Showing posts with label electric automobiles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label electric automobiles. Show all posts
March 18, 2024
June 07, 2023
Rowan Atkinson on EV's
Rowan Atkinson has published a comment piece in England, addressing issues with EV's. He's mostly right and he touches on issues I've also raised on my blog. You can read some of these views here: https://kenhorlor.blogspot.com/2018/07/why-electric-cars-are-no-good.html and here: https://kenhorlor.blogspot.com/2019/03/ev-nonsense-just-wont-go-away.html
YouTuber, Geoff Buys Cars breaks down what Atkinson is saying in the embedded video below. Bear in mind that Atkinson has a degree in Electric and Electronic Engineering and an MSc from Oxford University....
December 01, 2022
September 29, 2019
Big Oil and Electric Vehicles
I thought of this lovely conspiracy theory, have fun with it. I haven't seen this anywhere else, so I apologise in advance if this isn't an original idea.
As I've outlined numerous times, electric vehicles (EV's) are total nonsense, a complete waste of time, don't even think about them. That's the well considered experienced view of the matter, all very scientific.
But hang on, what if the fact EV's are utter crap has something to do with why they're being pushed so hard. What if the big oil companies and the myriad of companies heavily reliant on the liquid fuels infrastructure are pushing EV's as they know they're rubbish. They're doing this to discredit alternative fuels or forms of energy. The result would be to force people back to the internal combustion engine and this would be for the foreseeable future. In other words, EV's are a stalking horse, concealing big oil's desire to lock in fossil fuels. Hmm?
Note that Norway, the world's biggest hypocrite which has made a fortune from oil and gas is heavily promoting EV's. Sweden is not far behind this, they're massive hypocrite's too but they'd be promoting their carbon capture technology. There'd be a lot of interconnecting and overlapping agendas with this theory, but they all have one goal; to lock in people to a future that relies entirely on old industries that have morphed into new, sexy, born again new technology companies. Old technology companies that are really old tech re-branded or re-skinned.
To support this theory, consider ideas that never get looked at seriously. We have the idea of the water powered car, which are generally discredited. One in New Zealand was designed and built, the story of which you can read about here: https://waterpoweredcar.com/archieblue.html
The argument against this is that it involves more energy (or the same amount) to separate the hydrogen and so there is no gain. Fine, but what about a nuclear car? The nuclear reactor generating heat, then a steam engine is used for motive power. The amount of uranium needed to drive a car its entire useful life would be extremely small. Even microscopic. It would not be enough to create an explosion, it would be more like a clock with reflective hour and seconds hands and numbers.
Such a car completely circumvents the liquid fuels infrastructure. No gas stations, and very few oil refineries would be needed as only certain lubricants would be required for wheel bearings and the like. These ideas would be ditched because of that very fact. In this new green age of Corporate Green only the right technology is accepted and that has to be based upon centralised models that rely on the existing companies (or sources of capital ) to provide the solutions. Independence is not allowed, with this idea that's exactly why EV's are promoted, they're to fail as they must, sending people into the arms of Big Oil.
As I've outlined numerous times, electric vehicles (EV's) are total nonsense, a complete waste of time, don't even think about them. That's the well considered experienced view of the matter, all very scientific.
But hang on, what if the fact EV's are utter crap has something to do with why they're being pushed so hard. What if the big oil companies and the myriad of companies heavily reliant on the liquid fuels infrastructure are pushing EV's as they know they're rubbish. They're doing this to discredit alternative fuels or forms of energy. The result would be to force people back to the internal combustion engine and this would be for the foreseeable future. In other words, EV's are a stalking horse, concealing big oil's desire to lock in fossil fuels. Hmm?
Note that Norway, the world's biggest hypocrite which has made a fortune from oil and gas is heavily promoting EV's. Sweden is not far behind this, they're massive hypocrite's too but they'd be promoting their carbon capture technology. There'd be a lot of interconnecting and overlapping agendas with this theory, but they all have one goal; to lock in people to a future that relies entirely on old industries that have morphed into new, sexy, born again new technology companies. Old technology companies that are really old tech re-branded or re-skinned.
