Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[Andres125sx]

That video was quite good. But it shows that as of today it's not viable. EV's simply don't suit 97-98% of the car buying population.

According to their S-curve it will be another 6-7 years before we get to the point whereby most (50%) vehicles sold are electric.

According to the video, Jeremy Clarkson buying an EV is an important fact in EV history and evolution

Interesting video, but the S curve can´t be more arbitrary than it is

[Just_a_fan]

EV's simply don't suit 97-98% of the car buying population.

I disagree: they are suitable for the majority of the car buying population. It's just that they're choosing not to buy them. Big difference.

[AJI]

I’m not sure I follow your symbology but if the energy densities were the same my current vehicle would be replaced by one with a range of around 2000 miles. Petrol engines are less efficient than electric engines.

Exactly. That, coupled with the significant power to weight advantages of a fully electrically powered vehicle (sans battery) don't make a 1:1 comparison in energy density fair.
The tipping point seems a long way away with current battery tech, but as Tim said, it's really about how fast we can recharge. IMO, the whole 'battery swaping depot' idea is not a viable option. Sure, the batteries should ideally be based on a universal platform, such as 18650s (or the next iteration of the 18650). They've worked fine for computers and power tools and Teslas after all, but there is much room for improvement. The simple solution with current tech is to have double the capacity you need and fast charging (5 minutes) to ~60% of that capacity.
The strain on the grid is a completely different argument, but has to be considered.
Ps thanks for splitting this off strad. I'm interested in both EV and AV, but they don't really have anything to do with each other even though they are commonly associated.

About the bolded part, if double capacity, no need to fast charge in 5 minutes, or if batteries can be fast charged in 5 minutes, there´s no need to double the range at all

It's more about the ability to charge a battery to 60% of its capacity (current tech) very quickly. A 5 minute top up may give you the range you need if you have twice the capacity you need, if that makes sense?
Think power tools (and mobile phones and laptops to a lesser extent). 5 minutes on the charger will get the job done, 1 hour will charge them to full capacity.

[jjn9128]

That video was quite good. But it shows that as of today it's not viable. EV's simply don't suit 97-98% of the car buying population.

According to their S-curve it will be another 6-7 years before we get to the point whereby most (50%) vehicles sold are electric.

According to the video, Jeremy Clarkson buying an EV is an important fact in EV history and evolution

Interesting video, but the S curve can´t be more arbitrary than it is

That graph is half sensible predictions, half joke - it predicts most newborn children being named Elon in about 2030 - but lets face it there's a large number of salivating idiots who for some reason value the opinion of that denim clad, deliberately controversial, pre-historic orangutan. People like Clarkson saying they like an EV would be ground changing.

IMHO the other graphs are the more interesting ones, RE battery cost and how we're already below the projected costs for 10 years ahead. I also don't think they accounted for how the VW diesel issue would galvanize a lot of car companies - they want to protect their images by being seen to be "green".

[Tim.Wright]

EV's simply don't suit 97-98% of the car buying population.

I disagree: they are suitable for the majority of the car buying population. It's just that they're choosing not to buy them. Big difference.

Fair enough to to have an opinion but you have to be kidding to think that most (i.e. >50%) of car buyers are baselessly avoiding electric cars.

You only need to find yourself with a flat battery at the wrong time once and you have a 100k€ paper weight making you late for all the stuff you had planned for the day.

My old 1981 Nissan Pulsar never did that. Once EVs are a real step forward in every area they will take-off because the powertrain itself is way better than an IC engine. Its just the energy storage issues that mean its not viable for most people.

[jjn9128]

The COULD is a big addendum
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44759150

[Tommy Cookers]

Roger 'havawhinge' Harrabin is a mendacious old fool who pretends that EVs run on zero-carbon electricity

each EV increases demand for fossil-fuelled electricity - there is little or no carbon benefit
and don't we now have more diesel-powered 'standby' electrical generation capacity then ever before ?

this is from a country that wants to pretend that it's altruistically pioneering EVs
a country that can't leave a political union that it never joined - but still wants to preach to itself and others

[Pat Pending]

EV's simply don't suit 97-98% of the car buying population.

I disagree: they are suitable for the majority of the car buying population. It's just that they're choosing not to buy them. Big difference.

Based on recent personal experience I think you're both correct (and by extension, both wrong ). Allow me to elaborate.

I live in the UK & am in the process of replacing my current diesel car. Last week I had a BMW i3 on 24hr test drive. After a normal day's commute to & fro from work, plus running some errands in the evening it was down to about 30% charge. So it would fill my requirements most of the time.

