Slashdot Mirror
Electric Vehicles Can Meet Drivers' Needs Enough To Replace 90 Percent of Vehicles Now On The Road (phys.org)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Phys.Org: Researchers at MIT have just completed the most comprehensive study yet to address whether or not existing electric vehicles could bring about a meaningful reduction in the greenhouse-gas emissions that are causing global climate change. Yes, they can. The study was published today in the journal Nature Energy. Phys.Org reports: "'Roughly 90 percent of the personal vehicles on the road daily could be replaced by a low-cost electric vehicle available on the market today, even if the cars can only charge overnight,' Trancik says, 'which would more than meet near-term U.S. climate targets for personal vehicle travel.' Overall, when accounting for the emissions today from the power plants that provide the electricity, this would lead to an approximately 30 percent reduction in emissions from transportation. The team spent four years on the project, which included developing a way of integrating two huge datasets: one highly detailed set of second-by-second driving behavior based on GPS data, and another broader, more comprehensive set of national data based on travel surveys. Together, the two datasets encompass millions of trips made by drivers all around the country. By working out formulas to integrate the different sets of information and thereby track one-second-resolution drive cycles, the MIT researchers were able to demonstrate that the daily energy requirements of some 90 percent of personal cars on the road in the U.S. could be met by today's EVs, with their current ranges, at an overall cost to their owners -- including both purchase and operating costs -- that would be no greater than that of conventional internal-combustion vehicles."
How about all the people that live in apartments with first come first serve parking? Or people that park in the street? Or way down the street? Overnight charging is not simple for everyone.
as soon as they send me a cheque for $36K I'll get one asap, until then I'll keep driving my 2011 Yaris, 2015 Journey, 1984 D150 and a lifted 1988 Bronco.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Great, send me the electric vehicle that replaces my '98 Ford Escort at trade in value. And it better not be a used golf cart.
This space intentionally left blank
By working out formulas to integrate the different sets of information and thereby track one-second-resolution drive cycles, the MIT researchers were able to demonstrate that the daily energy requirements of some 90 percent of personal cars on the road in the U.S. could be met by today's EVs, with their current ranges, at an overall cost to their owners -- including both purchase and operating costs -- that would be no greater than that of conventional internal-combustion vehicles.
Achille Talon
Hop!
I would love to switch to an electric vehicle, but the reality is that after moving into the city, I might go weeks at a time without touching my car. Also, I tend to make 8 or 10 long-haul trips a year, which wouldn't be feasible in even the best electric vehicles. Yes, I could rent a vehicle for those trips, but then in my situation, I'm renting the vehicle just to drive 500km, park it for a week, then drive the 500km home.
If I wound up in a family situation where we became a two car family, absolutely, an electric vehicle would make sense for one of them. On the other hand, my car (a 10 year old Jetta TDI) is still extremely reliable, and very cheap to operate, and still one of the more efficient vehicles on the road.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
When they can get the batteries to last properly in Ontario Winter temperatures, and go further than 100km on a charge il consider one. until then i dont plan on having to make a overnight stay in the closest city before heading home the next day just so i can go shop at costco.
I routinely rent cars for the weekend for less than $30 per day. For that once-every-4-months trip where an electric wouldn't cut it, this seems like a viable solution.
Ok, lets NOT talk about a power grid that would be completely overwhelmed and collapse without billions in investment..
I grew up in the mid west, where winter temperatures frequently spend weeks in the below zero range - battery efficiency simply doesn't work well enough there... so cross off 1/3 of the country..
Now I live in the PNW (pacific northwest, for you non-tree huggers) , I commute about 15 miles to work, and yes and EV would suit my commute need - BUT, I pull a camper for vacations and hunting, so my usual driver is a Ford F350 diesel... I have no room to park another vehicle. So either I give up all my hobbies, or 'they' build a 4x4 EV with a 300 mile range while pulling a 30' travel trailer. (Actually, I usually drive a motorcycle to work, unless it's raining - remember, the PNW thing, so that happens alot)
In full disclosure, my wife drives a Prius. Her commutes are anywhere from 2-4 hours, depending on destination. (she's a corporate officer for a company with many locations) The 50 MPG is good enough, and we don't have to worry about a charge problem or availability when she's a couple hours away. So between the Plains/Midwest temperatures, lack of infrastructure across the entire US, or lifestyle - I'm would be willing to bet the actual number of people who COULD switch on a practical basis to an EV is fractional of their WAG number.
Wake me when they can fit in 90% of drivers' wallets.
I'm not interested in a car that gets me to 90% of the destinations I need to go to. Odds are those 90% are able to be handled in lots of ways (including borrowing the neighbors car). I'm interested in the other 10%. Do they have an electric vehicle that can carry lumber and sheets of plywood from the hardware store? Do they have electric vehicles that I can take on a remote and rough dirt road so I can watch the sunrise from a vista? Do they have an electric vehicle that I can put the kids in along with all their friends? The answer is NO. The solution is simply to not replace the standard vehicle but to add an inexpensive and highly efficient vehicle such as the Elio that can be used for 90% of the tasks. Then I can use the truck / off road vehicle / minivan for the other 10%.
Spin up those coal fired generating plants.
Have gnu, will travel.
A couple years ago Elon stated that he was focusing on decreasing cost instead of increasing range, precisely because of this sort of thing.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Some pros: .
.
- The lack of engine noise definitely reduced my daily commute stress.
- Way better USABLE acceleration means I can easily change lanes anytime (I am sure a race car driver in a comparably priced ICE standard transmission could beat me, but most people are not race car drivers. An ICE car driven at the same routine acceleration would not last very long, runs the risk of going out of control due to the inconsistent torque, and is embarrassingly loud at pitiful speeds. When we occasionally rent an ICE vehicle, I am blown away by how crazily loud a little punch on the pedal is, resulting in an unsatisfactory driving experience in comparison. Having an EV has killed the joy of driving an ICE for me. .
- Guiltless endless A/C when parked.
- For my routine driving, I never have to worry about "stopping to fill up" because I am doing that every night at home.
- Even at these gas prices, electricity + battery is cheaper.
Some cons:
- The endless times I get to hear "resale value sucks for EVs" because an entire industry is unable to factor the $7,500 tax credit new purchases get. .
- Range. . . though Austin, TX has put in a network of supercharges, so not really the case for me anymore. Range never comes up during my usual driving routine, though.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
The power grid is very lightly used at night. That's the sane time to charge most vehicles, and to buffer energy for the following day. There's no power grid problem in the sense of "not enough power." It's a logistics issue.
Technology issue, presently unsolved -- but ultracaps can provide the temperature extents and service life if and when they get them into an energy storage / size / weight range needed. Remains to be seen if this can be done, but odds seem pretty good that it can from my POV, given progress to date. That's an IMHO, of course.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
And what about low income poeple like myself? I guess we just get fucked when they ban internal combustion engines?
I have a gasoline car. Sure, 90% of what I do could be done with an electric can. But I still need a gas car. An no, if you think I'm going to go out and rent a car when I do need a gasoline car then you're full of it. I'm not going to own a gasoline and an electric car for one simple reason, the insurance industry is running a huge scam in getting the state legislatures to force us to have liability insurance on each vehicle we own even if we can't be driving them all at once.
If you have a teenage driver in the family or you ever have an accident or know anyone who has, you know the insurance is really on the driver and not on the car. And the driver can only drive one car at a time. The only reason we pretend the insurance is on the car and not the driver is to make more profits for insurance companies. Otherwise we should not require liability insurance on more vehicles in a household than there are licensed drivers in the household.
So if you want clean air and reduced global warming, then get the damn laws cleaned up to not give the insurance companies a windfall when a person owns two cars, or a household owns more cars than they have drivers. Until then people like me who need the ability to fill up on the road when on a trip beyond the range of our toy electric car, will need gasoline cars. As expensive as it would be to own a second electric car, it would be more expensive to take the double hit on liability insurance (I have a good driving record and no points against me and I already pay more for insurance each year than I do for gas). There is no way that I or others like me are going to spring for an electric second car and then enrich the insurance companies further than we already do.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
That's actually really easy to solve, at least in principle. It involves a gasoline-powered generator with a moderately large gas tank on a small, rolling trailer that hooks over your car's trunk or to a trailer hitch or whatever. In an ideal world, if every car company took electric cars seriously, you'd be able to rent a standard generator trailer at Home Depot or Wal-Mart or whatever for the weekend, and every car would have a 220VAC charge cord hidden in the trunk specifically for that purpose.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Where I visited in Europe everyone seemed to have a trailer hitch, but no one had trailers. Every gas station had a few in the out lot for rent. If you had 90% of your driving covered there's no reason there couldn't be a service to step in for the other 10%. Be it Uber or a car rental service.
Maybe go in with 5 of your EV neighbors and get a time share vehicle.
Rentals for long trips are great.
Something breaks far from home? Not my problem. Idiot driver or child damages something? Bought the extra insurance.
I just wish they had more manual diesel vehicles like they do in Europe.
I'm kinda wondering - CO2 sits at the bottom of a tank because it's heavier than air.
If you made airtight fish (with the tops open) tanks about 12 foot high then stuck them in a desert - let one be just air, and the other have a high concentration of co2 and put a temperature sensor in both - that should solve the whole co2 debate.
Am I wrong in thinking that?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
I think this study fails to see people as people instead of only in aggregate. If an electric only met my needs 90% of the time, I still need a different vehicle for 1/10 trips - and so would almost everyone else. That's not the same thing as 90% of people not needing internal combustion - and the study even mentioned a need for car sharing. And that is not a small percentage, when you consider the overhead of coordinating a car share.
So yes, the road could be mostly barren of internal combustion if everyone was on board, but that lost convenience is a cost that most people will still want to pay for if the other choice was sharing a car.
It sounds like they analyzed in terms of vehicle-days, not in terms of owned vehicles. The press "helpfully" converted this into "90% of vehicles" which is inaccurate. Yes, probably 90% of vehicles driven on any given day could be replaced by current EV ranges. But I'd guess probably 95% of vehicles can't be replaced by current EV ranges. See, the vast majority of cars are driven short distances nearly all days. But a few times a year they're called on to drive 200-500 miles in a day, for things like that drive to Grandma's for Thanksgiving, weekend trip to Vegas, etc.
If you applied the same type of analysis to car safety, you'd find that 99.99% of vehicle-days, seat belts don't protect you. And therefore it'd be ok to get rid of seat belts in cars.
The flip side of this is that vehicle-days is a valid metric if you can convince people to rent an ICE car for their few trips a year which exceed an EV's range. People erroneously think they've paid a lump sum for the car when they bought it, so driving it for that one long trip is "free" while they have to pay "extra" money if they rent a car. I've been trying for years to convince people that the cost of a car (as well as most other things) is a rate, not an amount. The cost of fuel, maintenance, and depreciation to operate a car is usually in the ballpark of 40-50 cents/mile (insurance drops out since it's mostly based on time).
So driving 500 miles (round trip) to Grandma's for Thanksgiving actually costs you about $200-$250 of expenses and depreciation. Renting an ICE car for those few long trips is very competitive. And you can use your EV as for the other 95% of days.
I just sent a set of Trucknutz to Germany with my cousin, for a coworker of his girlfriends.
They are hanging from a set of those tiny trailer hitches common on eurocars.
I would have broken the bread and gotten the set that hooks to the blinkers, but I suspect he won't leave them on for long.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
* somebody is else is paying.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Right, you will rent a car three times a year for those times where an electric car does not have enough range. I would imagine the same for much of the US. I also imagine that those three times a year land on or about Easter, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. If what you propose catches on then enjoy being able to rent a car while you can because you might find yourself wanting to rent a car and none will be available.
This just tells me that there is a sort of saturation point for electric vehicles and it's not 90%. I don't know what the ratio might be exactly but I believe that electric vehicles will never exceed 50%.
My calculations on this are far from rigorous but just a general idea on how people in the USA drive and how many vehicles a typical family owns tells me that quite a few people would not be satisfied with an electric vehicle as their only means of transportation. EVs might be nice for a second car, or for childless people with short commutes, but for those that want to take those long trips a few times a year they'd likely buy a hydrocarbon powered vehicle.
To those that believe EVs will catch up with ICEs in time I will tell you that physics are against it. Batteries, fuel cells, capacitors, or any other electrical storage device you can think of simply cannot compete with hydrocarbons in energy density. Additionally, any technology that can make an electric car lighter can be applied to a hydrocarbon powered car. Making cars out of aluminum instead of steel, or whatever, to make a car lighter makes gains on every fuel type. Given the energy density problem with electric storage this means that EVs are just as likely to lose with technology advancement as they are to gain.
This energy density problem is not a matter of being ten times heavier than gasoline but more like hundreds or thousands of times. This is a matter of physics that no foreseeable technology can solve. I won't say that it cannot be solved since we've been surprised before. I will say that the chances of this being solved in our lifetimes is very very small.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
But the $7.5K is a non-refundable credit -- it reduces your taxes, but not past zero. So if you believe that all taxation is theft, maybe you should buy as many electric cars as you can so you can zero out your tax bill.
