbon tank in minutes and get 500 miles of
driving with only water / steam as the tailpipe emmissions.

It is only possible to store enough onsite for a couple of fills, and
then takes several hours to make the next lot.

So how many filling stations will be needed?

On 30/09/2017 08:59, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Ade wrote:

On 29/09/2017 21:20, Tim Streater wrote:

On busy days at Morrisons (or Tesco) there may well be 10 or so cars
filling up at once. How big d'ye expect a charging station to be so
that on a busy day you can just roll up and plug in for 30 mins?

A pump is occupied for a few minutes, say 5 once payment is included.
You want to crank that up to 30. So you'll need 6 times as many
charging points as pumps, to service the demand. So 60 charging points
at, as someone upthread (IIRC) mentioned, 6MW each. You're asking the
grid to supply 350MW or so to every supermarket. You really think
that's practical?

Extremely efficient solar panels are what's needed.

What do you mean by "Extremely efficient solar panels"?


No travel at night or winter.

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Steve H
wrote:

Hydrogen seems sensible - you can make it on site (yes, you need a big
electric cable - but so does a forecourt of charging stations) - you can
fill a lightweight kevlar / carbon tank in minutes and get 500 miles of
driving with only water / steam as the tailpipe emmissions.

What, liquid hydrogen? How many litres is that for 500 miles?

It's around 8kg of hydrogen.

Remember, these are fuel cell vehicles - they're not combusting hydrogen
in the traditional sense (which is what many people think hydrogen cars
do)
--
Steve H

On 29-Sep-17 9:20 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Peter Hill
wrote:

240V 32A for 8 hours is 61KWh. Chevy Bolt EV has 60KWh battery and a
range in excess of 200 miles (/ day). So on high days and holidays you
might want to go a bit further than 200 miles. Then you stop at a
public charger and get a rapid charge in 1/2 hour.

On busy days at Morrisons (or Tesco) there may well be 10 or so cars
filling up at once. How big d'ye expect a charging station to be so
that on a busy day you can just roll up and plug in for 30 mins?

Ultimately every space on M-way services car park should have a rapid
charger but only a certain number could be used at one time. The car
plugs in and driver validates payment, they will have to switch on/off
automatically by FIFO queue and as the charging system knows how many
cars are in the queue can give you the time you have wait. Unlike a
petrol station no one has to be in attendance.
Spot the filling stations. One day instead of 2/4 there will be 20
40/50Kw chargers - 0.8 to 1MW.
https://goo.gl/maps/kY5BaXfkdAk
https://goo.gl/maps/EjCrazfGhHA2
https://goo.gl/maps/jSdunDKUTfz
https://goo.gl/maps/68NiLZoimvE2

A pump is occupied for a few minutes, say 5 once payment is included.
You want to crank that up to 30. So you'll need 6 times as many
charging points as pumps, to service the demand. So 60 charging points
at, as someone upthread (IIRC) mentioned, 6MW each. You're asking the
grid to supply 350MW or so to every supermarket. You really think
that's practical?

6MW each ??? That was based on the notion that 100% of the energy in
fossil fuel propels the car. It was also the demand for 6 min charge
time. I have already destroyed that fake claim.

But just for you I'll do it again in a different way.

6MW is 6000KW, 6 minutes of that will be 600KWh. That is 20 times the
capacity of a 30KWh Nissan Leaf, 10 times the capacity of a 60KW/h Chevy
Bolt / Tesla 3 and 6.6 times the capacity of a 90KW/h Tesla S P90. They
go 100/200/300 miles on a full charge. For you to demand a supply of 6MW
for 6 min means you must have somehow obtained a vehicle that has a
battery pack with a range of 2000 miles! Or you have being spouting FAKE
NEWS and listening to idiots.

A 60KWh battery pack (Bolt/Tesla 3) is good for over 200 miles, about
2/3 the range of a SI car and 1/2 the range of a big smoker. Instead of
filling once every 1 or 2 weeks you will normally fill it daily at home.
60KWh battery can only be charged to 80% on rapid charge and will be
starting from about 20%, so only 36KWh to go in on a rapid charge. That
is 360KW for 6 min charge time. A whole lot less (just 6%) than the
claimed 6MW required for a 6 min charge time but still the load of 120
domestic sockets. With 30 min charge time the demand is 72Kw and at
40min 54Kw, much more achievable.

As a 36Kw fill is good for nearly 2 hours driving an extra 30 min
charging up is not a huge cost in time. And you won't be standing out in
the rain/snow or dancing on a slick of split diesel while it charges up.

