On Wed, 19 May 2021 18:16:56 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

snip
I don't want two different cars, just one to
fill all the roles I need it for.

snip

It might not be down to what 'you want' at some point in the future
though?

Just because we can do something now, doesn't mean we should or will
still be able to in the future.

When I first started working at BT my journey to work was (say) 3
miles. Then it became 4 and finally 5 miles and we neither moved house
or were working elsewhere.

No, what happened is they blocked off 'rat runs' and re-designed parts
of my commute route meaning I had to travel further and further to do
the same trip. No matter how much I would have 'wanted' it to stay the
same, it wasn't going to.

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 19 May 2021 18:31:28 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

snip

The house we were "visiting" (to buy) was not ours until we had done the
paperwork, had only a 3kW supply limit, was at the time disconnected and
we only stopped there long enough to look (bought as seen on the day)
and again for an hour to spray woodworm killer.

Charging anywhere on route, would have delayed us considerably.

Not been around when petrol was in short supply? I have been.

Same here ... and you had to 'eek it out' or queue for hours.

I have had a plug in EV for over 30 years and so I'm very used to
working out where I could get to and know if I could get a charge when
I was there or not (and so how long I would have to stay there for)
and was never caught out (ok, it got close a couple of times).

In the same way I've rarely run out of petrol in my life (even when
touring in Scotland and the wife did on her motorbike, we siphoned
enough from mine to get us to a petrol station).

Even when racing the electric motorbike I designed and built, I always
finished the race (duration) because that was part of good racing
technique and energy management.

If it was likely that I wouldn't have enough money to buy petrol to
get to work, I didn't squander it going for a drive for fun.

But we probably already do stuff to 'fill in time', reading / working
on a train, washing up whilst the dinner is cooking so we should be
able (might have to) to engineer working [1] or shopping, dining,
sleeping whilst the car is charging.


Cheers, T i m

[1] Which is what I did when I fitted a charging point at work. ;-)

On 19/05/2021 18:55, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 17:09, Robin wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the
end of the world.


I don't feel that I need to know for certain that the climate
catastrophe hypothesis is correct. It's just not fair to future
generations to risk it.

Do you think the "end of the world" hyperbole helps? I am sorry to say
that to me it just signals someone who (consciously or not) has bought
into the hyperbolic non-science. And probably also thinks that eating
meat should be banned from 2025.


I couldn't resist the wording. Sorry about that!Â* Runaway climate change
would make life on earth extremely difficult, and that is one of the
possible outcomes. Clearly, the earth would continue to exist.

Can you point to any reliable source that predicts a /runaway/
greenhouse effect (as distinct from a tipping point effect)? (FTAOD I
mean before the sun moves to its red giant phase.)

Or a tipping point effect that would make life difficult (as distinct
from rather scarcer when it comes to large mammals among others)?


The point, though, is that people are complaining that they may not be
able to use their favourite picnic spot on long journeys, whilst
ignoring the idea that people in arid areas may effectively be without
water. Those too losses don't seem comparable to me.


Perhaps they are just using the loss of ability to travel as an example
of the way the scale and cost of the changes required to deliver "net
zero" with current technology continue to be kept from the vast majority
of the public.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In article , Fredxx wrote:
On 19/05/2021 18:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
On 19/05/2021 14:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
Have you never driven longer journeys "non-stop", with just pauses
to visit the toilet and swap over drivers?

Manchester to Dover, across to Calais, along to just past St. Malo,
a visit to a house, a visit to a "solicitor" to buy it, to a
hardware shop for woodworm spray, to the house, back to Calais,
across to Dover and back to Manchester. Three of us, over a weekend,
so as not to lose time off work.

You drove across the channel? No reason why your vehicle couldn't be
charged during the crossing. Likewise at the house etc you were
visiting. Electricity, unlike diesel or petrol, is available near
everywhere.

They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

Why? Anything is possible. At one time, you had to buy petrol from a
chemist shop.

The house we were "visiting" (to buy) was not ours until we had done
the paperwork, had only a 3kW supply limit, was at the time
disconnected and we only stopped there long enough to look (bought as
seen on the day) and again for an hour to spray woodworm killer.

Charging anywhere on route, would have delayed us considerably.

Not been around when petrol was in short supply? I have been.

Not even I can recall the Suez crisis! :-)

I've still got some petrol coupons from which ever crisis came next.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 19/05/2021 16:06, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 19/05/2021 14:58, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 14:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
Have you never driven longer journeys "non-stop", with just pauses to
visit the toilet and swap over drivers?

Manchester to Dover, across to Calais, along to just past St. Malo, a
visit to a house, a visit to a "solicitor" to buy it, to a hardware
shop for woodworm spray, to the house, back to Calais, across to
Dover and back to Manchester. Three of us, over a weekend, so as not
to lose time off work.