Amory Lovins worked out the current cost situation a while back in his book "Reinventing Fire." According to him, fuel cell vehicles will also reach parity in a few more years, so there is the other 10% covered.
It turns out there are not so many people like that hence the article. It's about size of niche and not total world domination.
Ever had to get an engine block out of a car :) I'll leave that as an example that "any" just doesn't quite fit.
I saw a hybrid at a mine site in 1986 - seemed to be solved for a lot of situations and the solutions have just kept on improving.
Lol. And that is why Tesla pre-sold 400,000 model 3s and why German car makers are in near states of panic at realizing that consumers want EVs.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Huh. We own a Tesla and drive up to 14,000 feet and back home with no issues. Going to Mary Jane, a basin, copper or even steamboat is none issues as well.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
By their own statistics, the all electric vehicle would not cut it on an average of 3 days a month. Seems like its not quite ready for prime time just yet. Maybe its ready to be that second vehicle for folks with short commutes, but electricity is not free. The same environmentalists that advocate all electric vehicles would oppose building all the power plants needed to keep them charged if everyone actually had one. Instead we have "flex alerts" and tiered power usage fees.
You are in luck. The bolt and M3 are available within a year for 35k. And considering that the average accord price is around 30k, well, not much.difference.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It would seem they are making some assumptions that I'm not so sure will prove to remain true over time. One thing they assume is that the price and capability of electric cars will remain stable or improve.
I have little doubt that we'll see battery technology improve. What I do see is that batteries are hitting some very real physical limits. The way batteries work means that there are limits to how much energy that one can store per mass and volume. Add on top of this the need to withstand considerable forces, over long periods of time, and remain safe enough that people can be within arms length of it. I suspect everyone reading this has seen videos of exploding laptops, read stories of laptops self immolating, and of house fires caused by faulty batteries in everything from cordless tools to those wheeled skateboards that college kids enjoy so much these days.
It's not just the safety of high density batteries but the cost. Some advancement in batteries is due to chemistry changes, but much of it is from increased complexity. Adding complexity adds cost. The chemistry comes at a cost too. Lithium is a popular material for batteries but that element is not especially plentiful. I'm not suggesting we'll run out of the stuff only that with increased demand comes increased cost.
Then there is the assumption that hydrocarbon fuels are somehow problematic. With few exceptions the demand for electric cars comes from a belief that hydrocarbon fuels are "bad" for us. While I do share the belief that we should find alternatives to importing oil into the USA I do not believe we need to dispose of the hydrocarbon fueled vehicle to do it.
I will say that I do not believe that burning fossil fuels will bring catastrophic climate change. I believe that the problem of burning oil is economic. The USA should be able to produce all the oil it needs domestically if only the federal government would allow us to do so. But let's ignore that as I will concede that fossil fuels are problematic if it means we move to finding viable alternatives.
The reason I've been saying "hydrocarbon" fuel instead of "fossil" fuel is for two reasons. First is that I believe that oil from the ground is primarily from chemical processes within the earth, not from long dead plant and animal life. Second is that we can produce hydrocarbon fuels without having to pump it out of the ground.
We know of ways to produce hydrocarbon fuels from things like sewage, waste products that we'd normally landfill, and seawater. What it takes is an energy source that is other than carbon we dig up from the ground. The best source is nuclear power. The US Navy has been researching ways to get hydrogen and carbon from the sea and use that to synthesize hydrocarbon fuel. By doing this we close the loop on carbon. The hydrocarbon fuel from this process will, when burned, return to carbon dioxide and water. The rain will return that CO2 and H2O to the sea where it can be reconverted to fuel again. This means no more drilling for oil.
I see the solution in synthesized hydrocarbon fuels. We do this and people won't have to compromise with electric vehicles to reduce the carbon added to the atmosphere. I see the solution in nuclear power, not electric vehicles.
Suppose this synthetic fuel technology never does work, that still leaves us with electric vehicles getting charged up with electricity from coal and natural gas. Nuclear power is cheap, plentiful, reliable, and safe. We cannot say the same for solar and wind. If we all agree that "fossil" fuels are bad then that means we need to replace it with something just as cheap, plentiful, and reliable. That means nuclear power. Anything else is suicidal and/or wishful thinking.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
People now charge their cordless phone, mobile phone, wearable, tablet, game device, home laptop, work laptop, power bank and cordless vaccum. And regularly change batteries on their wireless mice, wireless keyboard, TV remote, cable remote, game console remote, smoke alarms, burglar alarms, radio and alarm clock. And, if frugal, think about battery lifetime and replacement batteries for their cordless phone, mobile phone, wearable, tablet, game device, home laptop, work laptop, power bank, cordless vaccum and hybrid car. And if ecologically-conscious, think about rechargeable batteries for their wireless mice, wireless keyboard, TV remote, cable remote, game console remote, radio and alarm clock. And responsible battery disposal.
In addition to all this, we now get to charge the car each night - not with a USB cable or meek little battery, but a heavy duty cable that can instantly kill us if things go wrong.
Who's servicing whom exactly?
This little nugget is buried deep down in the article:
The study cautions that for EV ownership to rise to high levels, the needs of drivers have to be met on all days. For days on which energy consumption is higher, such as for vacations, or days when an intensive need for heating or cooling would sharply curb the EV's distance range, driving needs could be met by using a different car (in a two-car home), or by renting, or using a car-sharing service.
So the expectation is that the average person who leaves the city limits now and again has access to a second car with a gasoline engine.
The problem is that most cars are compromises for users. When I'm commuting to work I could use a pretty small vehicle, but when I'm out and about for other activities then a large vehicle suits me better. Living in an apartment restricts my options too, as well as road tax issues.
So either I have a commuting vehicle or I have a vehicle that also fulfills my other needs, having both is not really an option.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
My weekend trips are frequently to the mountains for a day of skiing in the winter. Where I am rental cars do not have winter tires on them and I do not go to the mountains in winter without them. I also have my ski box for carrying my gear which is not an option for rental vehicles (and I use for camping gear in the summer). EVs batteries drain faster in the winter because the battery is also used to heat it, reducing its range and causing worries about running out of charge in the winter when far from home. I would love to have a small EV for getting around town in, but I still need my gas vehicle and can't afford two.
You know they've designed cars that do exactly that (really quite well) already, right?
"Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
So many here are arguing against going with EVs. The arguments are varied. But most are missing a very important point that few car makers and no car dealer will tell you. German car makers are busy trying to compete with Tesla and losing ground. Their sales are plummeting on the models that compete with MS and MX. Some guy looked into why BMW is now advertising against Tesla M3 , with good car bad car data, and found that their 300 series sales have also started plummeting.
German car makers are working furiously trying to get real EVs going. This will mean that resale values of used luxury ICE cars will do a massive drop in value. In.fact, once M3, and MY hit the markets, it is expected that cars that sold for 25k and above will lose their resale value. The real question is not can you afford to move to EVs, but can you afford to lose massive amounts of money? Obviously, if you drive a Kia, don't worry. You have 5 years before your resale values be hit. Otoh, if you bought a caddy, BMW, Lexus, etc in the last 4 years, you should be concerned unless you are the type to drive it into the ground.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So do you think that you're stating anything that EV owners don't know about or haven't acknowledged? The article states 90%, the EV supporters have generally acknowledged that EVs are not (yet) for everybody.
So you're part of the 10% who aren't ready for EVs. That's fine.
1000km in 13 hours. Let's see. A Tesla model S can have a range of 300 miles. Roughly 500 km. You can get an ~300km of charge in 30 minutes using a supercharger.
So, given that nothing happens instantly, let's say this is moderately in the future and you're looking at a Tesla class vehicle, where the only real difference is that they're now cheaper and superchargers are common.
So, 2 30 minute charges = 600 km, plus 500 km for your morning charge. You'll complete your 1000 km with 100 km to spare.
Figure, oh, 80 km/hour, that's 12.5 hours, plus 1 hour for charging, giving me 13.5 hours for the total trip.
By the way, you are aware that you're supposed to take breaks during the trip, right? Roughly speaking, with the EV you can simply put them with charging - park in the charge spot. 2 sit down meals, which you'd generally want over a 13 hour trip anyways. We're assuming the charge station is close to, if not at, the restaurant. Part of the future thing, and keep in mind that we don't need huge buried or above ground tanks for the EV stations).
Half an hour is enough time for a good meal, but not a relaxed one. Of course, if you hypermile a bit you might be able to get by with only one 1 hour stop(enough for a full charge).
I don't read AC A human right
The trouble arises where every driver has that one trip a they make that cannot be met by an EV. You end up owning two cars or you get one efficient gasoline vehicle.
There actually are cars that are designed to address exactly that type of usage model, you know. Speaking personally, I went for a Chevy Volt, though there are other options available. As suggested in the article, most of the driving I do is electric-only, but, for longer trips, the gasoline engine is quite handy. By the way, I've taken it into the mountains numerous times (my most recent outing being to Mt. Sherman) and it's actually really nice to be able to recharge the battery a bit on the way back down.
"Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
But the percentage of miles driven? This number is dominated by vehicles that run all day.
Yes, the vehicles we use for commute and errands can generally be replaced with electrics.
The vehicles for which someone is calculating an ROI run all day and have much bigger engines.
Long haul trucks. Distribution trucks. Farm machines and many others. There is no alternative for diesel fuel for these vehicles and nothing even remotely on the horizon.
If these vehicles stop running billions of people will starve within weeks.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
that I am not rich enough to buy a car that doesn't do everything I want it to. I LOVE the idea of electric cars, but... every now and then I need my car to get me 800 miles or so down the road in a day, for a few days straight. My Subaru WRX will do that just fine, probably on 2 tanks of gas. The electric car won't. Possibly the Tesla with the supercharger will, but it won't do it on a single refill like the WRX.
The electric car has a long way to go to be a viable general purpose vehicle. it is a niche vehicle, for near-home travel. I can't buy a car _just_ for that.
The Tesla Model S90D has a range of 302 miles. That is an up-market car, but when the Tesla Model 3 comes out, it will have a base range of more than 200 miles, and will certainly have options for increased range with a larger battery. The Model 3 is set to cost $35000 base.
As for batteries, the life of the batteries is actually quite good, if the battery packs have a cooling system. Heat kills lithium ion batteries, so if you keep them cool they last a long time (btw. don't buy a Nissan Leaf...last I heard, they don't have battery cooling). Tesla makes their own batteries, and they are aiming for the batteries to last the life of the car. I have heard of Tesla Model S cars with 250000 km on the original battery.
As for hydrogen, please not this again. Read this or this. TL/DR: From a physics point of view, hydrogen is fundamentally inefficient. It is difficult to compress, store, and transport. It is also made from fossil fuels as a bi-product, which is one reason why the idea doesn't seem to want to die, in spite of having problems that CANNOT ever be solved...the fossil fuel industry is pushing it.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
The oil industry and fossil car industries are desperate that people not realise how convenient it is to have a charger in your garage.
For everyday around town use the home charger is fine. The problem is that it is not really 90% of vehicles that the electric car could replace but a single vehicle 90% of the time (which is still 90% of vehicles on the road at any one time). ~10% of the time we used our car for going on holiday or taking long road trips for other reasons. This, along with the incredibly high price, is what makes an electric car impractical for me. The high price will probably get fixed with time but to go on holiday with the family I need a car with a large range that can be refuelled quickly. While I would love to have an electric car with that capability for around the same price as a petrol driven one that is not something I see happening any time soon.
When the Tesla model 3 comes out, it's already been announced free access to super chargers isn't part of the package. A super charger is required to get charge time down to 45 minutes. It takes a LOT longer than that without the supercharger.
chargers are really a simple problem in queuing theory, similar to sewer design. blockages are held. Three guesses what a battery electric represents at a charger.
Hydrogen and electric are the only two vehicle choices that are carbon free. The oil/gas industry does not care which wins, they will supply the energy either way. It is the local governments that care because road infrastructure is largely paid for by fuel taxes. With hydrogen they do not have to change anything because they can tax hydrogen. Everyone going electric will require significant changes to how infrastructure is paid for.
Electric cars won't ever work because I drive 3,000 miles each way to work every day across all the peaks of the Himalayas hauling seven shipping containers filled with concrete. And if an electric car can't do that without me having to stop along the way, it's a useless piece of shit that nobody can ever use for anything. /UsualElectricCarNaysayers
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
"It turns out there are not so many people like that hence the article. It's about size of niche and not total world domination."
It just seems to me that the 90% claim is overambitious, or rather that even though 90% of drivers would be content with owning an EV that does not necessarily translate to these people buying an EV. There are many aspects to car ownership besides cost and driving capability. For example, SUVs are (or at least were) popular for many reasons, to reach this market there must be an electric SUV on the market. By the very nature of EVs I do not believe such a vehicle will be offered.
"Ever had to get an engine block out of a car :) I'll leave that as an example that "any" just doesn't quite fit."
And batteries are light as a feather?
