Showing posts with label electric cars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label electric cars. Show all posts
March 18, 2024
March 07, 2024
Wind and Solar Unreliable
Here's a useful outline of how wind and solar generated electricity makes the power grid less reliable:
July 29, 2023
Car Carrier Burns
Yet again, we have a Car Carrier catching fire and the crew abandoning ship. This fire is on a ship off the Dutch coast. It is reported the fire started in an electric vehicle (EV). There are 498 EV's on board (earlier reports say 25, that's wrong).
The problem with fires like this is they're very hard to put out. EV's burn intensely and the fire cannot be extinguished. On a ship like this, water can only be used sparingly as the vessel is naturally top heavy anyway, and if you pump water on board the boat can capsize.
EV's are dangerous. If they do catch fire, they burn furiously. This ship will likely sink or be sunk. But imagine an EV fire in a parking building, the heat could easily weaken the structure and lead to collapse.
EV's aren't suitable for everyday transport across the whole fleet. The vehicles themselves are heavy due to the batteries, wearing out roads and bridges. And old parking buildings were never built to carry the extra weight. As they age and you add more weight, you shorten the life of buildings. Then, add the risk of fire that cannot be put out.
You'll never run out of reasons as to why EV's are a dud.
The Dutch coast guard said Thursday that the cause of the fire was unclear and that only about 25 of the vehicles on the ship were EVs, but in the audio of an emergency call released by Dutch broadcaster RTL, someone can be heard saying "the fire started in the battery of an electric car."
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
April 25, 2022
EV's lock you up
In the embedded video, the woman speaking makes my argument exactly. EV's are being promoted to lock people up. Consider women with an abusive partner. If you cannot travel far and your partner controls access to energy, you're trapped. Think about it.
April 15, 2022
Pure EV's No Good - For Now
Here's a different way of looking at electric vehicles but he comes to the same conclusions I do:
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.
March 06, 2019
EV Nonsense Just Won't Go Away
Yes, a popular theme of mine, explaining just how impractical and nonsensical purely electric vehicles are. My advice - don't buy one. In 10 years time they're going to be valueless in New Zealand and I'll tell you why:
Installed Generation Capacity
NZ does not have the installed generation capacity to power a sizeable fleet of EV's. If NZ ever did get a sizeable EV fleet, then electricity prices would skyrocket. The situation would be so bad, the entire country would need to go back to living like they were in the nineteenth century, with candles for lighting and cooking over a wood burning stove.
Electricity Industry Not Built for EV's
When NZ's economic planners were structuring NZ's electricity supply, they did not provide for an EV fleet. When the automobile was invented battery powered cars were tried and they failed as all EV's do.
Car manufacturers looked at various gases and steam, but the petrol and diesel powered internal combustion engine won hands down. That's why almost all cars are powered by fossil fuels through an internal combustion engine. They work well and provide the greatest utility.
What was left for electricity was in powering houses, offices and fixed industry. Most of this power goes into heating homes across the country. Winter is a time of high demand.
So what did the planners do? They looked at NZ's large water resources and figured that if they built large hydro lakes then they'd fill during the summer when the snow melted, making that potential energy in the lake available to be transferred into electrical energy through the winter. There have been a few hiccups with this, notably during winters delivering little snow, meaning the coming summer didn't get the melt and the following winter ran low on available electrical supply. If the lakes are empty, you have no power.
Most of NZ's electricity comes from these hydro lakes. But what can make things worse? Any demand that draws on the lakes during the summer. This is the problem with EV's as NZ car use is highest during the summer months. If NZ was to rely on EV's, it would be equivalent to every home in NZ turning on a heater day after day, 360 days of the year. This would mean no electricity at all as the hydro lakes would be empty.
EV users would then need to turn to their own devices, most likely petrol or diesel generators due to their reliability. This defeats the whole purpose of EV's.
Decentralised vs Centralised Generation
When addressing the problem of demand no matter the time of year, the call is then made to install the generators, get it done. This sounds like a willingness to get somewhere but it too falls short. That's because most quick-fix solutions involve decentralised models, and they don't work. What's decentralised? That's where the home has its own solar panels, maybe a battery, and possibly wind turbine or micro hydro. Sounds good, but it isn't so good.