You drove across the channel? No reason why your vehicle couldn't be
charged during the crossing. Likewise at the house etc you were
visiting. Electricity, unlike diesel or petrol, is available near
everywhere.

They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

Why ever not? I'd say it was the perfect place for it

How many vehicles? Where is tehextra enery going to come from?

Windmills on the top deck, obviously.

On 19/05/2021 20:56, charles wrote:
In article , Fredxx wrote:
On 19/05/2021 18:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
On 19/05/2021 14:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
Have you never driven longer journeys "non-stop", with just pauses
to visit the toilet and swap over drivers?

Manchester to Dover, across to Calais, along to just past St. Malo,
a visit to a house, a visit to a "solicitor" to buy it, to a
hardware shop for woodworm spray, to the house, back to Calais,
across to Dover and back to Manchester. Three of us, over a weekend,
so as not to lose time off work.

You drove across the channel? No reason why your vehicle couldn't be
charged during the crossing. Likewise at the house etc you were
visiting. Electricity, unlike diesel or petrol, is available near
everywhere.

They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

Why? Anything is possible. At one time, you had to buy petrol from a
chemist shop.

The house we were "visiting" (to buy) was not ours until we had done
the paperwork, had only a 3kW supply limit, was at the time
disconnected and we only stopped there long enough to look (bought as
seen on the day) and again for an hour to spray woodworm killer.

Charging anywhere on route, would have delayed us considerably.

Not been around when petrol was in short supply? I have been.

Not even I can recall the Suez crisis! :-)

I've still got some petrol coupons from which ever crisis came next.


They're probably worth some money. Didn't they use a weird calculation
of HP to determine your ration?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_horsepower

charles wrote:
I'd considered that as a possibility when thinking about buying an electric
car. Ah - I'm 81 and hiring a car if you're over 80 it is, apparently,
very difficult.

Do you do journeys of 300+ miles without any breaks?

If you don't, an EV is likely to be able to handle it (although perhaps
there are other reasons why it might not suit). I think the people who do
major road trips without stopping for refreshment or toilets might be in the
minority.

Theo

Le 19/05/2021 Ã* 10:53, NY a écritÂ*:
If (and this is a big assumption) an electric car needs about the same
amount of energy to travel the same distance, then that's 60*38 = 2280
MJ (2.28 GJ). And that energy needs to be supplied in the stated 5
minutes (300 seconds).

OK, so the power needed is 2280/300 = 7.6 MW.
+1
And if you take into account the power loss in the charging cable and
the internal resistance of the battery you get to the conclusion that
the topic is stupid.
May be with a 100 KV battery but good luck to build a 100 KV motor :-)

On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the end
of the world.

It's not a "little inconvenience" when you are literally unable to get
to a family funeral in time without a petrol or diesel car!

On 19/05/2021 16:04, charles wrote:
In article ,
Theo wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

The house we were "visiting" (to buy) was not ours until we had done
the paperwork, had only a 3kW supply limit, was at the time
disconnected and we only stopped there long enough to look (bought as
seen on the day) and again for an hour to spray woodworm killer.

Charging anywhere on route, would have delayed us considerably.

So for the one weekend in your life when you drive to France, buy a house,
spray it with woodworm killer, and drive home again, you rent a petrol or
diesel car.

I'd considered that as a possibility when thinking about buying an electric
car. Ah - I'm 81 and hiring a car if you're over 80 it is, apparently,
very difficult.

Not much help anyway when you find an answerphone message at 5pm saying
that your wife's uncle has died and his funeral is on the far side of
Ireland, at 11am either. Too late to get a flight organised, get the
kids to my parents and and get through airport security that night. The
earliest flight in the morning arriving at Belfast or Dublin too late to
pick up a hire car and get to the funeral. Too late to organise and pick
up a hire car in the UK, book the ferry with the right registration
details and get going. The only choice to drive and use the ferry in our
own car - with no time to charge before leaving, no time to charge
en-route and no time to charge (unless the hotel hosting the meal had
chargers) before heading home again.

And we have had multiple occasions of short notice funerals due a large
extended family (M-I-L one of 8 siblings, F-I-L one of 13).

On 19/05/2021 19:00, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 18:16, Steve Walker wrote:

The point is that even if you don't do it often, electric cars aren't
capable of it when needed. I don't want two different cars, just one
to fill all the roles I need it for. For me a plug-in hybrid would
make the best sense. 60 miles range would cater for me in day to day
driving on electric only, almost all the time, but with the ability to
do longer journeys, as and when, at zero notice.