"I saw a hybrid at a mine site in 1986 - seemed to be solved for a lot of situations and the solutions have just kept on improving."
A hybrid car? You mean as in it has an ICE in addition to the electric motor? It seems to me then that the solution to the shortcomings of an EV is to bolt on an ICE. In other words with all the improvements in EV technology we are still not much better than what we had 30 years ago.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
So? Just tax people based on miles driven. That'd have the additional benefit of having the less damaging vehicles pay less for the public road system.
Unless a bunch of other people all want to rent cars on the same day, like on Thanksgiving.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
200+margin miles of range is the tipping point for most people. Most people don't drive more than 200 miles in a day, even when they go somewhere distant for shopping. At an average of 50 MPH it's 4 hours of driving. Most journeys they can charge at home.
For distances beyond 200 miles there needs to be public charging infrastructure, which varies a lot from country to country.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Yes it is possible that electric vehicles meet 90% of the rides needs, but all FULL!! electric vehicles cost at least twice what the equivilant gasoline powered car costs.. And a lot of people just don't have the money to buy a new car, even have trouble buying a used car.. So it'll take at least a decade or two before most gasoline cars are replaced with an electric version..
Also a second problem is, as mentioned here a lot already, charging.. A lot of people don't have a parkingspace with a charger next to it, most parkinglots only have a few spots.. So unless more and more spaces get a charging spot next to it (maybe just convert all lampposts to a charging spot) OR a full charge is reduced to 5-10 minutes, then it'll take a time before people are confident enough to use their electric vehicle a lot more..
Let's not forget, a lot of the current 'electric' vehicled are hybrids, which have a small battery which is hardly enough for even a citydrive and have a gasolinepowered generator for the rest of the drive..
Until electric cars have better range and there are more charging stations installed they will remain a niche market that few will have any interest in.
From what I read about advances in battery technology, that day is coming, and quite possibly within a decade. Right now these cars are really expensive, but not long ago, so was air conditioning, electric windows, CD players, and lots of other things that you now see as standard in any car. They will become good enough and and cheap enough, no doubt about it. Now, one thing I would really like to see, which is not even that difficult to implement, is a vehicle where each whell has a separate motor and steering; wouldn't it be great if you could rotate all the wheels 90 deg and drive sideways into a parking bay? Or turn them so you could make the car rotate on the spot, which would be great for turning around in a tight space, as well as a brilliant way to make you passengers loose their lunch?
Most places have periodic inspections. Conduct those with an odo check, and tack on a mileage fee. Problem solved. Or tax electricity for transportation. That'd have the additional effect of driving greater efficiencies. The problem isn't hard to solve.
Learn to love Alaska
Mass transit is also not all that much more efficient than personal cars.
It pretty much is, when done even vaguely right. Here's a link:
http://www.inference.eng.cam.a...
see, e.g. P134: the amortized efficiency of the London Underground including the energy requires to run the stations is about 5x that of car usage. Both figures include the facts that neither the trains nor cars are full all of the time.
The Croydon tram is nearly 2x better again, the primary downside being that it goes to Croydon.
Efficiency measured as the energy (in kWh) required to move one person 100 km.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Electric motors are generally more efficient than internal combustion engines. We can create power with a stationary generator, and control the environmental emissions better than we do with a gas motor, but.
We need smaller and lighter vehicles. We need better laws protecting lighter vehicles, bicycles, strollers, scooters, motorcycles, pedestrians, personal mobility vehicles, vehicles for the physically challenged, and even commuter skateboards.
Have you ever heard of someone being arrested for stealing a bicycle, ever? In your how life time?
I've even witnessed auto-pedestrian accident, where the police tried to minimize the lawsuit, all to keep the system going.
But who is it serving?
Electric vehicles are in many cases great, but we still need to reduce our energy consumption, but first we need to create an infrastructure to let it happen.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Let's put it an other way so that 90% doesn't look so good.
They are about 365 days a year. There is 10% time an electric car won't work for you.
So that is being 36.5 days a year (over a full month) of times your electric car will fail you.
And most people will not have the luxury to buy a second car for those extra times.
In short that 90% number is saying that electric car technology and infrastructure isn't quite there yet. But packages in a way to fool people who do not want to dig into numbers.
They still need to work on longer range faster full charging. I would love to see the day where I can choose an electric car... However the technology and infrastructure isn't there yet.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Once a quarter I go camping on sand islands on a beach. These are inaccessible to normal vehicles and have no roads.
I've never owned a car capable of making this trip yet somehow I still do it 4+ times per year.
I also don't have a towball and my car is too small to tow a trailer. That also never stopped me from bringing a trailer load of things to the tip. It's like there are people who will lend you such special purpose vehicles for your special purpose needs in exchange for modest currency.
I see that with myself. I do car sharing. I only uise it to do shopping 90% of the time. I could easily take an electric car instead of a diesel one for the distances I do. It ios always less than 15KM, so there would be no issue in using an electric car.
Yet I don't. Why? Out of habit. I should start using them, because why not? When I speak about car sharing or about electric cars or about self driving cars or in fact about ANY new technology, the only thing I hear is why it won't work. I remember why the Walkman would be a bad idea and would never catch on. I remember when we said that mobile phones where a bad idea. I remember when we said that 4K was overkill. I even remember my parents talking about colour TV being stupid.
So yea, people will find excuses as to it being a bad idea, but more out of relutency to change rather than anything else.
And it is all not helped that it will cost the car industry also time and money to go that direction and they, at this moment, rather not invest and thus do not push. They have sold us the idea that the car is a status symbol and the more horse power it has, the better a person you are.
They even add sounds to cars that are too silent, so you can feel better about yourself.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Rentals suck. There is no rental office nearby making pickup drop-off highly inconvenient, vehicles have other peoples trash in them much of the time, I have to change my schedule to eliminate extra rental days, rentals are usually not as comfortable as the car I chose for myself, I have to spend time figuring out all the controls instead of instinctively knowing where everything is (safer), I have to transfer all my crap from my normal car to the rental and back, they don't always have the vehicle I need, I can't decide leave last minute and just go, changing plans becomes problematic in general, it is expensive even if you don't change plans, if I get a ding or scratch it becomes a bureaucratic mess. That's just my starter list.
No thanks, I rent often enough and get no pleasure from it. I'll buy a car that suits my needs. Its fine for some, just don't expect it to be fine for all.
Not true, according to EPA.
This is actually a bit dramatic. Methane emissions are only about 10% of greenhouse cases, but methane is 100x more efficient at trapping heat than CO2. Most of the methane emission do come from livestock. The only good thing is that methane disappears from the atmosphere quicker. We should indeed focus on reducing methane emissions.
This study is groundbreaking. It completely trashes any argument for tax subsidies for EVs. If the economics are the same, there's no reason for a tax subsidy. Consumers will simply buy based on their needs without any additional inducement.
So, using your daily EV car, with no record of your long distance rental means you are always within a few miles. Once you plan on not being near home means you have to plan out a trip, file paperwork for rental telling them your full plans and destination with their vehicle. Instant tracking of everyone on even in-country trips, with full historical record. No more need to chip anyone. Rental cars will have bio-scans to log all passengers on any longer than EV travel distance. Any singing by your party on your long trip will be recorded and sold to a car-pool-karaoke entertainment company to offset the outrageously high rental.
Charging stations with data/power cables recording your local travel at each charge to be warehoused in state data farms. Serial tracking at every plug. What snooping state would not want full 24/7 tracking of travel by anyone not on foot?
Black boxes to record not only details of travel, but scans all RF, audio, and maybe even visuals of everywhere the car winds up. Can probably figure out the identity of whom ever comes within 20 meters of the vehicle, so not only tracking passengers. It is a live bug on a grander scale than the cell phones in their pockets. Being labeled support electrinics for the car, you will find it illegal to remove the sensor and storage packs. With storage sizes so small now, it could record for a year waiting for an upload moment, but that would only occur when dumped in a pond in a failed attempt to hide the collected data.
I will stick with my gas can polluter.
This assumes that your needs are constant. The vast majority of vehicles on the road are, at any time, not meeting the needs. If you need an SUV 10% of the time, you end up driving around a large vehicle all of the time. And since it's much harder to find parking for a larger vehicle, you suffer that inconvenience. If you need an expensive luxury car, that's a bit different. Those are ugodly expensive to rent because they tend to have a low utilization. They sit on the lot waiting for somebody to rent them where the more mainstream cars come back from a rental, get a wash and maybe an oil change, and are back out the door in an hour.
Some of it reminds me of a guy who designed an aircraft for the average man only discover there were no average men.
Describing automobile use in terms of average trips driven average miles on average days seems to fall into that same trap. You discover that there are a lot of non-average use cases.
I do agree with your renting an ICE car logic. My complaint would be about the random vehicle factor of car rental.
I once made a week long trip to North Dakota over the holidays. We were carrying three people, a dog, luggage and Christmas gifts and I wanted to rent a Chevy Suburban; based on where we were going and bringing, there was no other vehicle which would meet our needs.
The rental car company, despite me making a reservation a month in advance, would not guarantee a specific vehicle make and model, only a vehicle they considered "in the same class" which included several smaller SUVs which would not have met my needs. We only ended up with the Suburban because my wife knew a regional executive with the rental car company and the friend pulled some strings and we ended up with a brand-new Suburban with about 500 miles on the odometer.
If I'm going to have to rent a vehicle for a specific purpose, I don't want to end up with a random vehicle that mostly just satisfies their fleet logistics and profit margin. Then you end up with a shitty fleet model that degrades from the trip. This may be fine for small one-time use of hauling plywood from Home Depot 6 miles, but not for a 1200 mile trip.
Leasing for 180 a month, gets roughly 60-70 miles a day put on it between me going to work, my wife going to see her horse, grocery store, pet store, book store, etc. I love driving it. Spacious and very zippy, it is our preferred vehicle for 95% of our needs. We also have a truck to pull the horse trailer, so it does the long hauls when needed. Maybe 2 cars isn't normal everywhere (LA, NYC), but growing up in Kansas and now living in Texas - everyone has 2 vehicles - one of them should be an electric. We have filled up the truck maybe 3 times this year, and I personally haven't been to a gas station this year. I also had insulation and a radiant barrier put in when we moved into this house. New windows and replacing the ACs have cut my electric bills in half, so I don't see any additional electricity from using it. It is the perfect solution for me.
People don't care about electric cars, sales are down, let's do a fake news story to try and boost sales of the cars people don't want!
"From what I read about advances in battery technology, that day is coming"
So meaningless in the real world, so it's not ACTUALLY there yet....
As someone who has heniously violated rental agreements over the years and suffered the consequences I'm aware of the many things you can't Do with a rental or it violates the rental agreement. Rentals are not as a rosy alternative as some people lead you to believe.
Typically you CANNOT:
1) drive the car out of state - driving across to another country is a great way to get a cavity search in addition to violating your rental agreement
2) drive the car on dirt or gravel roads
3) rent it at all if you are under 25 years old
4) actually use it to tow a trailer
typically when you rent a vehicle you DO get:
1) a big hassle trying to get every last dent and scratch signed off on rental on so you don't get massively screwed
2) soaked on the price of gasoline and bogus fill charges when you try to return it
3) pay a huge fee for "insurance coverage" which is basically bullshit laws that don't insure drivers but instead the vehicle just to line the pockets of the insurance industry. 4) don't get that attendant over there on return day and sign of on every little scratch and dent? Expect a massive bill screwing you over.
5) unlike a Eula you will be held responsible nearly 100% of the time in court for signing the rental agreement.
Between all the caveats in the agreement and the additional charges that aren't in those low quotes you see online rentals are almost never as cheap or convienent as one is led to believe.
I have zero interest in owning an electric car. Come back when cheap mass-produced ultra-capacitors are available and I'll reconsider.
[Insert pithy quote here]
So meaningless in the real world, so it's not ACTUALLY there yet...
I assume what you mean is "It's not perfect, and not RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, so it's a load of crap". Things in real life happen in real time; have a tiny bit of patience, it will do you good.
It's not that difficult. In California l pay an annual fee which is equal to the amount of gas tax.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
No, it does not assume my needs are constant. It assumes my need are variable. I choose my vehicle based on my variable needs, not necessarily 100%, but one that covers my needs adequately from my personal perspective. You can decide what works for you, but don't impose your standards on me.
You know what makes no sense? With a rental agency 15 miles away, driving my vehicle 15 miles to pick it up, driving 15 back to my house, then doing the whole thing in reverse end of trip. that is 60 miles of unnecessary driving, not to mention wasted time and added cost for me.
As someone who has heniously violated rental agreements over the years and suffered the consequences I'm aware of the many things you can't do with a rental or it violates the rental agreement. Rentals are not an alternative as good as some people lead you to believe. Typically you CANNOT:
1) drive the car out of state - driving across to another country is a great way to get a cavity search in addition to violating your rental agreement. This can get you deep into legal issues in some instances.