However, this weekend (back in my diesel car) we traveled on Saturday to a historic house where we spent 3-4 hrs, before going on to a country house hotel. Neither had EV charging points. On Sunday we traveled on to another country event - no charging point - before traveling home in the evening. Total mileage for the weekend about 230 miles. Due to lack of available charging points the i3 could not have done that journey.

So for me, whilst the i3 is probably suitable for me 97-98% of the time, because it would not be suitable all of the time, I have concluded that it is not suitable/viable as our only vehicle.

So it is a combination of range, charging time & public charging point availability that are the key factors.

[santos]

Viable they are already. Not for every one. I mean, if you don't have a fast charging point near your house, and only have a 230v socket at home… it will take a long time to make a full charge.

[Andres125sx]

EV's simply don't suit 97-98% of the car buying population.

I disagree: they are suitable for the majority of the car buying population. It's just that they're choosing not to buy them. Big difference.

Fair enough to to have an opinion but you have to be kidding to think that most (i.e. >50%) of car buyers are baselessly avoiding electric cars.

You only need to find yourself with a flat battery at the wrong time once and you have a 100k€ paper weight making you late for all the stuff you had planned for the day.

Is that any different to any breakdown of our current ICEs?

[Andres125sx]

Roger 'havawhinge' Harrabin is a mendacious old fool who pretends that EVs run on zero-carbon electricity

Or maybe he just knows with EVs that´s a real posibility, not for next year nor next decade, but it may happen, while ICEs will always pollute, even if someday we miraculously get rid of any emission on electricity production


But I´m just playing devil´s advocate, I´m sure you´re right on your comments about Mr Harrabin

each EV increases demand for fossil-fuelled electricity - there is little or no carbon benefit

Increases demand for fossil-fueled electricity, but it´s also reducing emissions into cities. And a bit globally too, depending on the country and the percentage they produce with renewables.

But that´s exactly the point, comparing emissions today is short-signed, even if they´re similar in total emissions (only true for coil based countries) most countries are increasing renewables year by year, so that difference wich today may be small (globally speaking), is constantly increasing, to the point maybe some day we may really reach zero emissions, but only if we use EVs obviously.

I take the zero emissions propaganda for EVs as a future promise more than a current fact

[Just_a_fan]

You only need to find yourself with a flat battery at the wrong time once and you have a 100k€ paper weight making you late for all the stuff you had planned for the day.

Same can be said of an ICE if it runs out of fuel. People with EVs just plan to ensure the battery is charged just as those with ICEs ensure there is fuel in the tank.

[Tommy Cookers]

the fuel car gauges and displays fuel level with tolerable accuracy

the Li-battery car does what exactly ?
calculates Coulombs out and back in use - no doubt working well in regular and frequent use
the relationship between OC voltage and charge remaining is unsuitable for management
and subject to variation with temperature
this is not good in light and infrequent use
in reality people may overcharge to avoid undercharging
and there's uncounted external and internal losses when the car is unused - internal losses will increase with age

Li-battery razors are rubbish compared to the old NiCad ones
Li goes flat without any warning and is harder to manage

all this talk about bigger batteries as the answer to something
wouldn't many with light and infrequent use choose to have smaller (less expensive) batteries at replacement time ?

[Tim.Wright]

You only need to find yourself with a flat battery at the wrong time once and you have a 100k€ paper weight making you late for all the stuff you had planned for the day.

Same can be said of an ICE if it runs out of fuel. People with EVs just plan to ensure the battery is charged just as those with ICEs ensure there is fuel in the tank.

The fundamental point here is resolving this issue in an EV takes an order of magnitude more time than it does with an ICE. You don't really need to plan anything with an ICE car because they have a lot of range and when it runs out it can be filled up again in minutes so you hardly ever need to think about it. I (and many others) spend only a few minutes a week refuelling. It does not have to be planned and can happen spontaneously because it doesn't interfere with anything.

This is clearly not the case with an EV where you either need to have the car sitting for an hour (at which point you are without transportation) or do a quick charge and accept you will need to charge again very soon. I really don't understand how anyone can consider that acceptable.

The fact that, with an EV, you have to plan your journey in order to not end up stranded or late is exactly why nobody want to depend on them at the moment. They are simply a less practical mode of transportation.

[Just_a_fan]

The reality is that for very many people, their daily mileage is a small fraction of a current EV's range. For them, and they are many, simply plugging in to the home charger when they park at home is all that is required to "stay in range". Even if they need to pop to tbe shops for a pint of milk, they just pop it back on charge again.

It requires a slight change of thought process but it is really minor.