One of the manufacturers was looking at a little trailer with a motor +
generator that you could hire for long journeys. Or leave in the garage
until needed, so you weren't lugging around a heavy engine just for a
trip around town. It doesn't seem to have caught on. Maybe, it will.

But would leave you unable to tow a trailer or caravan on long holiday
trips and with lots of problems parking anywhere if needed.

I'd like to know that if I was running low on power on any journey, I
could switch to an included petrol engine if my plans changed.

Alternatively, I would love to have standardised battery packs that
could be exchanged at a "petrol" station, reducing stops to minutes.

On 19/05/2021 16:06, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 19/05/2021 14:58, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 14:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
Have you never driven longer journeys "non-stop", with just pauses to
visit the toilet and swap over drivers?

Manchester to Dover, across to Calais, along to just past St. Malo, a
visit to a house, a visit to a "solicitor" to buy it, to a hardware
shop for woodworm spray, to the house, back to Calais, across to
Dover and back to Manchester. Three of us, over a weekend, so as not
to lose time off work.

You drove across the channel? No reason why your vehicle couldn't be
charged during the crossing. Likewise at the house etc you were
visiting. Electricity, unlike diesel or petrol, is available near
everywhere.

They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

Why ever not? I'd say it was the perfect place for it

How many vehicles? Where is tehextra enery going to come from?

And of course the risks of a fault starting a very difficult to control
battery fire in a confined space.

On 20/05/2021 00:08, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the end
of the world.

It's not a "little inconvenience" when you are literally unable to get
to a family funeral in time without a petrol or diesel car!

The same way we coped before the motor car, with careful planning.

On 20/05/2021 00:21, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 19:00, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 18:16, Steve Walker wrote:

The point is that even if you don't do it often, electric cars aren't
capable of it when needed. I don't want two different cars, just one
to fill all the roles I need it for. For me a plug-in hybrid would
make the best sense. 60 miles range would cater for me in day to day
driving on electric only, almost all the time, but with the ability
to do longer journeys, as and when, at zero notice.

One of the manufacturers was looking at a little trailer with a motor
+ generator that you could hire for long journeys. Or leave in the
garage until needed, so you weren't lugging around a heavy engine just
for a trip around town. It doesn't seem to have caught on. Maybe, it
will.

But would leave you unable to tow a trailer or caravan on long holiday
trips and with lots of problems parking anywhere if needed.

I'd like to know that if I was running low on power on any journey, I
could switch to an included petrol engine if my plans changed.

Alternatively, I would love to have standardised battery packs that
could be exchanged at a "petrol" station, reducing stops to minutes.

I do envisage that sort of system. There was a proposal for Tesla along
these lines.

Full charge in 90 seconds:
https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/videos/battery-swap-event

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 19/05/2021 18:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 14:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Have you never driven longer journeys "non-stop", with just pauses to
visit the toilet and swap over drivers?

Manchester to Dover, across to Calais, along to just past St. Malo, a
visit to a house, a visit to a "solicitor" to buy it, to a hardware
shop for woodworm spray, to the house, back to Calais, across to
Dover and back to Manchester. Three of us, over a weekend, so as not
to lose time off work.

You drove across the channel? No reason why your vehicle couldn't be
charged during the crossing. Likewise at the house etc you were
visiting. Electricity, unlike diesel or petrol, is available near
everywhere.

They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

Why? Anything is possible. At one time, you had to buy petrol from a
chemist shop.

The house we were "visiting" (to buy) was not ours until we had done the
paperwork, had only a 3kW supply limit, was at the time disconnected and
we only stopped there long enough to look (bought as seen on the day)
and again for an hour to spray woodworm killer.

Charging anywhere on route, would have delayed us considerably.

Not been around when petrol was in short supply? I have been.

Not even I can recall the Suez crisis! :-)

Much later than that. Early 70s. Can remember queuing for petrol and being
restricted to a few gallons.

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long? *

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

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the end
of the world.

It's not a "little inconvenience" when you are literally unable to get
to a family funeral in time without a petrol or diesel car!

Oh c'mon, Steve. How many funerals are arrange with no notice?

--
*Be more or less specific *

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

On 20/05/2021 00:30, Fredxx wrote:
On 20/05/2021 00:08, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the
end of the world.

It's not a "little inconvenience" when you are literally unable to get
to a family funeral in time without a petrol or diesel car!

The same way we coped before the motor car, with careful planning.

How can you plan for a sudden death and the funeral being the next day,
on the far side of Ireland?

In Ireland if someone dies in the night, people are typically notified
the next day and the funeral is the day after. We found out when we got
home from work and found the message shortly after 5pm - we had to get
from Manchester to Sligo for the funeral at 11am. Too late to drop the
kids off and get a flight that night, first flight in the morning
arriving too late for us to get a hire car and cross Ireland. The only
option to drive and use the ferry. With time to drop the kids, get
suitable clothes together, book ferries, etc., we arrived at the church
with 15 minutes to spare.