2) drive the car on dirt or gravel roads
3) rent it at all if you are under 25 years old
4) actually use it to tow a trailer
typically when you rent a vehicle you DO get:
1) a big hassle trying to get every last dent and scratch signed off on rental on so you don't get massively screwed
2) soaked on the price of gasoline and bogus fill charges when you try to return it
3) pay a huge fee for "insurance coverage" which is basically bullshit laws that don't insure drivers but instead the vehicle just to line the pockets of the insurance industry.
4) didn't get that attendant over there on return day and sign of on every little scratch and dent? Expect a massive bill screwing you over.
5) unlike a Eula you will be held responsible nearly 100% of the time in court for signing the rental agreement.
Between all the caveats in the agreement and the additional charges that aren't in those low quotes you see online rentals are almost never as cheap or convienent as one is led to believe.
And you have reading comprehension problems.
The "fix" isn't here NOW, so it is no good NOW. It MIGHT be there in the future, but I still see the flying cars they promised us...
But if your needs are variable, you are driving a suboptimal vehicle most of the time as there isn't a vehicle that's perfect for every situation. I'm not sure why the hostility in the response as I'm not telling you to do anything. But if that 60 miles of waste means you can drive an electric most of the time as opposed to an SUV then it isn't actually waste. You and the environment are both way ahead of the game. I drive a very capable vehicle but I can't remember the last time I towed something. One of the challenges is that most rental agreements prohibit towing. I'm not saying that there aren't drawbacks to electrics just that we are so used to the drawbacks of gasoline that we may be discounting them mentally.
Mass transit is more efficient big cities where you actually have a "mass" to move to a particular spot regularly.
If you live in a city that is smaller, mass transit will never be more efficient. There are simply too few people needing to go to or even near any one spot at any one time.
Sorry, but optimizing 'greenness' has its limits when it comes to impacting my personal life. The line is drawn differently for different people. You made a stupid assumption about a vehicle being an SUV, not sure why you did because I never mentioned vehicle type. That show just how presumptuous some are that think rental is a good solution for others, despite not knowing a damn thing about their needs. Kids, family, extended family, pets, work related travel, traffic jams, hobbies and sports, etc etc etc.
And did you even stop to think how expensive it would be to rent a car on a holiday when everybody does it? Why produce all those ICE vehicles when they will sit on the rental lot unused for off-peak periods, and have huge price hikes to make up for it during peak rental periods? When you scale rentals for a whole nation who not rents on holidays, it has its unintended consequences.
How about having a little patience and allow the solution to meet the needs of the people rather than workarounds that make nobody happy? And how about not assuming what anyone else needs?
And? Have you compared how far you can go on a dollar of electricity versus a dollar of gasoline? Big deal if superchargers start, pardon the pun, charging. Even if they charge a big premium making the prices even close to that of gasoline: the vast majority of your charging will still be at home.
Re your "blockages" analogy: gas stations need to be as big as they are because everyone fills up at stations, not at home. Only a small percentage of fillups will be (and are) at superchargers.
No, she's fine. My associate is vomiting for a totally unrelated reason.
I'm sure you will be able to pay for the use of the super charger, they wouldn't build the infrastructure and not let the consumer level cars use it. It will cost you money per charge, sure, but that seems pretty reasonable.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
At this point I would like to express my frustration at Tesla's use of the term super charger. Not to be confused with that hundred year old internal combustion engine technology the supercharger...or maybe it was meant to be confused.
So I need a 40 mile range to commute to work. Another 40 miles to get home. Allow 5% for variances, and I need 84 mile range. To pick up the dry cleaning or a rib eye for the grill, make it 90 mile range. Doeable.
Now, if I can charge at work, I need about 50 mile range. And here the math goes to hell.
With the Chevy Volt as an example, a level 2 charger (240v) maxes the Volt's (or a Leaf) charging at 3.3KW, or 10 miles/hour, so I need to charge 4 hours at work to restore a charge for those days I need more than max range. Let's actually assume that the ubiquitous electric car will NOT have 90+ muile range, but more like 50 mile range, to make the batteries affordable. So I need to charge at work.
It seems that this requires 13+ amps. I work with about 3500 other people. If we ALL carpool, those who don't vanpool, I see about 1500 cars out there. Over 9 hours, about a quarter of these cars will need a full charge, a quarter or so a half charge, and about have none - they are within range.
At any given time, of the cars needing a charge, about 350 will be charging. At 13A each, that's 4550A, a new and nontrivial infrastructure to build. And I work in the desert, where this can be buried without a lot of trouble, but still nontrivial. Will employers do this? Oh, and think through the actual infrastructure. Cables, connectors, people driving over cables, taking off with them attached, it gets interesting. My employer will, but not immediately and not all at once.
No, the conversion will be difficult, so I will need a car with that 90+ mile range to avoid charging on the fly.
And since I buy beaters, I'll be buying used electrics that will have at best 70% range, and I'll be using those savings on oil changes and engine/transmission maintenance to do battery repairs and cringe at the thought of the controller frying on a 118 day.
I know people who repair Prius battery packs, and they do a lot of simple mechanical stuff with interconnects. I'm pretty sure I'll figure out how to do that, since I can manage to change tie rod ends and upper manifolds. But electrics will not be without problems...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
But what if you live in NYC
Then you have plenty of transit options, making a personal car less necessary.
in an apartment, where you have to fight for a parking place.
If you do end up finding a job in a city less dense than New York City, make sure to lease an apartment with reserved parking and charger ports.
I was able to use an i3 with a range extender for about two weeks, and it really would work for the majority of my commute. And that's with a 110v socket in my garage, not a fast charger.
Practically speaking, it would work for most homeowners for daily use.
90% of the time I do not drive the long distance so electric car would serve me well. However few times in a year I need long distance car. On average typical office space is occupied in 80%. 20% of workers are sick, attending remote meeting, traveling on business trip, etc. But try to run office with 80% of seats available and quickly some workers will find out, they have no seat available.
The other issue is "potential" for long travel. Buying electric car you need to assume that the need for long distance travel will not occur even if you do not plan for the moment.
And on those rare occasions when they do drive further, even Tesla's supercharging (which is, BTW, very far from the limits of what's possible... alternative li-ion techs can take a charge several times faster) doesn't cost you that much in terms of range per distance traveled.
I have a spreadsheet here comparing different scenarios. For all of them:
* Non-filling overhead for both types of vehicles is assumed at an average of 8 minutes. A quick in-and-out may only be a few minutes, but stations that turn out to be well off the highway, traffic, stop lights, broken pumps, "pay inside only", gas station closed for the day, etc can significantly increase it.
* Gas pumps are assumed to be a fast 10gpm (some pumps are slower)
* Car is assumed to have a 13 gallon tank and go 400 miles.
* "Break times" are allowed to be accumulated and dont have to be at specific intervals, just the ratio of driving to resting.
Category A: drive until 40 miles range remaining
240-mile-range Model S: Optimal charge level is to 64%. Goes about 79% as far as the gasoline car in an all-out cross-country sprint (no breaks); 87% as far as a gasoline car following the DOT-recommended 15 minutes break per 2 hours driving; and 90% as far as a gasoline car following the EU rules for commercial drivers' breaks (45 minutes every 4,5 hours).
310 mile range Model S: Optimal charge level is to 60%. Relative to the same criteria, distance travelled is 84%, 91%, and 95%, respectively.
Category B: drive until 80 miles range remaining
240-mile Model S: Optimal charge to 80%. Relative distances 80%, 87%, and 90%, respectively.
310-mile Model S: Optimal charge to 72%. Relative distances 84%, 91%, and 95%, respectively.
Category C: drive until 120 miles range remaining
240-mile Model S: Optimal charge to 100%. Relative distances 80%, 87%, and 89%, respectively.
310-mile Model S: Optimal charge to 85%. Relative distances 84%, 90%, and 94%, respectively.
Note: this is for an "endless driving" scenario. But in practice, with an EV you'll generally start the drive full and end mostly empty. So the shorter the trip, the better the EV does over these figures, up to the point where trips require no recharge and the EVs best the gasoline vehicles.
No, she's fine. My associate is vomiting for a totally unrelated reason.
Odometer (with a whopping fine if tampering is detected) times vehicle weight seems the most logical way to deal with it. Then you're actually charging relative to actual road damage.
On the other hand, when it comes to public health, EVs have a far better score, since even on dirty power their emissions are emitted at altitude in less densely populated areas rather than at ground level right where everyone is breathing. So some benefit to EV drivers (and drivers of less polluting gas/diesel cars) would be only reasonable.
No, she's fine. My associate is vomiting for a totally unrelated reason.
We are a one-vehicle family, driving the most fuel efficient car that meets our requirements. We live in an area of extreme temperature fluctuations: winters get down to -40F for weeks at a time, and summer temps climb to +100F for most of the season. In theory, an EV appears to meet our daily driving requirements - short commutes to work, grocery shopping, etc. The problem lies in the fact we also use our car for several longer road trips every year. For us to remain a single vehicle family, an EV is practicable only if it total cost of ownership is the same or less than a conventional car, is capable of going 400 to 500 miles between charges, with recharge time under 1 hour. Finally, it needs to be able to pump out huge amounts of heat in the winter, and continuous full out air conditioning in the summer, without a huge hit in driving range.
Electric sounds great, I'd really like it to work. The problem is that at this point it move the problem upstream. You have to burn fuel or even more expensive rods to make electricity. While it is true you gain efficiency by centralizing energy creation electricity has to be made on demand and cannot be stored except in inefficient kinetic storage or more efficient but more expensive batteries. You also create waste in line transport and conversion.
But, as mentioned below, it ignores the long tern needs of the vehicle owner. My last car drove back and forth between Central Ontario and Nova Scotia maybe ten times in its 3 year life under my ownership. However, if you were to look at far more than 90 percent of the driving that I did with it you would find exactly 150 km a day on the highway, well within EV range. The cost of renting (flying not an option when I was completely filling a hatchback) would have been prohibitive as well as exceptionally inconvenient.
Then there is the fact that some times I would be arriving home late and leaving only 6 hours later, not as far as I know long enough for a full charge (do that several days in a row and it becomes a problem). Charging in the place that I parked for university was not an option. Oh, then there were those few times a year that the car would have to go to the city, around the city, back home and then to the city and back again for one reason or another...all in a single day. Oooh, and Nova Scotia Power sucks which meant that we lost electricity for meaningful periods a few times, certainly long enough to keep me home.
Now that I have moved to Ontario permanently the problem is different. I don't have electricity anywhere near my car, and I can assure you that fact is extremely irritating. Oh, and we are lucky that we have two cars because I had to do a ton of driving between hotels, airports and attractions in Ottawa and Toronto last month while my girlfriend was able to use the Miata while I was gone. The small "not-for-long highway-journeys" car which we bought instead of a four-door as a luxury. A luxury which, like an EV, has incoveniences that we have judged to be worthwhile. An EV has far more inconveniences and, aside from instant torque, gives back much less for your trouble.
My point here is that we would appear to be an ideal candidate for an electric car on the basis of 95% of our driving. Yet, that 5% would cost so much to replace or be so inconvenient that the claim of this study falls apart. I like the methodology of using energy consumed rather than kilometers covered, and I am surprised that they found an entire 10% of trips not to conform. However, in the real world the internal combustion engine gives people an option which most will use from time to time and which is of tremendous economic and psychological value.
We went through the EV vs ICE (and steam!) decision a century ago and all the same factors were in play. I am not claiming that the picture has not changed in favour of the EV, because it has. However, there is a reason that we went the the complexity and expense of the reciprocating piston engine and we would do well not to ignore that face.
There's ammonia that's carbon free, too. Although its current production uses a lot of natural gas as source of hydrogen and heat.
I thought it'd be a very interesting fuel, you can both store and transport it and that's being done at some scale already. If we can use high efficiency electrolysis to make the dihydrogen and an affordable reverse fuel cell to make it react with N2, I think it would be workable but it might be a pipe dream anyway due to the conversion inefficiencies and hence, cost.
an entire industry is unable to factor the $7,500 tax credit new purchases get
This page claims that you forfeit much of this tax credit if you don't already have a large enough income to pay $7,500 in income tax in a single year:
We just need to get rid of all the SMUG individuals .... thus we'll see a significant decrease in greenhouse gases.
Well, yes, that is London. Unless the entire country moves into an overcrowded city with astronomical real estate prices and huge social problems, that is not what is achievable for humans. Feeble attempts at arguments like that only show that you and the climate lobby (like the MacKay) simply have no credibility and are being deceptive.
Actually relevant numbers are here.
You are right, charging doesn't actually cost you much time, especially when you can combine it with your own breaks.
One thing I would say though is that Tesla is probably getting close to the reasonable limits for charge current at the moment. 300kW has been demonstrated, but you start needing rather heavy cables with active water cooling, and you run into problems like contact resistance generating massive amounts of heat.
The other limiting factor is the grid tie. Currently Tesla chargers come in pairs or even triplets, with each set limited to 150kW max. The first car to plug in gets as much as it can take, the other car(s) get whatever is left. So actually when you see rows of Tesla chargers, the grid might only be providing them with 600kW for 12 cars. As EVs get more popular the grid supply is definitely the limiting factor.
