Luton Airport car park fire

[ALFAitalia]

Oh, the pending ban of ICE sales is only a figment in my crystal ball then - not legislation at all. Wow!

NEW ICE sales.....that's not a ban on ICE car sales!!!

 

[TC350]

Oh, the pending ban of ICE sales is only a figment in my crystal ball then - not legislation at all. Wow!

Oh come on, you can't convince me that you've never heard of legislation being changed. Until 1967 homosexuality was illegal in England and Wales, and remained illegal in Scotland until the 1980s. When major legislation like that can change, making changes to legislation on which engines can be in new cars in the future is wide open to amendment. Indeed, initial plans set out by the government in 2020 aimed for a 2030 ban, but as you know this was delayed to 2035. A change in legislation.

 

[Bellow]

LOL......what BS. How about Toyotas and Teslas new one that could charge in about 5 minutes with the right current and give a better range. Or the British company Nyobolt that's offering much the same.

Electric car battery charges in under five minutes in track test

The charging time is much quicker than even the fastest-charging batteries currently on the market.

www.bbc.co.uk

​

And then theres:

• Solid-state batteries
  These batteries use solid materials instead of liquid electrolytes, which can improve range and charging speed. They may also be safer because they reduce the risk of fire.
  
  
  
• Sodium-ion batteries
  These batteries use sodium instead of lithium, which is more cost-effective and sustainable. They are being used in urban EVs and stationary storage.
  
  
  
• Lithium-sulfur batteries
  These batteries use a sulfur-containing positive cathode and lithium negative anode. They could be cheaper and have a greater range than current lithium-ion batteries.
  
  
  
• Lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries
  These batteries use iron instead of nickel and cobalt in the cathode.
  
  
  
• Graphene batteries
  These batteries could have a range of 500 miles and recharge in minutes.
  
  
  
• Aluminum-air batteries
  These batteries use oxygen from the air to fill the cathode, making them lighter than lithium-ion batteries.
  
  
  
• TankTwo String Cell batteries
  These batteries contain small, independent cells that can be quickly recharged at a service station.
  
  
  
• Flowless zinc-bromine batteries (FLZBBs)
  These batteries use non-flammable electrolytes, making them an alternative to lithium-ion batteries.
  

Other developments in EV battery technology include fast charging, battery longevity, recycling, and wireless charging.

Join the dots.
Just stop and think for a second what more rapid recharging involves re infrastructure.

 

[ALFAitalia]

Thinking for a second.......yep try that!!!

 

[Bellow]

Oh come on, you can't convince me that you've never heard of legislation being changed. Until 1967 homosexuality was illegal in England and Wales, and remained illegal in Scotland until the 1980s.

Comparing repealed legislation that enabled freedom with a suggestion I should disregard the current ban on new ICE sales as something too ephemeral to acknowledge aint making any sense.

When major legislation like that can change, making changes to legislation on which engines can be in new cars in the future is wide open to amendment. Indeed, initial plans set out by the government in 2020 aimed for a 2030 ban, but as you know this was delayed to 2035. A change in legislation.

You miss my point. If - and it is only an if - the ban on new ICE sales is overturned or delayed it will not be to permit continued use of fossil fuels. That just isn't viable. So we need alternative fuels and ideally a new breed of ICE to utilise them. In the case of the former - snail's pace progress, the latter zero progress and the production facilities for existing ICE are soon to be decommissioned. What then? Overturning the ban is pointless without suitable engines and fuel.

 

[ALFAitalia]

Overturn?.....seems VERY unlikely to me......to much time effort and money already spent. Delay?......giving makers and infrastructure more time (although there is MORE than enough leccy, getting it to where its needed can be an issue in some places)?.......quite possibly.

 

[TC350]

Comparing repealed legislation that enabled freedom with a suggestion I should disregard the current ban on new ICE sales as something too ephemeral to acknowledge aint making any sense.