Paul wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
NY wrote

How much of the country will need to be covered in wind turbines?

All of it.

I mean when you run the numbers the whole thing is completely insane.

What is actually happening is that while windmills and solar panels take
the headlines, behind the scenes massive work on SMR nuclear power is
going on ready for the time the public realises 'renewables dont work'

Renewables work.

No they dont when you need the backups for when
they cant supply what you are using. When you have
that, you might as well use the backup all the time
and save the stupid money you have ****ed against
the wall on the renewables and dont get the
comprehensive ****ing of the environment those do.

But you have to maintain a "basket" of power supplies,
a reliable baseline supply that meets all constraints,
as well as a variable (but basically free) dynamic source.

Not if you get a clue and use nukes instead.

You can't run a country with only windmills.

You can with nukes. France does.

That's where all those "natural gas peaker plants" came from.

Which **** that scarce resource against the wall. **** that.

Power companies here, can tell you "current windmill percent"
and "max possible windmill percent" - there is an apparent
method for working out what the mix should be. Even your
own power authority should be providing these numbers
to the users, to give some idea how poorly managed it is.

Makes a lot more sense to go nuke instead.

Texas could have been well managed - it probably had sufficient
infrastructure to "look good" when challenged,but the devil was in the
details.

Nukes cost money to fuel.

Cost **** all for fuel in fact.

They burn more fuel the more you use them.

Still **** all.

Good nuke designs support continuous fueling, so the reactor continues to
run, while fuel is loaded in deactivated zones of the reactor, then those
sections are brought online again.
A robot on the reactor, loads the fuel.

Makes more sense to have multiple nukes
given that refuelling happens so rarely.

If the reactor is switched off, some of the cost of operation is saved as
the fuel isn't being burnt.

**** all in fact.

If you have a windless day, that's when the reliable baseline is switched
on.

Makes more sense to use it all the time with nukes.

I don't know what a headline looks like, but a well
managed power utility has some common characteristics
in terms of public disclosure. Usually you can find a plan, detailing when
the system is going to enter a rough period (30% of nukes need to be
replaced all at once).

That never happens.

Something has to finance that, and as the Toshiba example shows, the
companies doing the work need financial guarantees.

Not if the nukes are done like France did.

Projects that fail half way through, can spell the end of the contractor
doing the work.

Didnt happen with France until they stupidly
gave up on what built their nuke fleet.

The various schemes to deflect the
financing details, those have a price.

Not when you do it like France did.

Like when a certain bridge was built here, and
some nitwit borrowed Deutsch marks to finance it. Basically placing the
citizens in debt, forever.
(The toll charged to cross the bridge, pays for the
interest on the loan. Seemingly no payment of principle.)

Only the stupid build bridges that way.

Poorly planned borrowing to finance projects, has at times, a very big
cost. A lot of utility projects
are loaded with very bad terms, in the financing.

France's nukes werent.

Like a "free" source of energy, where one of the
terms of the financing, "gives" the free power for
practically nothing, to a third party for 35 or 50 years.
That's the kind of stuff that goes on behind the scenes.

It didnt in France.

Any energy source with astronomical financing, the citizens are going to
take a screwing on it, one way or another.

Didnt happen with France or Japan or China either.

On 20/05/2021 00:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the end
of the world.

It's not a "little inconvenience" when you are literally unable to get
to a family funeral in time without a petrol or diesel car!

Oh c'mon, Steve. How many funerals are arrange with no notice?

Typical for Ireland. Someone dies in the evening or during the night,
people are notified the next day and the funeral takes place the
following day. With being out at work, you may not (as happened for us)
find out until the evening - funeral was on the West coast of Ireland
the following morning.

With a large extended family of my in-laws (13 siblings on one side and
8 on the other), we have attended many funerals and most are at short
notice.

On 20/05/2021 00:32, Fredxx wrote:
On 20/05/2021 00:21, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 19:00, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 18:16, Steve Walker wrote:

The point is that even if you don't do it often, electric cars
aren't capable of it when needed. I don't want two different cars,
just one to fill all the roles I need it for. For me a plug-in
hybrid would make the best sense. 60 miles range would cater for me
in day to day driving on electric only, almost all the time, but
with the ability to do longer journeys, as and when, at zero notice.

One of the manufacturers was looking at a little trailer with a motor
+ generator that you could hire for long journeys. Or leave in the
garage until needed, so you weren't lugging around a heavy engine
just for a trip around town. It doesn't seem to have caught on.
Maybe, it will.

But would leave you unable to tow a trailer or caravan on long holiday
trips and with lots of problems parking anywhere if needed.