So in practice I'm not sure we will see cars going much beyond 150-200kW. At the current 120kW that's 240 miler per hour, so for most people 200kW is likely to be enough at something like 200 miles range in 30 minutes.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You seriously think that an Altima is a performance and luxury equivalent to a Model 3? Seriously? If you want a nicer car, you pay more. Electric or not.
Secondly, your whole "average commute...." line is so mixed up it's not even wrong. Electric car ranges are generally rated in distances. The longer it takes you to drive it (the slower you go), the range goes up. Unlike gasoline cars, the optimal steady-state speed for an EV is generally around 15-20mph. The highway-speed range can be drastically multiplied at steady low speeds - and they deal with stop and go better than gasoline cars. So if you half the speed, you don't just double the "time" it can drive for - you more than double it.
Model 3 has a range of 215 highway miles. In town, it's probably around 300 miles. Which at an average speed of, say, 30 mph, is about 10 hours of driving. Now I don't know what your daily schedule is like, but if you're spending 10 hours between commuting, picking up kids, groceries, and the dog (WTF? does your dog have a desk job or something?), then I think you need to rethink your life.
Lastly, the superchargers form a complete network along major interstates and urban areas all across the US, Europe, and other parts of the world.
I get it that you have negative feelings about electric vehicles, and that's okay. But please do learn about a topic before you start ranting about it. It doesn't help your cause any to base your argument on things that even a person with a most basic understanding of the topic knows are inaccurate. It's like posting a sign on the bus, "Because you are riding in a space ship, smoking is prohibited". The sheer ridiculousness of the first statement invites ridicule on the whole argument.
No, she's fine. My associate is vomiting for a totally unrelated reason.
Ayup - hydrogen is only useful as a fuel, when it is combined with carbon to make a hydrocarbon, which brings us right back to square one.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
How many americans own a second vehicle for just this scenario? Econobox for commuting/taking the kids to school and a Van/Truck for hauling stuff. An awful lot judging by the driveways where I live.
Replace the econobox with an EV the next time you are in the market and the commute is suddenly a lot more environmentally friendly with no change in lifestyle except you not longer need to keep watch for the cheapest gas around.
This is like saying smartphones don't ever run out of battery, because we plug them in every day at work and every night at home, whereas ten years ago our phones worked for two weeks between charges and then sometimes we forgot to charge them so we ran out. Now you don't ever run out anymore, because you're obsessively charging all the time.
I am amused that you listed this under "pro." I think you made a wise decision which worked out for you, so I'm totally not calling you stupid or some bullshit like that. But .. pro? No, it's a con that you successfully mitigated by adapting your life to the limitations.
I think.
Hm. I am getting confused about whether or not a mitigated con can actually maybe really be a pro. Hey everyone: help with the analysis. Is this guy wrong, or am I? He's right that he's not having to stop to refuel as an exception, but OTOH he's constantly putting in extra effort that internal combustion people don't have to think about very often. Is that a pro or a con?
Should I be summing up all the annoyances and comparing them over a long period of time (e.g. a year)? Yes, I think that's the correct way to figure this out.
This makes me want to coin a new word which means "amortized annoyance." Ammoyance? Annoytization strategy?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Every article I see about electric cars wants to have a drop in replacement for my SUV. What we need is a classification of vehicles that allows lighter cars limited to 50kph. No air bags, no backup cameras, just enough to get me to/from work. Additionally the states could encourage the use of smaller vehicles if they'd allow us to license and tag our cars as a two'fer. Given the choice of a small car that I can't take on a vacation with the kids and a SUV, I'm going to pick the SUV. But if you allow me to license the SUV and add the economy car for an additional $25, I'll buy the econobox to drive to work and keep the SUV at home until I need it. The present laws tend to push us to a one size fits all solution. So fix it so I am encouraged to do the right thing.
Well, yes, that is London.
It has numbers for Tokyo too...
Nonetheless, London is not especially unusual for a lage metropolitan area. Undeniably, many, many people live in lage metropolitan areas. And for those people, mas transit is undeniably efficient.
Unless the entire country moves into an overcrowded city with astronomical real estate prices
The huge spike in real estate price seems to be in no small part due to foreign investment. Not exclusively, but that's a big part of it.
and huge social problems
Like what? London's not exactly trouble free, but in the grand scheme of things it's not too bad socially as these things go. It's certainly not the socially worst place in England, never mind the UK.
And it also has figues for the whole of Japan on P121. Bus and train still win.
that is not what is achievable for humans
About 1 sixth of the entire united kingom has achieved it.
Actually relevant numbers are here.
Huh? There's some numbers for the US, and load factors for the UK. The load factor is surprisingly high. And the analysis section supports my argument.
like the MacKay) simply have no credibility and are being deceptive
In other news a professional physics professor from one of the top universities in the world has no credibility when it comes to energy. Right.
Go on, dispute one single point in Mackay's book. For bonus points find one place where he's being deceptive. I like how you automatically labelled him as "climate lobby" so you could dismiss the entire book without reading it. As opposed to you know, being the chief scientific advisor (party independent) to the ministry.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Hardly near the limits of charge current at all. Have you seen the disconnectable shore power connectors for cruise ships? We're talking over a dozen megawatts. Connectors look like this, though, you have to plug in each phase individually ;) If something like that was ever needed (super-rapid charging of long-range road trains?), I imagine it'd be set up to connect automatically if you pulled in.
Also it's worth noting that copper isn't the be-all end-all of conductors. There are now companies making carbon cables that slightly beat copper in terms of resistance per cross section and significantly beat it in resistance per unit mass. I only expect to see that grow in the future.
No, she's fine. My associate is vomiting for a totally unrelated reason.
Sure, that's what I mean. You can go higher, but practically for car charging people probably won't want to. They complain enough about the old CHAdeMO connectors that were half that size. Maybe if they can find a way for a robot to make the connection instead of a human having to do it...
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
First, it assumes supercharger stations are available for all the drive, and it then further assumes they are optimally positioned for the journey of the day.
1: Why are you repeating one of my suppositions? I'll repeat: " let's say this is moderately in the future and you're looking at a Tesla class vehicle, where the only real difference is that they're now cheaper and superchargers are common."
2: Optimally placed: There's roughly 100 km of flex built into the given scenario for the charging stations. The only reason it's not 200km is that you really need to get the EV down to at most 100km of range before you can get the really fast charge. IE you could stop after driving 300 km, but you're not going to get 300km of range in 30 minutes due to it charging slower the more charged it is.
3. Neither is likely to be true - Now, but as I posited in the "moderately in the future" scenario, it could be.
I suspect this (and maybe price) is why there is at least 10% that such vehicles won't presently work for.
First and second paragraph. Already stated.
In reality the above scenario would tack probably 90 minutes to the already long drive and would further restrict the routes that could be driven.
Already acknowledged. I was just saying that it's likely possible, with current technology, for the guy to make his drive without significant extra time, and if it DOES take him extra time, it's probably because he's not taking proper rest stops for maximum safety. What's lacking is infrastructure.
I don't read AC A human right
has slashdot acquired the technology to collapse a thread ? seriously how the f**k you do that.
Battery swap stations. Then this all becomes reasonable, and fill actually needs.
New battery technologies, light and robust enough for automotive use, allow recharge of about 80% of capacity in a matter of minutes (presuming you have a charger that powerful).
They're also extremely efficient. (They HAVE to be or the charging rate would melt them into slag.) So they make effective regenerative braking, with most of the energy stored in the battery, practical.
I don't know if the new Tesla plant will be making this. But I expect it will be deployed as an automotive supply within a couple years.
This, along with the logistical problems of "battery swap" solutions (especially in a many-player competitive market), will no doubt kill such schemes before they leave the drawing board.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
First of all, if you're counting on charging at home, lots of people don't have garage access for overnight charging. This might be mitigated by charging at work, but that's all of a sudden going to challenge the available power distribution for those areas. And that's adding to the peak power problem. And the average parking garage doesn't have 250-500kW service. Might work well in places like Phoenix AZ, where a shaded parking spot could become a shaded solar parking spot.
The next problem is overall power. If we did replace every ICE car with a BEV, we'd just about double the electrical demand of the USA. Just for cars, not even factoring in trucks, planes, and trains. Where is all that grid power coming from? And we'll need grid upgrades to deliver it.
And then there's production. Tesla is hoping to be able to supply batteries about 1.5 million BEVs per year from their Gigafactory... it's going to take quite awhile to replace all 250+ million passenger cars. And of course, ability is one thing, desire another. It's not even a stretch to imagine a large population in the US switching from paranoia about the Government coming to take their guns to one about the Government coming to take their cars and trucks.
This succeeds much better going slowly. That also delivers better costs on batteries and the chance of better technologies along the way.
-Dave Haynie
A useful back seat?
No, not really. A "range extender engine" (i.e. hybrid) is the worst of both worlds. With that design, you have:
The result is that the car in your link can only go a paltry 53 miles on battery. Most days, that's barely half my daily commute. So I'd be running on gasoline about half the time, which would mean I couldn't just charge overnight and avoid stopping for fuel. That basically eliminates the main benefit of an EV, all for the benefit of range that I would use maybe once a year at most.
If, instead, I could just rent a drop-on generator trailer, those headaches and maintenance burdens would be factored into the rental cost, and would be somebody else's problem. And because those costs would be spread out across lots of different renters, the cost to each person would be much lower even after factoring in corporate profits by the rental company.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Yes, the conclusion sounds reasonable, except it seems to overlook:
1. Affordability. This is improving, but even if we want to, most of us can't afford to replace our current non-electric car with an electric.
2. Charging access. This is also improving, but anyone who relies on street parking won't be able to charge their car at home.
It would be equally reasonable to say that riding in a taxi would meet 90% of drivers' needs. A taxi would get people to where they need to go most of the time. But for most people, it would be prohibitively expensive, and require extra time waiting for the taxi to show up in the first place.
Funny, the range extender works very well for me: Almost all of my driving is taken care of by that paltry 53 (really ~60 with how I drive) miles supported with a full charge. When I'm on a longer trip, and the gasoline engine is used as well, I'm averaging 42 mpg on the gas engine alone. Is that the best of both worlds? No, but it's pretty damn far from the worst. How do you think you'd average hauling around a generic generator?
By the way, if you live 50+ miles from where you work, maybe it's time to re-evaluate where you live/work. You know, changing your own situation rather than expecting everybody else to design for you.
"Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
IMHO an electric car that would be capable of a single-charge one-way trip from Silicon Valley to the Reno entertainment facilities and/or Tahoe ski resorts WOULD be a practical single vehicle, at least for many Silicon Valley early-adopters who use those sites as their primary take-a-break vacation sites.
It would handle both commuting on pure electricity (with recharge either at home or at work) and the common weekender vacations (with an overnight charge at the destination). It would also go five hours in semi-mountainous terrain and more on flatter land, making even cross-country trips practical with some advance planning (i.e. make reservations for lunch and dinner at restaurants or "truck stops" with a recharge facility)
(See parent posting for more discussion. This post is partly because I forgot to change the Subject: on that one to make it stand out.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Fun fact: I know my sensible sedan is 100% capable of a trip through the back country where I live...and it's pretty rough back country.
The problem here is that the summary itself is...well, let me quote the abstract:
We find that the energy requirements of 87% of vehicle-days could be met by an existing, affordable electric vehicle. This percentage is markedly similar across diverse cities, even when per capita gasoline consumption differs significantly. We also find that for the highest-energy days, other vehicle technologies are likely to be needed even as batteries improve and charging infrastructure expands. Car sharing or other means to serve this small number of high-energy days could play an important role in the electrification and decarbonization of transportation.
I don't know exactly what Nature Energy's...quality is, though given that it is a branch of Nature I'm willing to grant it a decent amount of credibility--which is probably why the abstract doesn't make any claims about electric vehicles being able to completely replace traditional vehicles, but rather that they can take over most of the needs in cities.
I'm not shelling out the money to make it past the paywall, but it looks very likely that their population is about as diverse as a KKK meeting--they explicitly say that they only looked at cities, and I'm inclined to bet that all of these cities were large metropolitan cities where at least a decent chunk if not all of that 87% of vehicle-days could be handled by a good public-transit system.
This is actually a very lovely example of a study that might as well have been very intentionally designed to prove a theory--by ensuring that anything that might be...inconvenient to their theory wasn't likely to be in fact involved, which means that of course they chose populations where range would be a 'fringe use,' and the wording means that 'evacuating the city' is a fringe use too. The study also means that they don't actually have to address the minor fact that 'car sharing or other means' might not be practical on those 'small number of high-energy days.'
Not only that, but it needs to be safe to use the public charging infrastructure--for example, you can't have them ever getting put in places where it's a Bad Idea to be if you're not local unless you're plunking them down like gas stations. Are you totally sure you'd like to spend 20-30min in the middle of the night in a town you don't know and not able to GTFO if needed?