You miss my point. If - and it is only an if - the ban on new ICE sales is overturned or delayed it will not be to permit continued use of fossil fuels. That just isn't viable. So we need alternative fuels and ideally a new breed of ICE to utilise them. In the case of the former - snail's pace progress, the latter zero progress and the production facilities for existing ICE are soon to be decommissioned. What then? Overturning the ban is pointless without suitable engines and fuel.

So you’re not denying that there is the possibility that there may be alternatives to EVs by the time that legislation bans the sale of new ICE. Especially if that legislation gets delayed yet further. So we may by then be back to a choice, but instead of a choice between petrol and diesel we’ll have (hopefully) progressed to a choice between EV or alternative fuel.

 

[Bellow]

So you’re not denying that there is the possibility that there may be alternatives to EVs by the time that legislation bans the sale of new ICE.

Yes, but only if we start now. Legislation as it is precludes that as.....

Especially if that legislation gets delayed yet further.

... anyone tasked with these decisions will struggle to obtain the funding on the hope that the legislation is overturned. Overturned, as for such a long term project, merely delaying it isn't enough.

So we may by then be back to a choice, but instead of a choice between petrol and diesel we’ll have (hopefully) progressed to a choice between EV or alternative fuel.

Yes, and not just for the sake of personal choice. There are myriad other benefits from the advantages ICE has that EV cannot compete with to a greater degree of autonomy in the geopolitical sphere with lots more in between. Not least utilising an existing fuel distribution network (at no additional cost) and easing grid distribution requirements.

 

[Bellow]

Overturn?.....seems VERY unlikely to me......to much time effort and money already spent. Delay?......giving makers and infrastructure more time

Delays just create confusion and deny investment. To overturn (but only for carbon neutral fuels) a compelling case has to be made - preferably by capable engineers. Step forwards Newey and Lowe.

(although there is MORE than enough leccy, getting it to where its needed can be an issue in some places)?.......quite possibly.

You over estimate the grid's capability. Never mind getting to where it's needed it can't even get it from where it's generated. Look into the otherwise successful tidal generation at Orkney and the grid's inability to accept its output. A promising, predictable, renewable energy source stymied by a lack of capability from something sold as already ready.

 

[st13phil]

To overturn (but only for carbon neutral fuels) a compelling case has to be made - preferably by capable engineers. Step forwards Newey and Lowe.

Paddy Lowe is well worth listening to (as is Newey) on the topic of synthetic fuels. For those unaware, take a look here:

Carbon Neutral Synthetic Fuels | Our Vision | Zero

Join the future of fuel and Go Zero. Clean burning, carbon neutral synthetic fuel that can work in any engine. It is the ultimate fossil fuel alternative that can minimise your carbon footprint.

www.zero.co

 

[Wolfie1]

Almost all R/C stuff is made in China. Some big name US companies sell generic chargers/ESCs/servos/etc. domestically for much higher prices under their own brand name ... typically the difference is just the sticker on the front and/or having the case moulded in a different colour. There's a very strong 'buy American' ethos in the US so these companies make good money from this approach. For example:

'American' Hitec X4 Pro charger:
View attachment 162464

Chinese SkyRC Q200 charger:
View attachment 162465

The Hitec one actually says 'made in China' on the back. Guess whose factory it comes out of?!

I take it you are also into rc vehicles?

 

[BTB 500]

I take it you are also into rc vehicles?

Planes, multi-rotors ('drones'), small helicopters, and one boat

 

[markjay]

I believe the extreme negativity about EV's is less to do with their actual merits and more to do with the fact that people feel they are being forced on us by the government. It's a natural reaction that we don't like being told what to do and our negative responses are then exaggerated.

Had the roll out of EV's been left to market forces there would have been much less fuss because people would have felt they had a free choice. It's entirely possible that it would have placed EV's in a better light than they currently are and the take up of EV's would have been higher than has been achieved by clumsy political enforcement.