How much does that 30 min fill time cost you? Well it actually PAYS you.
EV cost per mile is 1/2 of fossil fuel so while 150 miles costs about
£18 in fuel it costs £9 in electricity (for public charge points, much
less on home charge). The savings you make are effectively EARNING
£18/hour while you charge up. If you ever got your demand for 6 min
charge time you won't be "earning" £180/hour during that 6 min charge.
You would have pay a lot more to have that charge rate and your
"earnings" would have to become a payment.

Rapid chargers are 43Kw or 50Kw with Tesla supercharge running 120Kw.
These charge an EV to 80% in 20-40 min. Tesla S&X take just as long as
the battery pack is 2x the size. Won't be at supermarkets unless they
are very close to M-way junctions or major routes. Tesla can have as
many 10 superchargers on site (1.2MW), while most EV chargers only have
4 at present (0.2MW).

Fast chargers are 7.7Kw single phase or 22Kw three phase (32Amp like
your cooker supply, not a poxy domestic socket). 7.7kW charger will
recharge in 3-5 hours, 22kW charger in 1-2 hours. These you will find at
destinations, hotels, works and yes supermarkets. If there were 50 22Kw
chargers on a supermarket car park the load would be 1.1MW. But who does
400 mile round trip to a supermarket?

Charging points are on the rise and rising fast.
https://www.zap-map.com/statistics/

There are over 20 rapid 7.7Kw charging points on the car parks of the
firm I work at around Derby. They can be booked for 4 hours at a time.
I'm not sure how many there are at other sites like Bristol. There's a
guy does Bristol to Derby and back at least once a week in a 30KWh Leaf.
He doesn't like paying for the Polarcharge card so has been getting a
*free* (slow) charge from the on-site car hire firm throwing a cable out
the window of the portacabin. Complains that the company won't give him
an EV, so he leaves the company car at home and uses his EV.

The big question is whether they should fit a lot of slow 3Kw chargers
for 8 hour charge time while at work (7.6 hour working day + 30 min
lunch). Then people could commute 60 miles each way in 30KWh EVs. Or 10
miles in PHEV with 5KWh batteries without using a 4 hour rapid charger
space.

MrCheerful wrote:

On 29/09/2017 23:30, Steve H wrote:
Hydrogen seems sensible - you can make it on site (yes, you need a big
electric cable - but so does a forecourt of charging stations) - you can
fill a lightweight kevlar / carbon tank in minutes and get 500 miles of
driving with only water / steam as the tailpipe emmissions.

It is only possible to store enough onsite for a couple of fills, and
then takes several hours to make the next lot.

So how many filling stations will be needed?

The install can deliver to 30 cars per day. But it's scalable and is
really at beta test stage.

--
Steve H

Steve H wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Steve H
wrote:

Hydrogen seems sensible - you can make it on site (yes, you need a big
electric cable - but so does a forecourt of charging stations) - you can
fill a lightweight kevlar / carbon tank in minutes and get 500 miles of
driving with only water / steam as the tailpipe emmissions.

What, liquid hydrogen? How many litres is that for 500 miles?

It's around 8kg of hydrogen.

Remember, these are fuel cell vehicles - they're not combusting hydrogen
in the traditional sense (which is what many people think hydrogen cars
do)

If the production of hydrogen requires electricity, where is that
electricity going to come from?

Chris

--
Remove prejudice to reply.

Martin Brown wrote in newsqlmpk$17ao$1
@gioia.aioe.org:

On 29/09/2017 11:00, john west wrote:

When i asked how far this new Yaris would run if it had used all the
petrol, none of them knew.
Any idea anyone?

According to the Toyota website it is not intended to be run to the
point where it runs out of petrol and permanent damage may occur:

https://www.toyota.co.uk/hybrid/hybrid-faq.json

Bottom FAQ on the page. What if I run out of petrol?

Bit of a risk handing it to a customer so close to empty.


I guess the control system would try to start the engine.

On 30/09/2017 09:40, Steve H wrote:
MrCheerful wrote:

On 29/09/2017 23:30, Steve H wrote:
Hydrogen seems sensible - you can make it on site (yes, you need a big
electric cable - but so does a forecourt of charging stations) - you can
fill a lightweight kevlar / carbon tank in minutes and get 500 miles of
driving with only water / steam as the tailpipe emmissions.

It is only possible to store enough onsite for a couple of fills, and
then takes several hours to make the next lot.

So how many filling stations will be needed?

The install can deliver to 30 cars per day. But it's scalable and is
really at beta test stage.