Is a decentralised model practical? How can an 85 year old get onto the roof to clean those solar panels? When you move house what will the system be like where you move to, and will it have been maintained? What about apartment blocks? A decentralised model adds complexity where none is desirable. The consumer wants to flick a switch and voila, the lights go on.
The decentralised model is expensive, is subject to uncertain output, and trusts millions of households to play their part - it's a recipe for disaster.
Centralised generation is the sensible approach and the only way forward, but once again the problem is the expense. NZ does not have the money to install enough generation to power an EV fleet. It doesn't matter what the means of generation are, the money simply isn't there. NZ would be bankrupted trying to install the required capacity (the calculations are provided in my book Snob's Guide to New Zealand).
Losses
EV zealots forget that moving to electricity harms the liquid fuels industry. I think this is the killer blow to any EV's being allowed on the road. Who has paid for the roads? The car user paying through fuel tax, that's who. That revenue begins to dry up but may be replaced by similar charges for EV's, but the service stations and fuel distributors will suffer losses and need to downsize. This also adds to the miles car users will need to travel to refuel. The government will be deprived of fuel tax revenues, along with less income tax revenue after worker layoffs and business failures, and the whole economy suffers because transport becomes less efficient.
Bear in mind EV's would not be able to replace all cars. Police cars and other emergency responders would need to be powered by the internal combustion engine (imagine the bad guys getting away because the cop car battery was low, or the ambulance failing to arrive) and they'd be faced with the same nuisance of not being able to find fuel readily.
Conclusion
There is nothing good to be said about EV's. If you want a formula that bankrupts New Zealand, then EV's are the perfect storm.
In a later blog post I'll address how NZ should approach things. And last year I posted the following about why exactly EV's are useless cars: https://kenhorlor.blogspot.com/2018/07/why-electric-cars-are-no-good.html
Installed Generation Capacity
NZ does not have the installed generation capacity to power a sizeable fleet of EV's. If NZ ever did get a sizeable EV fleet, then electricity prices would skyrocket. The situation would be so bad, the entire country would need to go back to living like they were in the nineteenth century, with candles for lighting and cooking over a wood burning stove.
Electricity Industry Not Built for EV's
When NZ's economic planners were structuring NZ's electricity supply, they did not provide for an EV fleet. When the automobile was invented battery powered cars were tried and they failed as all EV's do.
Car manufacturers looked at various gases and steam, but the petrol and diesel powered internal combustion engine won hands down. That's why almost all cars are powered by fossil fuels through an internal combustion engine. They work well and provide the greatest utility.
What was left for electricity was in powering houses, offices and fixed industry. Most of this power goes into heating homes across the country. Winter is a time of high demand.
So what did the planners do? They looked at NZ's large water resources and figured that if they built large hydro lakes then they'd fill during the summer when the snow melted, making that potential energy in the lake available to be transferred into electrical energy through the winter. There have been a few hiccups with this, notably during winters delivering little snow, meaning the coming summer didn't get the melt and the following winter ran low on available electrical supply. If the lakes are empty, you have no power.
Most of NZ's electricity comes from these hydro lakes. But what can make things worse? Any demand that draws on the lakes during the summer. This is the problem with EV's as NZ car use is highest during the summer months. If NZ was to rely on EV's, it would be equivalent to every home in NZ turning on a heater day after day, 360 days of the year. This would mean no electricity at all as the hydro lakes would be empty.
EV users would then need to turn to their own devices, most likely petrol or diesel generators due to their reliability. This defeats the whole purpose of EV's.
Decentralised vs Centralised Generation
When addressing the problem of demand no matter the time of year, the call is then made to install the generators, get it done. This sounds like a willingness to get somewhere but it too falls short. That's because most quick-fix solutions involve decentralised models, and they don't work. What's decentralised? That's where the home has its own solar panels, maybe a battery, and possibly wind turbine or micro hydro. Sounds good, but it isn't so good.
Is a decentralised model practical? How can an 85 year old get onto the roof to clean those solar panels? When you move house what will the system be like where you move to, and will it have been maintained? What about apartment blocks? A decentralised model adds complexity where none is desirable. The consumer wants to flick a switch and voila, the lights go on.
The decentralised model is expensive, is subject to uncertain output, and trusts millions of households to play their part - it's a recipe for disaster.
Centralised generation is the sensible approach and the only way forward, but once again the problem is the expense. NZ does not have the money to install enough generation to power an EV fleet. It doesn't matter what the means of generation are, the money simply isn't there. NZ would be bankrupted trying to install the required capacity (the calculations are provided in my book Snob's Guide to New Zealand).
Losses
EV zealots forget that moving to electricity harms the liquid fuels industry. I think this is the killer blow to any EV's being allowed on the road. Who has paid for the roads? The car user paying through fuel tax, that's who. That revenue begins to dry up but may be replaced by similar charges for EV's, but the service stations and fuel distributors will suffer losses and need to downsize. This also adds to the miles car users will need to travel to refuel. The government will be deprived of fuel tax revenues, along with less income tax revenue after worker layoffs and business failures, and the whole economy suffers because transport becomes less efficient.
Bear in mind EV's would not be able to replace all cars. Police cars and other emergency responders would need to be powered by the internal combustion engine (imagine the bad guys getting away because the cop car battery was low, or the ambulance failing to arrive) and they'd be faced with the same nuisance of not being able to find fuel readily.
Conclusion
There is nothing good to be said about EV's. If you want a formula that bankrupts New Zealand, then EV's are the perfect storm.
In a later blog post I'll address how NZ should approach things. And last year I posted the following about why exactly EV's are useless cars: https://kenhorlor.blogspot.com/2018/07/why-electric-cars-are-no-good.html
Edit to add: After Hurricane Ian many EV's caught fire - why? https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/120/742/623/playable/26b11f358efd82f3.mp4
November 26, 2018
EV's: Hypocritical Norway
New Zealand is being urged to embrace the example of Norway when it comes to electric vehicles or EV's. Norway has a fast growing EV fleet and it's claimed that's because they tax dirty forms of transport. Maybe they do, I don't care, they have a growing EV fleet, good for them.
But what gets my goat is that the money to live their comfortable lifestyles comes care of North Sea oil revenues. They dirtied the planet and did their part in contributing to Global Climate Change but now they're pontificating worldwide about how great their environmental credentials are. What Norway and their boosters are saying, in effect, is don't do what they did; stay in your mud huts and live off renewables.
It's the new form of European colonialism. Having plundered the planet, everyone else with similar ideas has to stop that immediately and learn to live in the Third World as noble savages. Well I don't buy it and they can shove their ideas.
Here's what should happen to EV's. They should be taxed heavily. Don't tax the liquid fuels transport markets. Why? Surely the user should pay for everything. In this case the user should pay a charge to add to the generation capacity required to power the fleet. EV's were never envisaged when generation capacity was installed in the first place, and so EV users must add to that.
The EV user is also leaving the existing infrastructure which has been invested in for over a hundred years. They leave behind jobs and the capital invested in oil by moving to a parallel electrical infrastructure never planned for their arrival. They need to pay for that as well, call it an exit charge if you like. These two charges would amount to a ban on EV's as the cost would dissuade any potential user. That's as it should be, EV's are a total waste of time apart from the rather obvious example of novelty items like Lime scooters or bicycles.
But what gets my goat is that the money to live their comfortable lifestyles comes care of North Sea oil revenues. They dirtied the planet and did their part in contributing to Global Climate Change but now they're pontificating worldwide about how great their environmental credentials are. What Norway and their boosters are saying, in effect, is don't do what they did; stay in your mud huts and live off renewables.
It's the new form of European colonialism. Having plundered the planet, everyone else with similar ideas has to stop that immediately and learn to live in the Third World as noble savages. Well I don't buy it and they can shove their ideas.
Here's what should happen to EV's. They should be taxed heavily. Don't tax the liquid fuels transport markets. Why? Surely the user should pay for everything. In this case the user should pay a charge to add to the generation capacity required to power the fleet. EV's were never envisaged when generation capacity was installed in the first place, and so EV users must add to that.
The EV user is also leaving the existing infrastructure which has been invested in for over a hundred years. They leave behind jobs and the capital invested in oil by moving to a parallel electrical infrastructure never planned for their arrival. They need to pay for that as well, call it an exit charge if you like. These two charges would amount to a ban on EV's as the cost would dissuade any potential user. That's as it should be, EV's are a total waste of time apart from the rather obvious example of novelty items like Lime scooters or bicycles.
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.