Ditto for heat pumps. Telling people they must have one is the kiss of death although they also lack the degree of merit that EV's have.

I don't disagree. But making up fake facts, and effectively running an anti-EV propaganda campaign as some media outlets do, is hardly the right way to win the EV argument, or any argument for that matter.

 

[markjay]

Thats fine we will see how Chinas manufacturing machine copes when Israel bombs Irans oil fields.

Agreed. But the genie is out of the bottle now, and this is the direct result of the total failure of the West to stop Iran from becoming the evil regional superpower that it has become over the past 20 years, undermining and destabilising the Gulf and the Middle East. Obama was soft on Russia when it annexed the Crimea, and soft on Iran when it started developing its nuclear program. By avoiding small conflicts though inaction, the West has in fact created much bigger ones further down the line.

 

[BTB 500]

But making up fake facts, and effectively running an anti-EV propaganda campaign as some media outlets do, is hardly the right way to win the EV argument, or any argument for that matter.

Agreed, but pro-EV misinformation happens too. Most common is under-stating the cost per mile for home-charged BEVs by ignoring the 25% or so lost during charging.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Agreed, but pro-EV misinformation happens too. Most common is under-stating the cost per mile for home-charged BEVs by ignoring the 25% or so lost during charging.

Love the idea that the economic case for EV ownership can turn on an extra penny per mile because of “25% lost during home charging.”

Do you really not understand the amount of money people spend on running a vehicle during the course of a year, or through the course of its lifetime? It’s often more than £5,000 a year for people “of modest means.”

£80 pa is neither here nor there in terms of home charging cost. Especially if it gets you away from spending a fortune at the fuel pump, charger, or even in annual maintenance costs

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

So you’re not denying that there is the possibility that there may be alternatives to EVs by the time that legislation bans the sale of new ICE. Especially if that legislation gets delayed yet further. So we may by then be back to a choice, but instead of a choice between petrol and diesel we’ll have (hopefully) progressed to a choice between EV or alternative fuel.

“Let’s assume that we have a can opener?”

Assume a can opener - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[markjay]

Agreed, but pro-EV misinformation happens too. Most common is under-stating the cost per mile for home-charged BEVs by ignoring the 25% or so lost during charging.

That's not the same at all... What you describe is simply an honest mistake that EV owners often do because they don't think/know about the charging losses.

In fact, it's no different to ICE cars owners who simply rely on the mpg displayed on the dash, not knowing/thinking that it's inaccurate.

Brim-to-brim, from the same pump, at the same ambient temperature will be the more precise method of measuring cost-per-mile for ICE cars.

Similarly, for EVs, the more precise method is to charge to 100% on a public charger, then do the same again from the same charger after the journey, and divide the recharging cost by the mileage driven.

And, of course, GPS mileage is more accurate than odometer miles, again, for both EV and ICE.

But, in any event, the inaccuracies do not stem from a deliberate attempt to deceive.

Compare this to the tall stories intentionally dished-out by (some) EV-bashers.... the Luton car fire is a case in point.

 

[ALFAitalia]

Even the 25 percent loss is BS in nearly all cases. That's the absolute worst case scenario. Most studies show between 10 and 15 is about average. But even at 25 percent that means my neighbour pays about 2.5ppm instead of 2...... compared to my car at about 15 to 18 pence per mile!......insignificant.

 

[190]

Agreed, but pro-EV misinformation happens too. Most common is under-stating the cost per mile for home-charged BEVs by ignoring the 25% or so lost during charging.

I think highlighting a 25 % error (if that is the real magnitude of it) is a valid point that is not diminished by the comparison with a a few percent errors in ICE consumption. It's not anti EV to want to know the real cost of operation for comparison, therefore charging losses and coulombic efficiency of the battery should all be taken into account to produce real world operating costs. Whether Joe public wants to know this is besides the point for me because I'd want to know.