You are? Okay. Go ask some friends who are not straight, white cismales about how they're going to feel about it. Hint: The answer will probably be "...yeeeah no." (If I get a bad feeling from a gas station? If I absolutely must get fuel there I will get a gallon before GTFOing but seriously I don't want to get raped and/or murdered because I happen to not be a cishet white man. One of the major reasons you keep a charged cell phone with you when travelling if you're not one is precisely so you can call for roadside assistance from a party you can trust.)
> The trick is to pre-warm the vehicle in a garage both at home and at work.
> And that user scenario accounts for most of the mileage this electric vehicle sees.
Great. You've reduced burning hydrocarbons, or using electricity, to power your car, in winter. But you've replaced that portion with burning hydrocarbons, or using electricity, to heat a garage in winter. Care to compute the overall cost?
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
It's actually set to cost 42,500. The 35K (which on it's own is quite expensive btw, my car costs new 23K) is assuming a 7,500 credit.
Oh for fuck sake stop bullshitting. It will cost 35k before incentives.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Try again. You are comparing the energy per volume which has little to do with vehicle performance, at least on land. What matters is energy per kilogram.
Gasoline provides about 45 MJ/kg
Lithium ion battery provides about 0.55 MJ/kg
That's roughly a 100x advantage for petrol. This is using top of the line lithium-ion batteries too, something that would be in a laptop and not necessarily a car. These expensive batteries might be in a Tesla or Cadillac while more affordable vehicles will use lower grade lithium-ion or some different chemistry. Future advancement might provide some gains on that, or bring the price down a bit, but it won't make batteries 100x or even 10x better. Even if someone can make a battery that can give a 2x gain the weight of the petrol will still be 1/50th the weigh for energy provided.
We are at a point of diminishing returns, we've made such leaps in battery technology before because there was a lot to learn even a decade ago. Now we've figured out a lot and there is not much room to gain any more.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Most people with electric cars will charge at home or work. Then you will have a full "tank" at the beginning of each trip. No detours to gas stations necessary.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Yes, and those happen to be the relevant numbers, because they are far more typical than London. What do you see? 1.6 MJ/passenger-km for transit, 2.3 MJ/passenger-km for cars. Public transit by bus is actually worse on average than passenger cars. So, not a lot of room for improvement.
The second area to look at: all road transportation worldwide contributes less than 10% to GHG, but the majority of those are commercial vehicles. Passenger cars are less than half that. So, even if you managed to eliminate all passenger cars and replace them with transit worldwide, you might reduce GHG emissions by maybe 1%; if you do it only in industrialized countries, it's a fraction of a percent. Utterly useless.
More importantly, though, people simply don't want to switch to public transit. Maybe you would like living in a cramped shithole like London, but a lot of people don't.
McKay largely stopped publishing real science some time in the early 2000's. Newton also was a "professional physics professor" (are there non-professional ones?), so I guess his occult studies must also be science! Grow up, man, you're not in grad school anymore.
MacKay's book is not even wrong.
If the generator is optimized to produce power at the standard voltages for charging cars, it would be approximately as efficient as existing hybrids, except for the extra wind resistance and rolling resistance involved. For something that you use less than 1% of the time, that's a big win, statistically, and if you have an EV with 300-mile range (or even 150-mile range), nearly every driver will use it less than 1% of the time.
Divide by two, subtract 20% for when the battery is ten years old and has less capacity than it did originally, and this really means that the hybrid will end up using fuel if you live more than about 20 miles from work. And the biggest problem is when you're traveling for any sort of recreation, where you aren't going to be parked for several hours to fully charge a battery. In those situations, a Tesla with 300-mile range works fine, and a Chevy will be using gasoline.
And in the grand scheme of things, we really should move away from ICE-based cars for air quality reasons.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Not really - a lot of people live in cities.
Compared with what they were fifteen years ago - yes.
Have some coffee or something to turn that brain on and you'll get that I did not mean anything of the sort. If you were just pretending to be an idiot to fuck with me then please stop doing so - the phrase "the solutions have just kept on improving" was placed there to stop such stupid fucking pretended stupidity games.
chargers are really a simple problem in queuing theory, similar to sewer design. blockages are held. Three guesses what a battery electric represents at a charger.
Uh, a river of excrement?
Nice job making up numbers, but they aren't at all accurate. Rolling and wind resistance isn't negligible, and your generator is going to tack on a lot of drag. Also, do you think that your generator will just drive the electric motor with enough current to allow for hard acceleration or hills (which would also require closely maintained feedback between the motor and generator)? How do you plan to handle that, exactly? The Volt, and other plug-in hybrids, allows it's range extender/generator to drive the transmission directly when it's more efficient to do so; but that won't be an option for your generator add-on.
Moreover, your 10-year battery estimate is way off when the operating battery temperature is actively maintained, and the depletion amount/load is limited, as is done with the Volt (and Teslas, and many other EVs). The Volt in particular is rated (and warrantied) to maintain it's charge capacity for 8-10 years, and, anecdotally, it seems that those claims are accurate. While there will be some degradation, to be sure, it's not at all in line with the numbers you pulled from your ass. As it turns out, battery degradation has been designed for, and the lithium-ion batteries in most EVs are not simply slapped into place or used like those in your phone or laptop.
Did it ever occur to you that, maybe, engineering teams have already considered the stuff that you're just spit-balling? You know, those design teams that actually rigorously researched -- and tested -- their design as opposed to simply saying, "I'll just make an add-on... that'll work!"
I'm sorry, but your idea is terrible.
"Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
Yes, and those happen to be the relevant numbers, because they are far more typical than London.
If you're completely US-centric then yeah. Like I said, they apply to 1/6of the population of my country and the book still has numbers for the ENTIRE Japan where bus and train still win efficiency wise by a mile. The US is many things, but being good at mass transit ain't one of them.
More importantly, though, people simply don't want to switch to public transit. Maybe you would like living in a cramped shithole like London, but a lot of people don't.
More than half the world's population lives in cities. So you can take your fact-free, emotional arguments and shove 'em. Reality disagrees with you.
McKay largely stopped publishing real science some time in the early 2000's. Newton also was a "professional physics professor" (are there non-professional ones?), so I guess his occult studies must also be science!
Can't rebut the argument or facts, so attack the man! That is literally the definition of ad homenim. Not only that, it turns out you simply made up that accusation. His google scholar profile disagreed with you entirely.
Grow up, man, you're not in grad school anymore.
If growing up means becoming like you: one who argues based on emotion and logical fallacies then no thanks, you can keep it!
MacKay's book is not even wrong.
IOW you can't find anything wrong with it, so you're going to misuse pithy quotes from smart people.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The Tesla Model S90D has a range of 302 miles. That is an up-market car, but when the Tesla Model 3 comes out, it will have a base range of more than 200 miles, and will certainly have options for increased range with a larger battery. The Model 3 is set to cost $35000 base.
Doesn't really replace offroaders though, maybe one day they'll make a viable offroad vehicle with decent range and towing power but I think it's more likely that we'll see a split between those who can get by with electric vehicles and those who switch to fuels like biodiesel and ethanol fuels. I'm not fussed if it costs a bit more and by all means as I said if there comes a decent electric vehicle that suits my needs I'm all for it. But you can't sell me on a solution that doesn't exist.
From a physics point of view, hydrogen is fundamentally inefficient. It is difficult to compress, store, and transport.
This was the same case with batteries once upon a time. If it doesn't work out, no biggy but I'm hopeful.
Try to understand I'm not advocating any solution, electric doesn't solve it for me now but if it does one day then i'm all for it.
Again, I'm not making any assumptions. But I can tell you that weekends / holidays tend to be times when rental cars are cheap. I rent a car every week for business travel and I can tell you that the weekend / holiday rates are always lower. If a person needs a vehicle that will be useful in the widest variety of situations, it's an SUV. If you have a midsize sedan and then you need to transport a bicycle? Rent an SUV and the rental cost of bringing the bike home for Christmas is more than the cost of the purchase? The problem with the "meets all my needs" thinking is that it is somewhat of a slippery slope that leads to everybody driving a Hummer "just in case."
I can tell you that travel Holidays and peak vacation weeks are the most expensive rental times, and when rentals tend to be hardest to book last minute.
Many people move to cities because they have to, not because they want to. Most families prefer detached houses with yards, meaning densities at which London style transit efficiencies are not achievable.
Quite the contrary: you couldn't come up with fact-based arguments for why switching to public transit would result in meaningful reductions in GHG, so you resorted to an appeal to authority ("professional physics professor from one of the top universities in the world"). I'm pointing out that MacKay isn't even much of an authority to appeal to: he largely stopped publishing in his field a decade ago and then jumped onto the global warming bandwagon.
I'm sorry, I forgot you have trouble connecting the dots, so let me be more explicit. MacKay's book is a collection of observations about individual energy usage, but he neglects social, political, and economic factors. That is, his recommendations will not have the effect he suggested they would be having.
Growing up means that you stop arguing based on emotion and logical fallacies, like you are currently doing.
I noticed that you found no fault with my numbers. The fact remains: personal transportation is a small percentage of worldwide GHG emissions, and any reductions in this area have no meaningful effect on climate change.
Many people move to cities because they have to, not because they want to. Most families prefer detached houses with yards, meaning densities at which London style transit efficiencies are not achievable.
So basically you're saying all the verifiable numbers about urbanisation are wrong because reasons.
an authority to appeal
As opposed to your argument which is "I don't like what he says so he's wrong".
he largely stopped publishing in his field a decade ago
You're flat out wrong. Google scholar confirms you're wrong.
but he neglects social, political, and economic factors.
The book is about whether it's possible to survive off renewables. The book does not ignore those things, he points out that the requirements (e.g. covering literally half of the country with windmills) would be unpalatable.
That's ignoring in the same way that not ignoring is ignoring, which is to say not.
The fact remains: personal transportation is a small percentage of worldwide GHG emissions, and any reductions in this area have no meaningful effect on climate change.
I'm not engaging with those numbers because you're moving the goalposts. The original claim was that mass transit is inefficient. This is demonstrably false. You know unless, say, the UK and Japan don't exist. For example. Oh and France. And Germany. And so on.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You know you can RENT a non-EV car for that other 10% right ?
Renting is not always possible when you have a family+dog and need to rent a minivan. Availability is usually very limited and often instead of a minivan they will treat some combined SUV+minivan bastard offspring as equivalent which usually have appallingly bad legroom in the rear seats. In addition where I live in Canada the rental companies all put limited mileage on rental contracts from city locations which makes them extremely expensive for long road trips. If you add to this the inconvenience of having to rental several times a year for this and that you are paying more for the EV in the first place it is hardly a viable option.
I expect we will get an EV for our run-about-town car the moment their price drops to something comparable to an ICE. While you may save on the costs of petrol the cost of installing a recharging station plus the cost of replacing the battery every few years is still non-negligible compared to the fuel savings. However these costs are dropping every year so I remain optimistic that they will drop to the point where an EV is economically viable but unfortunately that point is not yet here at least for me.
We estimate that this vehicle can meet the energy requirements of 87% of vehicle-days across the US, and 84–93% in 12 of the most populous metropolitan areas, even if relying only on night-time charging. This 87% of vehicle-days accounts for 61% of personal vehicle gasoline consumption in the US.
So technically it is only 87%, not 90%, but with a wide margin of error and when it comes to fuel use it is only 61%. Hence my claim that the problem is that for a single vehicle about 13% of the time an EV is not suitable which is the problem because nobody wants the hassle and cost (on top of the EV premium itself) to rent an ICE to replace their EV 13% of the time.
Once again, a slashdot post quotes an article that ascribes a claim to some other article that made no such claim.
Lesson: Follow the chain of references.
Article quotes: http://phys.org/news/2016-08-electric-vehicles-drivers-percent-road.html
Electric vehicles can meet drivers' needs enough to replace 90 percent of vehicles now on the road.
"Roughly 90 percent of the personal vehicles on the road daily could be replaced by a low-cost electric vehicle available on the market today, even if the cars can only charge overnight,"
But the team found that the vast majority of cars on the road consume no more energy in a day than the battery energy capacity in affordable EVs available today.
FALSE!! The original article http://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2016112 made NO SUCH CLAIM. The team found that the vast majority of cars DO experience a day when they consume more energy than the battery energy capacity in affordable EVs available today. The original article talked about vehicle-days, not vehicles. Most vehicles only go on extended road trips a small percentage of days during their ownership, but that percentage is not zero.
IN FACT, the original article stated that, "We also find that for the highest-energy days, other vehicle technologies are likely to be needed even as batteries improve and charging infrastructure expands. Car sharing or other means to serve this small number of high-energy days could play an important role in the electrification and decarbonization of transportation."
I may not be able to expect better from phys.org, but I do expect better from people who post on slashdot.org.
A trunk-deck-height pod sticking out two or three feet from the back of the vehicle? It will add a bit of drag, but I think you're grossly overestimating how much. After all, the trailer would basically be in your slipstream.
And the rolling resistance is almost proportional to the weight, as I understand it. Spreading the same weight across more wheels makes only a small difference in the overall rolling resistance because you end up with proportionally less tire surface touching the road on each tire.