I'd like to know that if I was running low on power on any journey, I
could switch to an included petrol engine if my plans changed.

Alternatively, I would love to have standardised battery packs that
could be exchanged at a "petrol" station, reducing stops to minutes.

I do envisage that sort of system.

Yes. One battery for a small, town car, 2 or more for larger vehicles,
especially going on a long journey. Manufacturers can design how and
where they fit, with details being passed on (or even provided by the
car) for robot arms at the stations to access and change the batteries
at the right angles and so on.

There was a proposal for Tesla along
these lines.

Full charge in 90 seconds:
Â* https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/videos/battery-swap-event

However, that wouldn't allow for say sliding in from the side , going in
at an angle and rotating into position or using multiple smaller packs,
to allow flexibility and optimisation of vehicle design.

GB wrote
NY wrote

My (diesel) car has a range of about 700 miles on a 60-litre tank. Diesel
has an energy density of about 38 MJ/litre.

The fact that your car can drive 700 miles without a fill-up does not mean
that you can drive it that far without a break.

The only break I have is for a quick **** by
the side of the road, not even a minute.

For me, a practical use case is to be able to drive 1-2 hours between
breaks.

I never do it like that. I routinely drive for far
more hours than that between breaks other
than a quick ****.

I have a petrol car, but if I had an electric car, I'd just plug it in at
each rest break.

Pity that wont replace what you used getting there
even if you can find somewhere to do that. I cant.

Suppose the charging process is 99% efficient - ie only 1% of the
electricity is wasted as heat. That's still a power of 1/100 MW or 10 kW.
So the batteries and the charger have got to dissipate waste heat
equivalent to three 3-bar electric fires. Gulp!

But, they only have to do that level of charging for 5 minutes. So, that's
not going to heat the car up appreciably?

Corse it will, that heat has to end up somewhere.

Perhaps the charging station will incorporate fans to help dissipate the
heat?

Thats a lot of fans.

Current charging stations don't need that, as they are only charging at a
fraction of the rate.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Have you never driven longer journeys "non-stop", with just pauses to
visit the toilet and swap over drivers?

Manchester to Dover, across to Calais, along to just past St. Malo, a
visit to a house, a visit to a "solicitor" to buy it, to a hardware shop
for woodworm spray, to the house, back to Calais, across to Dover and
back to Manchester. Three of us, over a weekend, so as not to lose time
off work.

You drove across the channel? No reason why your
vehicle couldn't be charged during the crossing.

Corse there is, no charger provided.

Too much hassle providing chargers for all cars on the ferry or train.

Likewise at the house etc you were visiting.

Electricity, unlike diesel or petrol, is available near everywhere.

Pity about the stupid charging time.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
NY wrote:
"GB" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2021 09:53, NY wrote:

My (diesel) car has a range of about 700 miles on a 60-litre tank.
Diesel
has an energy density of about 38 MJ/litre.

The fact that your car can drive 700 miles without a fill-up does not
mean
that you can drive it that far without a break.

For me, a practical use case is to be able to drive 1-2 hours between
breaks. I have a petrol car, but if I had an electric car, I'd just
plug
it in at each rest break.

Would you normally take a rest break for as long as it *really* takes to
recharge a car - not the fairyland figure of 5 minutes.

If driving all day, I'll normally take a sensible lunch break.

I don’t do lunch even when not driving. The most I might
do is an apple when on a decent trip.

About an hour, or so.

Doesn’t take anything like that long to eat an apple.

Same as when at work. A 1 hour re-charge
is more within the bounds of possibility.

But is **** all charge for an EV, particularly if
you have decent heating and cooling in the EV.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2021 13:47, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 09:53, NY wrote:

My (diesel) car has a range of about 700 miles on a 60-litre tank.
Diesel has an energy density of about 38 MJ/litre.

The fact that your car can drive 700 miles without a fill-up does not
mean that you can drive it that far without a break.


I've done 900 miles with just a driver switch and 1200 miles with a 45
minute break half way

Plus cross channel ferry of course

For me, a practical use case is to be able to drive 1-2 hours between
breaks. I have a petrol car, but if I had an electric car, I'd just plug
it in at each rest break.


nah. I tend to do 4 hours a stint

I regularly do 6 hours non stop and 14 hours less often.

"Theo" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

The house we were "visiting" (to buy) was not ours until we had done the
paperwork, had only a 3kW supply limit, was at the time disconnected and
we only stopped there long enough to look (bought as seen on the day)
and again for an hour to spray woodworm killer.

Charging anywhere on route, would have delayed us considerably.

So for the one weekend in your life when you drive to France, buy a house,
spray it with woodworm killer, and drive home again, you rent a petrol or
diesel car.

