I have to admit
I've just found myself guilty of being angry about something on the internet.

I was reading comments on a story about Top Gear reviewing the Tesla electric car. Jeremy Clarkson said it had run out of charge, it hadn't, and now they are saying "we were showing what would happen if it did"

now obviously this last bit is a blatant lie, and they said the things actual range, and how long it would have lasted on their track.

The important thing is though: who gives a fuck?

I just read about 90 comments on this article with people complaining that they were lying and unfair and all this other bollocks.

I couldn't give a crap! They gave a reasonably fair indication of the performance of the car, and it's advantages and limitations, but more than that, they entertained me. Who gives a shit if they exercised a bit of artistic licence?

bah

/rant
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:09, 34 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

Agreed.
They could so easily have slated it, however Clarkson conceded that it handled well and the characteristics of an electric motor (instant maximum torque) meant that the performance was highly satisfactory.

However it's specifically marketed as a sports car. This in itself causes two problems - both of which explored during the piece:

1) A sports car on low resistence eco tyres compromises the level of grip

2) A sports car is driven harder than it's hatchback counterpart, thus reducing the range

As the road test on the Honda fuel cell car illustrated, battery electric cars still have some way to go before they're ready for mass market.

Every single time Clarkson et al test an Alfa Romeo, they say that it will break down and probably fall apart. Has a new Alfa ever broken down during the filming of a Top Gear programme? No. Why has no-one ever complained? Because we're (and I speak as an Alfa owner myself) adults with a sense of humour.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:26, Reply)

you are right
James May was exactly right when he was saying that the hydrogen fuel cell is going to be the future because it doesn't change the way we drive.

Not being able to refuel in a couple of minutes is always going to be a killer for a battery-powered car!
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:35, Reply)

I'd like to complain about Top Gear
Your blatent disregard for the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth means that I cannot make an informed decision about the car I will never buy.

This is a disgusting waste of my license fee and I shall be refusing to pay it next year and as such I will only watch ITV until my brain leaks out of my arse.

Yours sincerley

A. Twat
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:35, Reply)

*claps and cheers*
Nicely done sir.

I reckon a rabid contingent of the eco-mentalist brigade got their hessian knickers in a knot.

/off topic

Electric and hybrid cars in general are more costly and toxic to produce than their fully internal combustion counterparts.

We've gotten it wrong again. A myth that electric cars are greener is being perpetuated by people who should know better.

The most promising technological avenue is that of a hydrogen fuel cell car, however it still takes three times as much energy to separate hydrogen from oxygen as is obtained from combining hydrogen and oxygen together. That means that any hydrogen fuel industry is going to require huge amounts of energy to produce the stuff.

All we're going to do is make power stations burn more fossil fuels to provide enough energy for hydrogen extraction instead of burning the fossil fuel in your car's engine.

It won't be feasible until we have commercially viable fusion reactors which won't happen for 75 years at the earliest.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:45, Reply)

Vipros
has hit the nail on the head.

I can fill my car with diesel, drive it for 600-odd miles, then refuel it and drive another 600-odd miles. Repeat indefinitely.

OK, I wouldn't actually do that, but I do quite often drive a lot of miles in less than the time it would take to recharge a battery car. If a battery car had a range of say 500 miles, then it would be OK. Or if it had a range of 200 miles, but only took 3 minutes to recharge, then that would also be fine.

But as it happens, it has a range of 200 miles and takes hours to recharge fully. That's no use.

And worse still, current Li ion batteries lose capacity over time. So while a new car has a range of 200 miles, by the time it's a year old that will have fallen to about 160 miles.

We need to crack the nuclear fusion problem (unlikely in the next 20 years, I'll admit) and use it to produce methanol from atmospheric CO₂ and water. Then we can still have internal combustion engines running on relatively safe liquid fuel.

Edit - looks like PJM and I think alike!
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:50, Reply)

Personally
I think we should be pushing for (more widespread) carbon neutral/negative homes myself. It's something that we could do right now to make a difference rather than tinkering with cars and lobbying airlines.
( Captain V, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:50, Reply)

It's the same old problem
the whole facts aren't reported, and people believe what they hear/read and only that.

Same with the climate change debate. I can't take a stand because I don't know anywhere near enough, although from what I do know I'm leaning towards it not being a man-made problem.

Roll on fusion power!

also: Toyota Smug bastardPrius. I wouldn't have a problem with it in the slightest if it weren't such a fucking ugly car!
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:51, Reply)

On climate change
As a scientist, I keep one eye on the scientific press regarding climate change. As far as I can see, studies have revealed that it is a natural phenomenon exacerbated by human activity.