This means that assuming you keep all the other factors equal, putting the engine in a trailer should have almost no impact. Any apparent savings comes mainly from having less battery capacity in the hybrid (and thus less original vehicle weight before you add the engine), rather than from having the engine inside the vehicle instead of bolted on externally.
You won't. And that will cause a small efficiency loss while cruising at fast speeds. But those single-digit percentage differences in efficiency don't actually matter if you're only using it for a couple of days out of the year, because that's less than the savings most people would get from being able to use grid power for all but your longest trips. On the average, even if it costs 5x as much for those three days, you're probably ahead. For my driving patterns, I'd be ahead even if it cost me 10x as much.
But obviously, different people have different driving patterns, and some people will benefit more or less from those various tradeoffs. This why options are good. And for people who benefit significantly from an EV over a hybrid, there's nothing fundamentally preventing the manufacture of rentable range extender trailers for the EVs. When you add up the numbers, lots of folks will still be way ahead with that approach.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
A Mini doesn't suit 99% of peoples needs ALL of the time. Neither does a minivan. But that doesn't mean the are useless vehicles.
Even a short range EV such as the Nissan Leaf will suit 90% of people, 90% of the time without question. If you're a two car household. as many families are, it's a perfectly functional option.
- Chuq
A minvan may not be optimal all the time BUT can be used ALL the time. Try that when the battery is flat... or the range needed is greater than the range of the EV.
The same as a minivan doesn't work when it has run out of petrol or if it needs to get into a narrow parking space or alleyway. You see? You can play this game all day long.
What if you find yourself trapped at a small town without a petrol station? You will still be able to find a shop with an electrical outlet.
What if you drive out into the desert until you are out of fuel/charge? If you pack a solar panel in your EV, you'll make your way back to civilisation eventually. It might be at 10km/day, but you *will* make it.
Yes, some of these are contrived examples. But so is driving an EV until you run out of charge. People just don't do that on purpose, unless they are a media representative trying to make a point.
- Chuq
Not at all. I'm saying many people urbanize because they have to, not because they want to. Furthermore, the "verifiable numbers about urbanization" are that the US is already more urbanized than the UK, so whatever argument you are trying to make about transport and urbanization needs a bit more thought on your part.
The specific fact you quoted, namely that the London Underground and Japanese trains are quite energy efficient in terms of passenger miles, is literally correct. Where he and you are wrong is in calling this "better transport". Moving at 20 mph and paying $0.60 per mile for the privilege after subsidies would be a lousy deal even if it were otherwise as convenient as a car. But it isn't even that: you need to walk to/from stations, are bound by schedules, have to switch trains, have to put up with fellow riders, and can't carry large amounts of cargo. And on top of the pure per mile cost, you also have to pay the massive housing costs and put up with poor quality housing simply for living within walking distance of a London subway station. In addition, the energy efficiency of the London Underground is simply not achievable for public transportation in general, something MacKay's book also points out.
Now, people like MacKay and you may be able to pay those costs and/or not mind the tradeoffs that the London Underground or commuting by bike involves, but declaring your choices as normative for everybody else is wrong, as in unacceptable. MacKay at least grudgingly acknowledges that in his book, you seem to be utterly oblivious to it.
My original claim was "There wouldn't be a "meaningful reduction in the greenhouse-gas emissions" even if we eliminated all emissions from personal transportation in the US", obviously true based on the numbers I cited. In addition, I pointed out that "Mass transit is also not all that much more efficient than personal cars.", obviously referring to actual mass transit usage in the US, which is substantiated by the numbers I pointed to.
You "have been moving the goalposts" ever since.
Not at all. I'm saying many people urbanize because they have to, not because they want to.
Well, OK. Some people like city dwelling,some don't. Either way it's irrelevant because people are urbanizing, and the reasons don't really matter for this discussion.
the US is already more urbanized than the UK, so whatever argument you are trying to make about transport and urbanization needs a bit more thought on your part.
The US is a great place in many ways, but it generally sucks at mass transit, for a variety of reasons.
The specific fact you quoted, namely that the London Underground and Japanese trains are quite energy efficient in terms of passenger miles, is literally correct
Yes.
Where he and you are wrong is in calling this "better transport". Moving at 20 mph and paying $0.60 per mile for the privilege after subsidies would be a lousy deal even if it were otherwise as convenient as a car.
It would appear from the comment that you don't know enough about London to actually make informed comments. I'd spend ages pointing out why you're wrong here, but for some reason despite me living in London and using the transport system and driving, I suspect you'd refuse to believe me. So, I'll just entertain my self replying to the bits where you're telling me that how I live my life is wrong.
But it isn't even that: you need to walk to/from stations,
The horror! The horror! I actually like the walking between stations.
are bound by schedules,
Bad if you're one train per hour. Not so bad if it's a train every 2 minutes.
have to switch trains,
Yes, and...?
have to put up with fellow riders,
Based on my extensive experience riding public transport and driving, my fellow transport passengers are much better behaved than my fellow drivers. White van man don't ride the tube innit.
and can't carry large amounts of cargo.
If I have large amounts of cargo to carry, I rent a van. I need to do that perhaps once or twice per year.
And on top of the pure per mile cost,
The cost per mile might be relatively high, but London is not large physically. And it's not like you get to amortize the per-mile cost of your MOT when you're stuck fast in Tooting bloody high street at arf four in the bloody afternoon. Oi aaaaaaaaut the effin way! HONK!
you also have to pay the massive housing costs
Yes housing costs are high. Undeniable.
and put up with poor quality housing simply for living within walking distance of a London subway station.
You have North London disease. Try coming saaaaf. We have more green spaces, cheaper, larger houses, fewer basement obsesses molemen and a thing I like to call "suburban rail".
In addition, the energy efficiency of the London Underground is simply not achievable for public transportation in general, something MacKay's book also points out.
Yes, it's particularly efficient because of the smallscale. None the less the point you keep ignoring and I expect will continue to do so because you don't like it is that the book also quotes numbers for the entire country of Japan, which still puts public transport above cars in terms of efficiency.
Now, people like MacKay and you may be able to pay those costs and/or not mind the tradeoffs that the London Underground or commuting by bike involves, but declaring your choices as normative for everybody else is wrong, as in unacceptable. MacKay at least grudgingly acknowledges that in his book, you seem to be utterly oblivious to it.
No, I'm ignoring it because the original argument was that public transport was inefficient. Demonstrably it is not. Getting into a debate about whether people urbanize (they do) or whether they like it is of no consequence to the actual measurable efficiency.
And I think you're vastly mistinterpreting the book if you think the acceptance is "grudgi
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Heh. I won't say they never work, but my job regularly has me doing 100-150 mile trips *daily*, some cases 200 miles. The cheaper EVs would not work, but a vehicle with a range like the Tesla 100d would suffice...If i charged it almost nightly. For the record, I am a roving network engineer that covers an area with the landmass roughly half the state of Rhode Island (around 550ish miles). I drive a 96 volvo station wagon that averages mid 20's mpg, going as high as 31 MPG on the highway and as low as 20ish in the city. It costs almost nothing to run besides tires, brakes, oil changes and suspension and I do my own maintenance. I love what Tesla is doing, but probably won't buy one until I can get it for less than $5000, I can do my own maintenance and it can haul me, plus all my gear comfortably. I'd imagine for a niche case like this, it may take awhile..
Plus, I wonder how long it will take to trickle to those who simply cannot afford new cars. To those outside of the new car market, there exists an entire underclass of used vehicles and the industries that spurs along. Think shadetree mechanics, places like autozone that sell parts and places that refurbish used parts and sell to the consumer or mechanic. I wonder how EV battery life will look after 10 years. The cottage industries that will no doubt arise selling refurbished batteries and/or doing in-car cell replacement for those who cannot afford to swap the whole unit. As a guy who swapped his own transmission over two weekends, I"m more excited about the prospects of how cheaply I can own and purchase a car, rather than the mass market $35k unit.
13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
Yes, obviously you can. And in order to achieve that efficiency, people have to live like the Japanese do: tiny apartments, high housing densities, highly structured and conformist lives. A country can become even more efficient by turning itself into a communist dictatorship, imagine that!
First, we have already established that high urbanization does not imply high energy efficiency.
Second, it is highly relevant whether people want to urbanize or are forced to urbanize: forcing people to urbanize in order to achieve energy efficiency certainly works, but it takes away people's freedoms. If you want to argue that that's OK, then you need to answer the question: what level of force are you willing to apply for energy efficiency? Why wouldn't you just outlaw personal automobiles altogether? Would you stop at purging the entire countryside with military force? Would you stop at shooting half the population to cut energy output in half? Where are your limits?
Demonstrably it is in the US.
Furthermore, I strongly suspect it is even in London, for the simple reason that cost translates pretty directly into energy expenditure: since the London subway costs at least twice as much per passenger mile as an automobile (even more counting subsidies), it probably uses more energy as well. Energy for moving the vehicle is only part of the total energy budget.
The book ends with a call to action, so it clearly has an agenda. More importantly, both the book and you are being deceptive by reasoning as if public transit delivered the same functionality as a personal automobile.
Which is really what all of this comes down to: you are a rich, arrogant, privileged Londoner who wants to justify his lifestyle so that the subsidies that keep London going keep flowing in.
highly structured and conformist lives
Aah now I think we're getting ot the root of your arguments.
First, we have already established that high urbanization does not imply high energy efficiency.
It does in many places. The US seems to be an exception.
Demonstrably it is in the US.
The general statement "mass transit is inefficient" implies it is efficient across the board. That is clearly false. The more correct thing to say would be it's inefficient when done badly like in the US. A big, fat DUH results.
More importantly, both the book and you are being deceptive by reasoning as if public transit delivered the same functionality as a personal automobile.
Well, they get you from place to place, so there's a substantial overlap in function. A car is not hte be-all and end-all goal to which all other things must be compared. They can't even hold very much cargo after all, neither do they go very fast.
Which is really what all of this comes down to: you are a rich, arrogant, privileged Londoner who wants to justify his lifestyle so that the subsidies that keep London going keep flowing in.
In other words, you have no logic onle appeals to emotion to justify your position. Got it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
No, quite the opposite: mass transit is not very energy efficient unless there is massive government coercion involved of one form or another (London, Japan, etc.). But that is a "big fat DUH": obviously, if you apply enough force and wreck people's lives enough, you can get energy usage as close to zero as you want to. Just look at North Korea: one fifth of Japan, one tenth of the US. Lack of government coercion isn't "doing things badly"; quite the opposite, it is the way free societies ought to operate.
No, there is actually very little overlap in function, since transit doesn't cover most times and locations that people travel to/from.
Since the goal of mass transit policies is to switch people from cars to mass transit, of course, you must compare mass transit to cars. In addition to coercion, mass transit in practice requires massive additional subsidies and taxes, which also means that people need to discuss whether those taxes are justifiable.
In fact, whether you realize it consciously or not, the real reason you are so desperately defending mass transit is that you are absolutely dependent on those subsidies: the more the UK decides to cut its subsidies for London infrastructure, the more your cost of living and transportation goes up.
There is no "emotion" in observing that you are rich, privileged, and arrogant; you demonstrated that clearly with your own comments. The way you mock people who aren't as rich or privileged as you are is disgusting.
mass transit is not very energy efficient unless there is massive government coercion involved
The roads for private cars built themselves. True story.
No, there is actually very little overlap in function, since transit doesn't cover most times and locations that people travel to/from.
I love how you keep telling me I can't live my life because LOGIC even though I in fact do quite happily. And then call me arrogant, because there's nothing so arrogant as failing to live life by your incredibly restrictive rules.
The thing is you complain about how I as a Londoner am dependent on the transport subsidy. The funny thing is if you're in the UK and not in London, so are you. London needs mass transit to operate: it is too dense to operate on private cars alone. London also while being a mere 13% of the population generates about 23% of the GDP. In other words, taxes on Londoners subsidise the rest of the UK, and the efficient operation of London is dependent on good transport.
The excess taxes generated by London are more than all mass transit subsidies across the entire country combined, so we pay for our own transport and yours too. Apparently this is the height of arrogance.
If you shaft London, you won't get to keep the money for yourself, the money will dry up, along with a whole bunch of extra. Much like with brexit.
Oooooh you're not a brexiter too are you?
The way you mock people who aren't as rich or privileged as you are
No, I'm mocking you because your a moran.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
To those that believe EVs will catch up with ICEs in time I will tell you that physics are against it. Batteries, fuel cells, capacitors, or any other electrical storage device you can think of simply cannot compete with hydrocarbons in energy density
The range on a newer battery is not that far off from your standard gas tank. The density is not that far off. The difference is that you can pour more hydrocarbons in pretty quickly, and in electric vehicles we go the recharging route rather than the replacement route at charging stations.. for obvious reasons.
I assume what you mean is "It's not perfect, and not RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, so it's a load of crap.
I think that he, and I for that matter, have heard so many false promises and so many pie-in-the-sky dreams about the future that we no longer trust ANY technology promise until it is actually in the market. Nothing else is worth getting excited about.