A normal filling station at present serves 30 cars in thirty minutes, so
it would have to ramp up a real lot.
Would specialised staff be required to keep the filling process safe?
Good site for a terrorist attack too.
I would hazard a guess that hydrogen stations would not be permitted
anywhere near housing. I have only seen one and that was well in the
countryside.

On 30/09/17 08:59, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Ade wrote:

On 29/09/2017 21:20, Tim Streater wrote:

On busy days at Morrisons (or Tesco) there may well be 10 or so cars
filling up at once. How big d'ye expect a charging station to be so
that on a busy day you can just roll up and plug in for 30 mins?

A pump is occupied for a few minutes, say 5 once payment is included.
You want to crank that up to 30. So you'll need 6 times as many
charging points as pumps, to service the demand. So 60 charging points
at, as someone upthread (IIRC) mentioned, 6MW each. You're asking the
grid to supply 350MW or so to every supermarket. You really think
that's practical?

Extremely efficient solar panels are what's needed.

What do you mean by "Extremely efficient solar panels"?

400% efficient would be handy


--
Of what good are dead warriors? €¦ Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory €¦ The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

On 30/09/17 09:02, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Steve H
wrote:

Hydrogen seems sensible - you can make it on site (yes, you need a big
electric cable - but so does a forecourt of charging stations) - you can
fill a lightweight kevlar / carbon tank in minutes and get 500 miles of
driving with only water / steam as the tailpipe emmissions.

What, liquid hydrogen? How many litres is that for 500 miles?

Dont even go there. Hydrogen is enormously bulky and bloody dangerous.
Colorless, odorless, leaks out of any pipe that isn't perfect - teh
explosin at fukushinma was from far less than a car tank of hydrogen..



--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

In message , at 17:05:11 on Fri, 29 Sep
2017, Graham J remarked:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...s-could-be-mad
e-in-electric-cars-says-study

... this indicates that a large proportion of journeys are very short -
to quote: "95 percent of them travelled less than 40 miles to work,
with the average commute distance being 13.6 miles".

Is that each way, or round-trip?

Earlier in the same piece: "The average single-trip distance? Just 5.95
miles".

But how many 5.95 mile trips does a (non-commuter) driver typically do
per day?

I don't drive anywhere the majority of days, but when I do it's likely
to be at least three or four ~5mile trips out-and-back, or if not that
by a strange quirk of retail store and NHS hospital location planning,
a minimum of 15miles out and 15 miles back.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
17:23:48 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017, NY remarked:

As an earlier poster commented: "we have not progressed an enormous
amount" - and the limitation is battery technology.

Irrespective of the battery technology you need to put in phenomenal
amounts of electrical energy, which means dangerously high charging
voltages or current that needs very thick cables - or a combination of
the two.

And a magic kilowatt tree growing at the local substation.
--
Roland Perry

On 30/09/17 09:35, Steve H wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Steve H
wrote:

Hydrogen seems sensible - you can make it on site (yes, you need a big
electric cable - but so does a forecourt of charging stations) - you can
fill a lightweight kevlar / carbon tank in minutes and get 500 miles of
driving with only water / steam as the tailpipe emmissions.

What, liquid hydrogen? How many litres is that for 500 miles?

It's around 8kg of hydrogen.

122 litres of cryogenically frozen liquid hydrogen

But that is of course ********. You need way more hydrogen than 8kg.

8kg of hydrogen is about 1000 MJ.

That's about 29 litres of diesel. Something like 8 gallons

If you think you can do 500 miles on 29 litres of diesel good luck with
that.



Remember, these are fuel cell vehicles - they're not combusting hydrogen
in the traditional sense (which is what many people think hydrogen cars
do)

And they don't work. The efficiency if you try and pull any kind of
power out is abysmal.

Worse than an IC vehicle.

That's whey we don't use fuel cells anywhere.

The 'hydrogen economy' bull**** has been arounjd for years., Seems
someone still believes in it, but every major company that looked into
it has quietly dropped it.

That is the same for *all* green technology.

NONE of it works efficiently. The only things that do work badly and
inefficiently are windmills, solar panels and battery cars

But I wouldn't want to build a civilisation on them.

The problem is that youngsters today don't realise that people
calculated all this stuff years ago with slide rules, and shelved all
the solutions that simply didn't work well enough to pour private money
into. Steam powered aeroplanes. Windmills. Solar panels. Electric cars.

They only survive because people have bent the ears of government. And
we pay in extra taxes to prove how whit these technologies are.

We don't need subsidised hydrogen powered fuel cell cars either. Huge
tanks, limited power and very very dangerous.