**** that I want my car to do everything I am likely to do.

Perhaps the other weekends in your life don't involve
nonstop driving 1000+ miles and are not as action-packed?

But a lot more farting around using a rental. I just fill the car
the day before or on the way out. Much less farting around.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2021 14:58, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 14:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Have you never driven longer journeys "non-stop", with just pauses to
visit the toilet and swap over drivers?

Manchester to Dover, across to Calais, along to just past St. Malo, a
visit to a house, a visit to a "solicitor" to buy it, to a hardware
shop
for woodworm spray, to the house, back to Calais, across to Dover and
back to Manchester. Three of us, over a weekend, so as not to lose time
off work.

You drove across the channel? No reason why your vehicle couldn't be
charged during the crossing. Likewise at the house etc you were
visiting.
Electricity, unlike diesel or petrol, is available near everywhere.

They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

Why ever not?

Because its too much farting around plugging all the cars in.

I'd say it was the perfect place for it

More fool you. It isnt.

The house we were "visiting" (to buy) was not ours until we had done the
paperwork, had only a 3kW supply limit, was at the time disconnected and
we only stopped there long enough to look (bought as seen on the day) and
again for an hour to spray woodworm killer.

Charging anywhere on route, would have delayed us considerably.

"NY" wrote in message
...
"Theo" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

The house we were "visiting" (to buy) was not ours until we had done the
paperwork, had only a 3kW supply limit, was at the time disconnected and
we only stopped there long enough to look (bought as seen on the day)
and again for an hour to spray woodworm killer.

Charging anywhere on route, would have delayed us considerably.

So for the one weekend in your life when you drive to France, buy a
house,
spray it with woodworm killer, and drive home again, you rent a petrol or
diesel car.

Perhaps the other weekends in your life don't involve nonstop driving
1000+ miles and are not as action-packed?

This is the problem with electric cars - one car cannot do all the jobs
and you may need either to own a second (petrol/diesel) car or else rent
one - both of which are all extra cost.

And no advantage at all with an EV, just downsides with having
to plug the damned thing in every time you use it, hopeless on
long trips, ****ed climate control in it, stupid price of it etc etc
etc. The only advantage is a lower fuel cost per mile. **** that.

We, the public, are being asked to change the way we live and to accept a
sub-standard product. When EVs are at least as good as petrol/diesel, in
terms of range and refuelling, *then* is the time to phase out
petrol/diesel.

Not even then because the battery doesn’t last
anything like as long as an ICE engine does.

But the date of petrol/diesel car withdrawal (ie no longer sold any more)
has already been announced.

That wont happen imo. The voters will give
any pollys actually stupid enough to enforce
that the bums rush at the ballot box.

That may be to spur manufacturers to get their acts together,

And **** even more money against the wall that we will be
paying for even if we arent stupid enough to buy an EV.

though I'm sure they are all working flat out as it is to find solutions.

A few arent. And I bet it end up as stupid a fad as
diesels were too. And those really only have one
major downside, the higher maintenance costs

But if the date comes and we still have EVs with a maximum range of 200
miles and a recharge time (to restore the full range) of over an hour (and
maybe considerably longer) then it will be a huge step backwards in the
name of "progress".

Bet the voters wont buy it and will give stupid
pollys the bums rush at the ballot box.

Harder to do that in the EU tho, but its
only a small subset of the world's cars.

And will petrol/diesel *rental* cars always be available?

Hard to say how stupid stupid pollys will be.

Will there come a time when the cars, bought just before sales are
stopped, have worn out.

Unlikely, Cuba managed fine for half a century.

So did I with my previous ICE and I only gave up
on it because I was stupid enough to not fix the
known windscreen leak.

What then?

The stupid pollys will have got the bums rush at the ballot box.

Will we have no choice but to stop every 200 miles for a multi-hour break?

Nope, because the stupid pollys will have got the bums rush.

The problem comes when the place where you take a planned break is not the
same place as the one where you can charge the car.

Yep, I never stop at traveller traps.

"NY" wrote in message
...
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Would you normally take a rest break for as long as it *really* takes to
recharge a car - not the fairyland figure of 5 minutes.

20 minutes is my usual nap time if I am in danger of falling asleep.,
Otherwise 10 minutes - fillup, pay, cup of coffee and a pee.

Your car has an estimated range of (let's say) 50 miles remaining in the
battery. You still have 200 miles to go. How much extra range will you add
in a 20 minute break? Enough to get you home? I doubt it.

When we do a long journey we tend to take sandwiches and other snacks and
eat in the car.

Me too tho its only an apple and some tap water in a thermal thing.