You certainly don't pay for my transport, since I live in the US. But since the taxes on cars and gasoline already more than pay for roads in the US, the much higher taxes on cars and gasoline in the UK certainly pay roads in the UK. So, no, your reasoning is faulty: Londoners do not pay for the roads of other people in the UK.
I, on the other hand, think that you are a typical, smart European intellectual, who is using his skills to manipulate society into bestowing privileges, wealth, and power on his social class.
I really don't care much about what happens to London or the UK or the EU, having left for good. I simply don't want failed European policies to be adopted in the US, which is why I object to Europeans misrepresenting what those policies actually achieve.
You certainly don't pay for my transport, since I live in the US. But since the taxes on cars and gasoline already more than pay for roads in the US, the much higher taxes on cars and gasoline in the UK certainly pay roads in the UK. So, no, your reasoning is faulty: Londoners do not pay for the roads of other people in the UK.
London's excess taxes more than pay for its own mass transit and a whole bunch more. I have no idea why you thought I said London pays for everyone else's roads. I was making the point that roads involve as much "coercion" as you put it as mass transit.
I, on the other hand, think that you are a typical, smart European intellectual,
An intellectual is someone who uses his or her intellect. You know, someone who thinks. You will never convince me that using my brain is a bad thing.
really don't care much about what happens to London or the UK or the EU, having left for good.
Really? Because you seem pretty bitter about London having a good transport system. I mean Londoner's taxes pay for it (more than) and Londoners want it but you haaaaate that the locals get to decide how their taxes are spent in this regard because you seem to consider that objectionable.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You were making that point, and it is false. The only people coerced to pay for roads are people using roads, because road-related taxes more than pay for roads. But plenty of people who never use mass transit are forced to pay for mass transit.
You are right that the term "intellectual" should refer to "people of high intellect" and/or "people who use their intellect", but the term actually means something much narrower. That's the sense in which people generally understand the term, as you can see in quote by Sartre (The Intellectual is someone who meddles in what does not concern him.) and Chomsky (The Intellectuals are specialists in defamation, they are basically political commissars, they are the ideological administrators, the most threatened by dissidence.) Sowell analyzed the economic motivations of intellectuals in detail. Yes, you are an intellectual in the actual meaning of the word.
True, I probably won't. In any case, plenty of frauds, crooks, dictators, and politicians throughout history have been using their brains, they have simply been using their brains for their own personal gain and to hurt and violate the rights of others. It takes a lot of intellect to manipulate and defraud others.
You brought up London as an example of an "efficient" public transit system, and I was simply pointing out that that efficiency comes at a steep price, namely government coercion, high prices, massive government subsidies, high housing densities, expensive real estate, and much less functionality than personal transit. Furthermore, I point out that the per-mile energy costs you cite are likely false, because something that costs several times as much per mile as a car almost certainly uses more energy per mile as well, it's just that mass transit uses that energy for inputs other than propulsion.
Given that mass transit clearly isn't as efficient as its proponents claim, the question is why the idea won't die. And the reason is simple: mass transit is in the interest of the intellectual class; low-level members of the intellectual class like yourself may actually use it; people like George Soros and Donald Trump benefit from it financially; and for people like Hillary Clinton, it's money flowing to her political base.
This hinges on the claim that Londoners actually pay more in taxes than they consume in government services; a dubious claim if you look at the methodology by which people arrive at such conclusions.
In any case, you are misrepresenting the nature of the decision that voters and local politicians face. It's not that there is a pot of money that got raised from local tax payers that they now decide on how to spend; that would be the right thing to do. But the money goes into a big pot in federal and state government, and the question local politicians and voters usually face is of the form "do you want this money for public transit, or do you want to lose it altogether". Now, given the UK's political system, those decisions may not be transparent to you, but those are the actual questions voters face around here when voting on local tra
You were making that point, and it is false. The only people coerced to pay for roads are people using roads, because road-related taxes more than pay for roads. But plenty of people who never use mass transit are forced to pay for mass transit.
Over here, all taxes go into a central pool, from which budgts are allocated. And secondly, everyone uses the roads in some manner without a single exception.
You are right that the term "intellectual" should refer to "people of high intellect" and/or "people who use their intellect", but the term actually means something much narrower.
There seems to be some debate. Dictionaries give a much wider definition that wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the arbiter of truth.
The Intellectuals are specialists in defamation, ... Yes, you are an intellectual in the actual meaning of the word.
Do you have any evidence that I'm a specialist in dfamation, or are you just engaging in defamation?
True, I probably won't.
Well, I'll continue to use my brain then and you can continue ot do whatever it is that you do.
You brought up London as an example of an "efficient" public transit system,
It is in terms of joules expended per passenger mile.
I was simply pointing out that that efficiency comes at a steep price, namely government coercion
No, you keep inventing that it requires more "coersion" than other systems. Everyone pays taxes. Roads require compulsory purchase too. Your claim that roads are somehow better in this regard is just fanciful.
massive government subsidies,
Except the subsidy (a) isn't massive and (b) is dopping to zero in 2018.
high housing densities, expensive real estate,
Mass transit is an effect of the high housing density, not a cause. London had dense housing for hundreds of years before the tube was built.
and much less functionality than personal transit.
Tell you what, I'll race you from say Brixton to a pub of your choice in Shoreditch to arrive at 6 in the evening for after work drinks. You drive, I'll take the tube. Shall we see who arrives first, and who gets a nice few pints of real al before going home and who's stuck on coke?
Tell me, what's so functional about a horrible journey which takes 3-4x as long, requires your full concentration the whole time and limits your activities on the other end?
Oh wait I know, not everyone has the same priorities as you.
Furthermore, I point out that the per-mile energy costs you cite are likely false, because something that costs several times as much per mile as a car almost certainly uses more energy per mile as well, it's just that mass transit uses that energy for inputs other than propulsion.
In other words you have no evidence but you want that to be true, so you're taking it as a fact. Okey dokey.
Given that mass transit clearly isn't as efficient as its proponents claim
Except it is. Your arguments have been so far "it's not efficient because teh gubbmint is teh evul! #trump2016". That's not especially convincing.
And the reason is simple: mass transit is in the interest of the intellectual class; low-level members of the intellectual class like yourself may actually use it;
Everyone in London uses it, rich, poor and middle class.
This hinges on the claim that Londoners actually pay more in taxes than they consume in government services; a dubious claim if you look at the methodology by which people arrive at such conclusions.
As opposed to your methodology which seems to involve asserting a political stance as facts.
In any case, you are misrepresenting the nature of the decision that voters and local politicians face.
You cliamed that the rest of the country subsidises London. That's also a misrepresentation. If you excised London from the UK, the total amount of money going to the other regions would drop. London subsidises the UK, not the other way around. Transport is just part of that.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Nevertheless, the amount of money that is raised from taxes on driving exceeds the amount of money spent on driving by the government; therefore, driving as an activity is not subsidized by government. On the other hand, the government spends much more on public transit than public transit brings in in revenue. herefore, public transit is heavily subsidized by government. It's pretty straightforward; even an Oxford-educated intellectual should be able to figure it out.
True. And those other road users don't even pay for it. Which means that the taxes on driving not only pay for driving on roads, they also subsidize other road users.
I'm pointing out that a correct analysis of the energy efficiency of transportation systems needs to take into account all places where energy is consumed to deliver the good of transportation, not just propulsion alone. Neither MacKay nor you have done that, hence, your claim that the London subway system is so much more efficient than driving is unsupported. In addition, I'm pointing out that looking at the per mile costs suggests that your claim is likely wrong, since cost and energy usage are generally proportional. So, in fact, so far, you have no evidence, you simply want it to be true.
Well, and I am simply pointing out that you are an "intellectual" in the sense of Sartre/Chomsky/Sowell. In fact, your beliefs, attitudes, and political views are typical of European intellectuals in the sense of Sartre/Chomsky/Sowell.
I was just quoting Chomsky to illustrate the narrow meaning of the term "intellectual". But, yes, you keep giving examples of Chomsky's actual point; you just did it again ( Your arguments have been so far "it's not efficient because teh gubbmint is teh evul! #trump2016".).
"If you remove X, then Y gets less money." does not imply that "Y does not subsidize X."
I have no doubt that you will continue to use your brain to argue for policies that enrich you and your class at the expense of others. It's what European intellectuals do.
Nevertheless, the amount of money that is raised from taxes on driving exceeds the amount of money spent on driving by the government; therefore, driving as an activity is not subsidized by government. On the other hand, the government spends much more on public transit than public transit brings in in revenue. herefore, public transit is heavily subsidized by government. It's pretty straightforward; even an Oxford-educated intellectual should be able to figure it out.
Let's conside London, since that was under discussion. Consider how diving in London would be if:
(a) the tube was switched off (hint: a tube strike)
(b) with the tube operating as normal
The existence of mass transit has a direct, positive effect on the use of private tansport. It's so simple, a numpty Tab ought to be able to figure it out.
Neither MacKay nor you have done that,
This figures I quoted included the complete power use including station lighting, escalators etc etc etc. Try again, bucko!
In fact, your beliefs, attitudes, and political views are typical of European intellectuals
Good?
you just did it again
It's not defmamation if it's true.
"If you remove X, then Y gets less money." does not imply that "Y does not subsidize X."
Yes, a net flow of money from X to Y does indeed demonstate that Y does not subsidise X. The net flow of tax money is from London outwards, so London subsidises the rest of the UK, much like the blue states subsidise most of the red ones.
I have no doubt that you will continue to use your brain to argue for policies that enrich you and your class at the expense of others.
Mostly I'm arguing for policies so the tanspot system affecting the daily lives of 10 million people doesn't collapse.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
(1) You're arguing there that transit subsidies have a positive effect, not that they don't exist. (2) Ending subsidies for London transit wouldn't abolish it, it would simply force Londoners to pay the true cost of what they actually use.
You need to read and understand what you cite, "bucko". Not only does MacKay fail to account for non-propulsive energy usage, his argument isn't even about actual energy usage of the London subway system, it's an estimate of what a system might achieve under "ideal" conditions and if they are willing to give up the flexibility of a private vehicle.
Sorry, but net flows of tax money tells you little about net subsidies; you need to look at what the money is spent on and who benefits, as well as opportunity costs. For example, my state gets tons of federal funding for crap we don't want; that isn't a "subsidy" of the state.
Indeed, that's what you're actually doing: trying to find arguments to justify the conclusion that the subsidies need to keep flowing. And you're right: eliminating subsidies overnight would be a disaster for London. But that merely means that Londoners have become dependent on subsidies, not that the subsidies are good.
That's why, as far as the US is concerned, it's best for cities to avoid getting into the unenviable situation the the UK and London are in in the first place.
(1) You're arguing there that transit subsidies have a positive effect, not that they don't exist.
You were arguing that mass transit incolved "coercion" because of subsidies therefore cars are better. I argue that both forms receive subsidies so neither is better.
Ending subsidies for London transit wouldn't abolish it, it would simply force Londoners to pay the true cost of what they actually use.
Are you saying that ending subsidies for TFL won't actually end subsidies?
Not only does MacKay fail to account for non-propulsive energy usage,
Except no he doesn't.
Sorry, but net flows of tax money tells you little about net subsidies;
You claimed that the rest of the UK was subsidising London. If the net flow of money is from London to everywhere else that is not the case.
That's why, as far as the US is concerned, it's best for cities to avoid getting into the unenviable situation the the UK and London are in in the first place.
I forgot, Americans love being stuck in traffic on the beltway. All the ones I know who live in DC seem to have forgotten that too.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You start from the meaningless premise, namely that one "is better" than the other. Better for whom? I have no doubt that for you, mass transit may be better. For me it isn't. The way this is resolved in a free society is that I pay for my preferred mode of transport and you pay for yours.
Well, and you continue to be wrong. Cars are not subsidized, public transit is.
I'm sorry if you are unable to understand a couple of paragraphs that you yourself cited.
Yes, and you keep confusing "the net flow of taxes" with "the net flow of money".
If you took a survey, you'd probably find that most Americans would like nothing better than for Washingtonians to be stuck on the beltway, permanently. Americans really don't like Washington.
You start from the meaningless premise,
Nope. You started from the premise that mass transit is inefficient. My entire series of posts have been thoroughly demonstrating that's incorrect.
Well, and you continue to be wrong. Cars are not subsidized, public transit is.
You demonstrate your understanding is so shallow that you shouldn't really be forming opinions on the topic.
I'm sorry if you are unable to understand a couple of paragraphs that you yourself cited.
Actually read what I cited, stop inventing what you want it to say. It includes station lighting, escalator usage, etc.
Yes, and you keep confusing "the net flow of taxes" with "the net flow of money".
OK,my bad. The net flow of money is out of London not into it.
If you took a survey, you'd probably find that most Americans would like nothing better than for Washingtonians to be stuck on the beltway, permanently. Americans really don't like Washington.
Ah I see: so they're not true Scotsmen. Only true Scotsmen or Americans love being stuck in traffic.
SJW n. One who posts facts.