--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 30/09/17 09:46, Chris Whelan wrote:
Steve H wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Steve H
wrote:

Hydrogen seems sensible - you can make it on site (yes, you need a big
electric cable - but so does a forecourt of charging stations) - you can
fill a lightweight kevlar / carbon tank in minutes and get 500 miles of
driving with only water / steam as the tailpipe emmissions.

What, liquid hydrogen? How many litres is that for 500 miles?

It's around 8kg of hydrogen.

Remember, these are fuel cell vehicles - they're not combusting hydrogen
in the traditional sense (which is what many people think hydrogen cars
do)

If the production of hydrogen requires electricity, where is that
electricity going to come from?

Chris

'Hydrogen economy' was always bull****.

Its not a primary energy soure, its a stupid bulky and dangerous means
of storing energy.

And used in an IC its no better than diesel at NOX emissions

You would be better off making synthetic diesel.
#

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

MrCheerful wrote:

The install can deliver to 30 cars per day. But it's scalable and is
really at beta test stage.


A normal filling station at present serves 30 cars in thirty minutes, so
it would have to ramp up a real lot.
Would specialised staff be required to keep the filling process safe?
Good site for a terrorist attack too.
I would hazard a guess that hydrogen stations would not be permitted
anywhere near housing. I have only seen one and that was well in the
countryside.

We've had LPG for years and CNG is gaining momentum. You can put tanks
underground (as we do with LPG and CNG).

Filling is no more difficult than filling an LPG vehicle - the connector
and filling process is near identical. So it can be operated by any
member of the public without specialist attendants.

Hydrogen is just acting as a battery in these applications - as an
energy store it's more efficient than storing in a lithium battery.
--
Steve H

On 30/09/2017 09:39, Peter Hill wrote:
On 29-Sep-17 9:20 PM, Tim Streater wrote:

On busy days at Morrisons (or Tesco) there may well be 10 or so cars
filling up at once. How big d'ye expect a charging station to be so
that on a busy day you can just roll up and plug in for 30 mins?

Ultimately every space on M-way services car park should have a rapid
charger but only a certain number could be used at one time. The car plugs
in and driver validates payment, they will have to switch on/off
automatically by FIFO queue and as the charging system knows how many cars
are in the queue can give you the time you have wait. Unlike a petrol
station no one has to be in attendance.

Nobody has to be in attendance at a petrol / diesel station.

How much does that 30 min fill time cost you? Well it actually PAYS you. EV
cost per mile is 1/2 of fossil fuel so while 150 miles costs about £18 in
fuel it costs £9 in electricity (for public charge points, much less on
home charge).

It costs you about £9 in fuel + £9 in tax.

On 30/09/2017 10:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/09/17 09:02, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Steve H
wrote:

Hydrogen seems sensible - you can make it on site (yes, you need a big
electric cable - but so does a forecourt of charging stations) - you can
fill a lightweight kevlar / carbon tank in minutes and get 500 miles of
driving with only water / steam as the tailpipe emmissions.

What, liquid hydrogen? How many litres is that for 500 miles?

Dont even go there. Hydrogen is enormously bulky and bloody dangerous.
Colorless, odorless, leaks out of any pipe that isn't perfect - teh
explosin at fukushinma was from far less than a car tank of hydrogen..

Unlike, say, methane or LPG ?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
And used in an IC [hydrogen} is no better than diesel at NOX emissions

You would be better off making synthetic diesel.

Does most of the nitrogen in diesel NOx emissions come from the nitrogen in
the atmosphere? I'd always thought it came from the diesel fuel. Evidently
not.

Why is it that diesel engines and fuel cells have more of a problem with NOx
than petrol engines? Is it because diesel engines are very lean burn (they
use far more oxygen than is required to burn the fuel), whereas petrol is
stoichiometric (ie perfect petrol:air ratio)?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What, liquid hydrogen? How many litres is that for 500 miles?

It's around 8kg of hydrogen.

122 litres of cryogenically frozen liquid hydrogen

But that is of course ********. You need way more hydrogen than 8kg.

8kg of hydrogen is about 1000 MJ.

That's about 29 litres of diesel. Something like 8 gallons

If you think you can do 500 miles on 29 litres of diesel good luck with
that.


Suggest you look at the official figures for the Honda Clarity and
Toyota equivalent.

The big stumbling block for Hydrogen is the power to crack it from
water. But when you look at the requirements to charge 30 Teslas to do
500 miles, it doesn't look so bad!

There's probably a balance here - plug-in fuel-cell / battery hybrids
would work in 99% of situations.
--
Steve H