The problem is that there are so many inter-related factors (CO₂, methane, water vapour (which is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide!), cloud cover, solar forcing, airborne particulates) and so on.

What it boils down to is that we are probably responsible for the acceleration in global warming, but no-one knows by how much, nor indeed what the rates will be in the future.

In theory, one major volcanic eruption could cause enough cooling to wipe out the effects of the last 100 years of global warming.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:58, Reply)

You're all correct!
Transport (cars, trains, busses, canal boats etc) account for 10% of CO2 emissions in the UK. But also they account for a far greater contribution of green taxation. The statistics for "cars" don't always include the caveat that data for trains and public transport is lumped in too. It's misrepresentation through statistics.

As for climate change, I'd take it more seriously if it wasn't for the plethora of hugely disproportionate green taxes we're going to have to pay over the next twenty five years. It's a skint politician's dream; the mother of all guilt taxes.

Anyhoo...

If we all gave up the internal combustion engine tomorrow and moved to electric cars, the power generation infrastructure couldn't cope.

Nuclear power is promising, but expensive and believe it or not we're running out of uranium. We only have enough for 200 years based on current useage, that doesn't include the new generation of nuclear plants planned.

A better solution would be to invest heavily in fusion power. However, Brown et al believe that instead hugely expensive and inefficient wind power is the way to go.

Mmmmnnnnnnggggg!

Wave power is a much more efficient short term bet.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:00, Reply)

I like K2K6's line of thinking
If we can induce labour surely we can induce a volcano eruption...
( Captain V, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:07, Reply)

k2k6
I have to know about a few aspects of it, such as sea level rise, for the work I do, and you wouldn't believe the ludicrous predictions that DEFRA makes sometimes....

PJM: that's the sort of stuff that the general public need to be hearing rather than the scare-mongering that gets fed out.

I've got my fingers crossed for one or two of the cunning Severn tidal energy schemes that are being bandied about. We've got the second highest tidal range in the world, we're surrounded by the sea, we should damn well be using it!
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:07, Reply)

I'd
have an electric car tomorrow if it sounded like a V8. While they sound like milkfloats, I just can't take them seriously.

The only other thing that worried me about the Tesla review is Jeremy's comment that they essentially use the same battery technology as laptop computers. Given that I've never had a laptop where the battery's not been utterly borked after about 3 years' use, this doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
( rubberduck should only be used after consulting with your GP, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:09, Reply)

They're going to have to fit speakers to them to simulate engine sounds apparently rubberduck!
Lots of blind lobby groups especially protesting against the fact they're silent, as blind people can't hear them coming.

The problem is nobody's come up with a realistic alternative yet. Extracting hydrogen from water requires massive amounts of energy as PJM rightly points out, and Li-ion batteries aren't really suitable either as we're also getting to the end of the world's easily obtainable lithium deposits.

Battery technology is what's holding a lot of things back; lithium batteries are over 30 years old now and nobody's invented an alternative. Like it or lump it, I think a lot of the solution is just going to have to be for people to drive less.

Except that would require a public transport system that actually works. Which would mean massive tax subsidies like they have in Europe, which means the British public will never vote it in. Thanks Margaret & Tony for flogging it all off to the highest bidders, it's now a lose/lose situation.
(Son of Sam-i-am We're all as mad as hatters here, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:14, Reply)

what's the deal with Ni-mh batteries?
they don't lose capacity as far as I'm aware (not as much at least)

does anyone know the drawbacks?
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:20, Reply)

I'm anticipating revolutionary new tidal Power Stations near me on the Pentland Firth!

Neeeeeeeever gonna happen though as I am a persistent pessimist.

Oh and at the risk of facing the wrath of everyone - I think that Top Gear is shit.. Smug and shit and full of "aren't we amazing/kerrazy!?". Ahem.. That'll be me off then!
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:20, Reply)

@Vipros
From my previous experience Ni-mh cells do lose capacity after a number of charge/discharge cycles and their capacity/weight ratio is nowhere near as good as Li based cells.

This is all based on models though but I'd be shocked if it's very different in full size applications.
( Captain V, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:24, Reply)

Good point V
the battery in my Black and Decker drill weighs a fucking ton!
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:25, Reply)

@sam - I must buy you a beer
"Except that would require a public transport system that actually works. Which would mean massive tax subsidies like they have in Europe, which means the British public will never vote it in. Thanks Margaret & Tony for flogging it all off to the highest bidders, it's now a lose/lose situation."