To support this theory, consider ideas that never get looked at seriously. We have the idea of the water powered car, which are generally discredited. One in New Zealand was designed and built, the story of which you can read about here: https://waterpoweredcar.com/archieblue.html
The argument against this is that it involves more energy (or the same amount) to separate the hydrogen and so there is no gain. Fine, but what about a nuclear car? The nuclear reactor generating heat, then a steam engine is used for motive power. The amount of uranium needed to drive a car its entire useful life would be extremely small. Even microscopic. It would not be enough to create an explosion, it would be more like a clock with reflective hour and seconds hands and numbers.
Such a car completely circumvents the liquid fuels infrastructure. No gas stations, and very few oil refineries would be needed as only certain lubricants would be required for wheel bearings and the like. These ideas would be ditched because of that very fact. In this new green age of Corporate Green only the right technology is accepted and that has to be based upon centralised models that rely on the existing companies (or sources of capital ) to provide the solutions. Independence is not allowed, with this idea that's exactly why EV's are promoted, they're to fail as they must, sending people into the arms of Big Oil.
August 27, 2018
How much more electricity do we need to go to 100% electric vehicles?
Ever wondered? Here's the answer. Please be seated when reading this as the news may knock you over. Electric vehicles are a nonsense.
http://euanmearns.com/how-much-more-electricity-do-we-need-to-go-to-100-electric-vehicles/
http://euanmearns.com/how-much-more-electricity-do-we-need-to-go-to-100-electric-vehicles/
July 21, 2018
Why Electric Cars Are No Good
Forget Elon Musk. Ignore the hype around battery powered electric cars. An electric battery powered automobile is a poor option at any price and I'll tell you why.
But first, before doing that let's consider the mineral fuel burning internal combustion engine powered car. It is brilliant. Henry Ford was onto something when he mastered its mass production and brought freedom to planet Earth. Yes, freedom. Suddenly, the average Joe or Janet could go anywhere and often did. In a matter of minutes you can put enough energy into a car to get you clear across the country. That's a lot of energy.
And cars have got better over time. So good in fact they're now five star hotels on wheels. I'm surprised they can't perform minor medical procedures on the occupants as they drive along, that's how good they are. Running out of fuel is rarely a risk as, wait for it, there are filling stations everywhere and the fuel itself is plentiful and cheap. The alternatives are also pretty cheap whether that be bio-fuels or coal to oil, or even coal gas. You get the idea.
Now along comes the so-called planet friendly option. The battery powered electric vehicle. It's not new in fact, the option has been explored time and again and it always fails. It will fail now, things haven't changed that much.
First, let's consider the battery itself. It consumes valuable minerals that are hard to mine and places them in a box. The battery then wears out pretty fast. Compared to a gasoline powered car, that's very fast. Batteries lose their get up and go. And then they die. When they die the battery has to be recycled, and the car owner has to buy a replacement or throw the car away. Do you want to throw your battery powered car away after 5-6 years?
Second, the battery is a store of energy like the fuel tank on its competitor. But it's a poor store of energy; batteries are fast to discharge and slow to charge. With gasoline it's the other way around. And batteries get drained fast, faster than a tank of gas. So, power to weight, rolling resistance (wet roads and icy conditions), wind and so on are big factors in how range is affected. Then when you run out of juice, that first problem kicks you in the butt. Oh dear. It's like travelling back to the days of horse and cart, where travellers had to stop at an Inn to refresh the horses, often staying overnight. Do we want to go back to that?
Third, infrastructure. How many charging points are out there and how long will it take to wait for a charging plug to become vacant? At a petrol station the queue may last a few minutes. Imagine the length of queue at electric charging points. Right now that is not an issue as so few cars are electric. But when the car fleet gets to as little as 5% of all cars, watch the road rage. It's going to be incredible.
Fourth, what do you do with a stranded battery vehicle? With a gasoline powered vehicle, you simply hitch or walk to the nearest station, buy a jerry can, fill it up, then go back to the car and pour in the gas. Voilà, you're back going again. With a battery powered car if you have no generator back-up you'd have to get a car transporter costing hundreds of dollars. An expensive mistake running out of juice that one.
Fifth, what is the resale value on that battery powered car?
Sixth, have you had enough already?
What may work are hybrids and plugin hybrids. Or even electric cars with back-up generators on board, used solely to boost range. But purely electric is a fad pure and simple.