And we'd choose somewhere quiet with a nice view,

I dont bother and its normally one of the road metal
dumps we have on all our rural roads, where they dump
the road metal/gravel when resurfacing the roads.

not a garage forecourt or motorway service station.

Yeah, **** that, the most I do is zoom
thru in minutes when filling with petrol.

Back to the problem that the place where you would choose to stop is not
the place with the power.

Yep, it never will be with me, not even for a ****.

"GB" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2021 15:42, NY wrote:
Will we have no choice but to stop every 200 miles for a multi-hour
break?

If the alternative is climate catastrophe,

It isnt.

then I'm prepared to stop occasionally.

I'm not because it isnt.

I'm surprised that anyone would suggest otherwise.

More fool you, because there is no climate catastrophe.

Ofc, if you think the whole climate catastrophe thing is hooey,

I know it is.

you'll obviously resent any lifestyle changes whatsoever.

And ignore them.

You are overstating the length of the break, btw. The biggest Tesla
chargers can charge at up to 250 kW.

But reduce the already stupidly short battery life in the process.

That implies a more or less complete recharge in under half an hour.

But ****s the battery in the process. **** that.

The problem comes when the place where you take a planned break is not
the same place as the one where you can charge the car.

Surely, if everybody has electric cars, that won't be a problem?

Corse it will if you don’t stop in traveller traps.

At the moment, there's very little electric car infrastructure, as there
are very few electric cars.

And there will never be where I choose to stop on trips.

"GB" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are wrong,
then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.

A ****ing great inconvenience, actually.

That's not the end of the world.

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are right,
but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the end of the
world.

There is no possibility what so ever of the end of the world
and not one credible scientist even claims anything like that.

The most that might conceivably happen is the rise in
global temperatures by a few degrees which isnt even
necessarily a bad thing for most of the world and at most
a few inches sea levels which would be a complete yawn
for all but a few inhabited islands, most of the inhabitants
of which already migrate to better places for economic
reasons alone.

I don't feel that I need to know for certain that the climate catastrophe
hypothesis is correct. It's just not fair to future generations to risk
it.

BULL****.

"GB" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2021 16:45, charles wrote:

The problem comes when the place where you take
a planned break is not the same place as the one where you can charge
the car.

Surely, if everybody has electric cars, that won't be a problem? At the
moment, there's very little electric car infrastructure, as there are
very few electric cars.

so, a picnic spot in the wilds of nowhere is going to have a charging
poit?


All right, that's a fair point. However, I don't think it justifies
ruining the planet.

There is no possibility of ruining in the planet. We have already
seen sea levels rise hundreds of feet with humans around and
the planet survived that fine. We presumably did see significant
global climate change due to the change from hunting and
gathering to agriculture and clearly survived that fine too.

In any case, my wife refuses to pee in the bushes, so we'll have to go
somewhere with a more or less decent loo.

You can get things she can **** into a bottle with
in the car and then pour that out into the bushes.

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2021 15:10, Theo wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

The house we were "visiting" (to buy) was not ours until we had done the
paperwork, had only a 3kW supply limit, was at the time disconnected and
we only stopped there long enough to look (bought as seen on the day)
and again for an hour to spray woodworm killer.

Charging anywhere on route, would have delayed us considerably.

So for the one weekend in your life when you drive to France, buy a
house,
spray it with woodworm killer, and drive home again, you rent a petrol or
diesel car.

Perhaps the other weekends in your life don't involve nonstop driving
1000+
miles and are not as action-packed?

But other's have involved setting off with only a couple of hour's notice
for a family funeral - again "non-stop", Manchester, Holyhead, Dublin
Sligo, Church, Graveyard, Cemetery, Meal, Belfast, Stranraer, Manchester.

The point is that even if you don't do it often, electric cars aren't
capable of it when needed. I don't want two different cars, just one to
fill all the roles I need it for. For me a plug-in hybrid would make the
best sense. 60 miles range would cater for me in day to day driving on
electric only, almost all the time, but with the ability to do longer
journeys, as and when, at zero notice.

Makes more sense to have the cheaper ICE.
Plug in hybrids dont pay for themselves.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 14:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Have you never driven longer journeys "non-stop", with just pauses to
visit the toilet and swap over drivers?

Manchester to Dover, across to Calais, along to just past St. Malo, a
visit to a house, a visit to a "solicitor" to buy it, to a hardware
shop for woodworm spray, to the house, back to Calais, across to
Dover and back to Manchester. Three of us, over a weekend, so as not
to lose time off work.

You drove across the channel? No reason why your vehicle couldn't be
charged during the crossing. Likewise at the house etc you were
visiting. Electricity, unlike diesel or petrol, is available near
everywhere.

They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

Why?

Because it makes no sense.

Anything is possible.

But plenty isnt economic, and this is one of those.