Absolutely right! Britain has the most expensive travelling costs in the EU by far. Either cough up a 70% tax or pay extortionate amounts to a private company. Go to Holland to see how it should be done.

We'd rather spend taxes on something else. Like £65bn on QUANGOs, or £9bn on computer systems that don't work.

*edit* Cunts.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:30, Reply)

Captain's right
Ni-MH batteries are much heavier, can't hold as much charge, and exhibit patterning behaviour.

They do still get used for some stuff but generally lithium batteries are thought of as superior.

There's a new cheap Chinese battery car come out, anyone seen that? Uses ferrous batteries I think. And costs half the Tesla.

Of course the energy still has to come from somewhere...
(Son of Sam-i-am We're all as mad as hatters here, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:31, Reply)

Li-poly
Rather than Li-ion was starting to take off shortly before I left that scene. They seemed to be much better than previous Li-ion cells in just about every way. Only real drawback is that you have to be pretty careful with the way you charge them (fires and exploding cells...)

Personally though I reckon we should embrace hydrogen fuel cells and work on more sustainable ways of generating energy and minimising our energy requirements (tidal power and some of the technology involved with zero and negative carbon homes looks very promising to me).

Even if it turns out the man is having no impact on global warming it (causing or accelerating) it'd be nice to have sources of energy that don't rely on expendable resources.
( Captain V, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:31, Reply)

a lot of the green ideas just make good sense
regardless of whether or not we are affecting the climate or not.

as you say V, fossil fuels aren't going to last for ever so we should be looking into sustainable ways to replace them.

and using what we have got more efficiently!
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:35, Reply)

One idea
Which I really like simply because it was a bit of an "of course, that should havve been so obvious" moment is using a wax (or wax like) material in the walls of homes that, when the temperature is warm, melts thus storing energy and then freezes again when it gets cold thereby releasing the energy.

I'm not entirely convinced that it's particularly effective but it's certainly the sort of creativity we need to solve these problems.
( Captain V, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:39, Reply)

@Capt
That's a novel idea. I see it as working a little like those handwarmer packs chickenlady's nuggets use to keep them warm on winter mornings. They work a similar way.

I agree that we need to curb our dependence on any finite resource. Renewable energy is something I've championed for a long time.

However "feasible", "cost effective" and "politically expedient" are three mutually exclusive terms. Until we shut the politicians up, bring the green lobby back to planet "reality" and hold energy companies to account then we're in big trouble.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:45, Reply)

@PJM
I disagree - feasible and cost effective aren't mutually exclusive. I'd argue that cost effectiveness is just one of the many types of feasibilities.

As far as politicians are concerned - they can go fuck themselves. Popularity contests FTL. Meritocracy FTW!
( Captain V, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:49, Reply)

Yes PJM!
(we shall sup some fine ale & single malt and talk politics sometime in 2009 I think)

People often comment after trips to Europe how much better organised their public transportation is. Little things that seem obvious like the same tickets being valid for bus and train travel, and buses leaving bus stops outside stations 5 minutes after trains arrive...

The Europeans in general do pay much more tax to facilitate this though. As a socialist (more or less) that's something I wholeheartedly agree with, but it'd never fly with the middle Englanders. On a slight tangent this relates to something I always bang on about, which is the absence of a coherent left wing scene in this country compared to a lot of Europe; my theory for this is the fact that we've never had a true fascist government. In Italy, Germany and Spain for example their experiences with fascists have created a more widespread awareness of the need for socialism.

Captain - yeah there are benefits to Li-poly batteries, but the downsides relating to the availability of lithium still apply.

Hydrogen is an interesting one but until someone comes up with a way of creating massive amounts of green energy it isn't going to be viable. Concentrating on technologies that will allow us to use the same amount of energy as we do now is something of a fallacy; whatever green sources come into use (I particularly like the kite farm one) are going to have to go hand in hand with massive energy savings, as nothing is going to have the same energy density as fossil fuels.

If I was Prime Minister in the current economic situation, rather than bailing out the banks, I'd be splurging public money on massive Roosevelt style social employment. Take the three million unemployed and train them up to fit extra insulation to houses, train unemployed builders to build wind farms, HEP, and other renewable energy plants, and offer this free of charge to give the country the kick up the backside it needs.

Would be a far better use of all the money than bailing out the uber-capitalists!

Sorry - I get on a bit of a rant whenever politics is mentioned :D
(Son of Sam-i-am We're all as mad as hatters here, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:54, Reply)

re: Li-poly
I wasn't really suggesting them as an alternative just going off on a tangent really.

I like the idea of social employment schemes. Perhaps arm them with rifles and train them to kill idiots.

/isn't hitler...honest
( Captain V, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:03, Reply)

Have a look at this:
Better Place

It's a serious proposal, gaining some significant traction in places like Israel, Denmark and Hawaii.

The basic idea is that rather than charing the battery in situ, the battery is swapped out every time. Still takes slightly longer than filling up with Diesel (or Hydrogen), but much quicker than charging up your 'leccy Sinclair C5 equivalent.

Started by a chap called Shai Agassi, who's family company was bought out by SAP (if I remember right), and who was expected to do great things in the Software business until he got bitten by the green bug and decided to do something about things.

The idea was siezed on by Israel as a way of reducing their oil dependency on their friendly neighbours, and is also backed by partners like Renault.

I don't think it's perfect, and once again it depends on a massive infrastruction and vehicular change, but it is interesting, and it's got quite a lot of momentum now.
( Fireflier La la la la, not listening on, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:08, Reply)

I've heard people suggest that as a solution
But they don't seem to have considered how many batteries you need to power a car!

Think how heavy the 12V battery in your petrol- or diesel-powered car is. Now imagine having to change 50 of them every 500 miles.

There's also the fact that the batteries are usually built under the floor and round the outside of the car, so they're out of the way, and aren't going to be easily removable.

So, you have to:

a. Standardise battery shape/fitment/technology between EVERY make and model of car
b. Make the batteries easily accessible and replaceable from the exterior
c. Have a big crane at every garage to change them
d. Figure out what the garage is going to do to satisfy demand for batteries at peak times - when people are going to or coming back from work - and you don't have any batteries charged. Make the people wait their in their flat cars?

(and those are just the most obvious issues...)

It's the sort of idea that sounds impressive if you're a couple of students doing some blue sky thinking in a bar, but as someone who's been described as 'relentlessly practical' I think there'll be too many problems to implement it in the real world.
(Son of Sam-i-am We're all as mad as hatters here, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:14, Reply)

I do agree (kind of the point of my "I don't think it's perfect")
...and I don't know enough about the details other than to say that I understand that they have consider the engineering, social and business considerations of the concept.

So I'm not going to argue. However, a few other linkies if people are interested in reading more:

Wikipedia link
Register Story
A more challenging view with other links
Wired magazine article
( Fireflier La la la la, not listening on, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:27, Reply)

My idea for home heating
is for every house to have its roof covered in solar panels (not to generate electricity, as that's inefficient, but just solar collectors) which would then heat water during sunny times. The water is then stored in a huge insulated tank underground, and the heat extracted during the cooler months using a heat exchanger or heat pump if required, and used to warm the house.

That, coupled with effective insulation, should make the running costs of heating a home very low.

Of course there's the installation and maintenance to consider, but it's an idea.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:28, Reply)

What you've described
is a geothermal heat pump, more or less.

Actually, I'm amazed that the basic surface type heat pump isn't used all over in the UK. As long as temperatures stay above freezing they're incredibly efficient, and you lot generally don't get that cold.
( The Resident Loon Not a demographic. Do not measure., Tue 23 Dec 2008, 18:05, Reply)

I was wondering
Where the hydrogen would come from. However if the amount of energy required to obtain hydrogen is roughly the same as petrol is there a problem?
( jim_bob can herd cats., Tue 23 Dec 2008, 18:08, Reply)

As for electric cars...
I don't have the time to do the calcs right now, but basically the answer is that to recharge a car enough to give it a decent range you need to pour in an obscene amount of electricity in a relatively short time. Recharging an electric car in less than two hours would require far more electricity than your household entrance can supply- and probably more than the distribution networks can handle. In order to do it at all, you'd need a huge bank of capacitors in your garage constantly drawing power from the grid, then discharge it fairly quickly into your car.

Now, aside from the power requirement and having to go from a 200 Amp entrance to about ten times that- how safe would you feel having all that power stored in your garage? It would be basically a hundred lightning storms attached to your house. One little glitch and Zeus hits your ass with everything he's got in a millisecond and you turn into vapor.

Thanks, but no.

Diesel looks to me to be the way of the future, especially biodiesel.
( The Resident Loon Not a demographic. Do not measure., Tue 23 Dec 2008, 18:15, Reply)

If
oil is running out, then we have a duty to use it up as fast as possible and enjoy it while it's here.

I'm going to go out and buy a 4.2 Soverign and wheelspin everywhere I go.

In a couple of years I won't be able to apparently, so better get in there now!
(dchurch bah, Wed 24 Dec 2008, 12:42, Reply)