What are the advantages of electric? Well, as someone who has worked with electric powered equipment all his adult life, electric power provides more grunt. Lots of it. In industrial settings electric is superior. But you never want to rely on batteries as they're a dud. Trust me. So taking that into consideration I can see inner city commercial vehicles being electric as they often are now anyway. And electric is very useful in warehousing, fork hoists are often battery powered as you don't have to vent the enclosed spaces. It's all been thought of before.
And heavy trucks may be hybrid, but then why not just use rail? Construction vehicles like excavators are often hybrid these days, that's good too, but of course much industry runs on three phase power and has done so since Adam was a cowboy.
Basically what I'm saying is that anyone who tells you that battery powered electric automobiles are the way of the future is a snake oil salesman. It's as straightforward as that.
But first, before doing that let's consider the mineral fuel burning internal combustion engine powered car. It is brilliant. Henry Ford was onto something when he mastered its mass production and brought freedom to planet Earth. Yes, freedom. Suddenly, the average Joe or Janet could go anywhere and often did. In a matter of minutes you can put enough energy into a car to get you clear across the country. That's a lot of energy.
And cars have got better over time. So good in fact they're now five star hotels on wheels. I'm surprised they can't perform minor medical procedures on the occupants as they drive along, that's how good they are. Running out of fuel is rarely a risk as, wait for it, there are filling stations everywhere and the fuel itself is plentiful and cheap. The alternatives are also pretty cheap whether that be bio-fuels or coal to oil, or even coal gas. You get the idea.
Now along comes the so-called planet friendly option. The battery powered electric vehicle. It's not new in fact, the option has been explored time and again and it always fails. It will fail now, things haven't changed that much.
First, let's consider the battery itself. It consumes valuable minerals that are hard to mine and places them in a box. The battery then wears out pretty fast. Compared to a gasoline powered car, that's very fast. Batteries lose their get up and go. And then they die. When they die the battery has to be recycled, and the car owner has to buy a replacement or throw the car away. Do you want to throw your battery powered car away after 5-6 years?
Second, the battery is a store of energy like the fuel tank on its competitor. But it's a poor store of energy; batteries are fast to discharge and slow to charge. With gasoline it's the other way around. And batteries get drained fast, faster than a tank of gas. So, power to weight, rolling resistance (wet roads and icy conditions), wind and so on are big factors in how range is affected. Then when you run out of juice, that first problem kicks you in the butt. Oh dear. It's like travelling back to the days of horse and cart, where travellers had to stop at an Inn to refresh the horses, often staying overnight. Do we want to go back to that?
Third, infrastructure. How many charging points are out there and how long will it take to wait for a charging plug to become vacant? At a petrol station the queue may last a few minutes. Imagine the length of queue at electric charging points. Right now that is not an issue as so few cars are electric. But when the car fleet gets to as little as 5% of all cars, watch the road rage. It's going to be incredible.
Fourth, what do you do with a stranded battery vehicle? With a gasoline powered vehicle, you simply hitch or walk to the nearest station, buy a jerry can, fill it up, then go back to the car and pour in the gas. Voilà, you're back going again. With a battery powered car if you have no generator back-up you'd have to get a car transporter costing hundreds of dollars. An expensive mistake running out of juice that one.
Fifth, what is the resale value on that battery powered car?
Sixth, have you had enough already?
What may work are hybrids and plugin hybrids. Or even electric cars with back-up generators on board, used solely to boost range. But purely electric is a fad pure and simple.
What are the advantages of electric? Well, as someone who has worked with electric powered equipment all his adult life, electric power provides more grunt. Lots of it. In industrial settings electric is superior. But you never want to rely on batteries as they're a dud. Trust me. So taking that into consideration I can see inner city commercial vehicles being electric as they often are now anyway. And electric is very useful in warehousing, fork hoists are often battery powered as you don't have to vent the enclosed spaces. It's all been thought of before.
And heavy trucks may be hybrid, but then why not just use rail? Construction vehicles like excavators are often hybrid these days, that's good too, but of course much industry runs on three phase power and has done so since Adam was a cowboy.
Basically what I'm saying is that anyone who tells you that battery powered electric automobiles are the way of the future is a snake oil salesman. It's as straightforward as that.