At one time, you had to buy petrol from a chemist shop.

Irrelevant to what is economic now.

The house we were "visiting" (to buy) was not ours until we had done the
paperwork, had only a 3kW supply limit, was at the time disconnected and
we only stopped there long enough to look (bought as seen on the day)
and again for an hour to spray woodworm killer.

Charging anywhere on route, would have delayed us considerably.

Not been around when petrol was in short supply? I have been.

Doesn’t happen often enough to matter and you get
the same problem with electricity supply anyway.

"GB" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2021 17:09, Robin wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the end
of the world.


I don't feel that I need to know for certain that the climate
catastrophe hypothesis is correct. It's just not fair to future
generations to risk it.

Do you think the "end of the world" hyperbole helps? I am sorry to say
that to me it just signals someone who (consciously or not) has bought
into the hyperbolic non-science. And probably also thinks that eating
meat should be banned from 2025.


I couldn't resist the wording. Sorry about that! Runaway climate change

Taint gunna happen.

would make life on earth extremely difficult, and that is one of the
possible outcomes.

Nope.

Clearly, the earth would continue to exist.

The point, though, is that people are complaining that they may not be
able to use their favourite picnic spot on long journeys, whilst ignoring
the idea that people in arid areas may effectively be without water.

That last is bull**** too.

Those too losses don't seem comparable to me.

Pity one is just your silly little pig ignorant fantasy.

T i m wrote

And probably also thinks that eating
meat should be banned from 2025.

Whilst I doubt it will happen from 2025

I know it wont.

(it will continue going that way of course)

Bet it doesn't. Its just another fad.

but do you think we will be able to continue to feed
an ever growing population AND as many livestock
as people on the current viable land indefinitely?

Yep given that world population will peak and start dropping.

Or do you think we should just carry on flattening places like
the Amazon [1] and other ecosystems until we fell the last tree

Taint even possible that that would happen.

and then look to see what other planet we can **** up?

We wont **** up this one.

"GB" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2021 18:16, Steve Walker wrote:

The point is that even if you don't do it often, electric cars aren't
capable of it when needed. I don't want two different cars, just one to
fill all the roles I need it for. For me a plug-in hybrid would make the
best sense. 60 miles range would cater for me in day to day driving on
electric only, almost all the time, but with the ability to do longer
journeys, as and when, at zero notice.

One of the manufacturers was looking at a little trailer with a motor +
generator that you could hire for long journeys. Or leave in the garage
until needed, so you weren't lugging around a heavy engine just for a trip
around town. It doesn't seem to have caught on. Maybe, it will.

Not a chance given that most cant back a trailer.

"Theo" wrote in message
...
charles wrote:
I'd considered that as a possibility when thinking about buying an
electric
car. Ah - I'm 81 and hiring a car if you're over 80 it is, apparently,
very difficult.

Do you do journeys of 300+ miles without any breaks?

Yep.

If you don't, an EV is likely to be able to handle it

Not with decent comfort control for the occupants.

(although perhaps there are other reasons why it might not suit).

Yep, **** all in the way of charging points or even petrol stations.

I think the people who do major road trips without stopping
for refreshment or toilets might be in the minority.

Yes, but they don’t normally stop for long enough for a
decent charge of the EV that has run out of battery charge.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/05/2021 00:08, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the end
of the world.

It's not a "little inconvenience" when you are literally unable to get to
a family funeral in time without a petrol or diesel car!

The same way we coped before the motor car, with careful planning.

It was actually done by missing the funeral that far away.

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 20/05/2021 00:30, Fredxx wrote:
On 20/05/2021 00:08, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the end
of the world.

It's not a "little inconvenience" when you are literally unable to get
to a family funeral in time without a petrol or diesel car!

The same way we coped before the motor car, with careful planning.

How can you plan for a sudden death and the funeral being the next day, on
the far side of Ireland?

By having a decent ICE.

In Ireland if someone dies in the night, people are typically notified the
next day and the funeral is the day after.

And its even worse with jew, the worst of the fundamentalists need
to be buried or cremated the same day. Moslems arent much better.

We found out when we got home from work and found the message shortly
after 5pm - we had to get from Manchester to Sligo for the funeral at
11am. Too late to drop the kids off and get a flight that night, first
flight in the morning arriving too late for us to get a hire car and cross
Ireland. The only option to drive and use the ferry. With time to drop the
kids, get suitable clothes together, book ferries, etc., we arrived at the
church with 15 minutes to spare.

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 20/05/2021 00:08, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the end
of the world.

It's not a "little inconvenience" when you are literally unable to get
to a family funeral in time without a petrol or diesel car!

The same way we coped before the motor car, with careful planning.

yes , three or four days notice should be given of intended death.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle