Irev might be about to have a "crisis"

[Bluebottle]

But I will happily agree that their would be benefits to electric vehicles from the same drag reduction approach.

That is the bit that was puzzling me.
OK, the same improvements in rolling resistence, Cd etc will benefit both vehicles so lets have all of those for both BlueRev 1 and the I-bottle prototype.

We agree that electric motors are 300% more efficient than "heat engines", be they coal/steam, petrol or diesel.
So electric would be better except that it has a big heat engine hidden in the background (which could also run bio-fuels but with the same mono-culture and world agri. problems).

Can we do without the horrible heat engines altogether?
By definition, the ICE vehicle can't, it would no longer have an engine.
The electric can and that frees it up from the lossy distribution system too. The bottle neck then is the nature and origin of the storage medium.
I only required a modest 28 mile a day round trip but managed it consistenty even on my very outdated technology.

The real problem is that people will not by either vehicle, most people prefer comediens on top Gear talking about noise, 0-60 and so-called "trials" that are really staged and scripted nonsense plus a prescribed notion of "cool". So unfortunatley none of it is ever going to happen in the main stream.

[anonstarter]

They are all lying devious shits with only vested self-interest as a guiding principle.

Fucking numpties, the lot of them.

A sentiment I also share!

[Bluebottle]

Whether they are are/are not doesn't alter the efficacy of electric vehicles.

Irev's example is just plain wrong anyway.

Irev said:
"Doncha just love their `2.3pence per mile` lie...?"

The figure he selected is the "tank-to-wheel" cost of running an electric (I get better figures than that but nevermind)
It is used as an equvilency figure so that you can compare MPG cost to charging cost.
This figure is a hard cold fact and can be reproduced reliably by anyone who cares to try.
In my case 28 miles cost me a £0.20 recharge, or £4-00 in petrol. (assuming charging is done from the mains and not a free source)

But that doesn't include having to replace the batteries
Of course it doesn't. It is the tank-to-wheel figure.

Just like the MPG cost doesn't include the cost of replacing the car's battery, oil changes, engine servicing, coolant, anti-freeze, exhaust, catalytic converter etc. It is just fuel cost in-V-miles out.

If you want lifetime running cost and envirionmental impact then we are looking at different figures.
The electric has the generation, batteries and charging,
Petrol has the above list and all the ancilleries needed for their support including the fuel tank, fuel pump, radiator, hoses and piping, spark plugs, gearboxes etc etc. Not to mention refineries, petrol staions, tankers, oil spills.........

It is a pretty straight forward figure. To call it a lie you have to willfully misread it as representing something it doesn't.

Seperate to all that:
Including generating/transmission costs/impacts gives you "well-to-wheel" figures, equivalent to getting oil out of the ground-v-miles travelled, including all the consumables and waste along the way. You can't demand that electrics own up to all the background stuff but petrol doesn't have to.


Then there are these amazing gains that are going to be made when/if new bearings are added to engines, but electric vehicles will not benefit because they have fewer moving parts. That is a real drawback except wait a minute... the electric already improved them by geting rid of them altogether.

This is just old thinking and perpetuated myths and heresay.
Neither side has all the answers, but only electric can be totally emmission free and they do work as commuter vehicles. "Rare Earth" technology has its problems but there are other alternatives and petroleum technlogy has its share of problems too. We should be looking at solving both those problems with an open mind, not making up and repeating propoganda.

[irev]

Is it propaganda to state that IF we all switched to electric vehicles tomorrow we would actually kill the planet within a generation? As the source for the `clean` electricity is actually far dirtier than the entire suply line chain for hydrcarbon generation, distribution and usage, subject to fewer emission regulations and the current `clean` sources generate cumulatively less then 1% of the worlds capacity for electricity consumption..?

I think not.

The NY Times stated recently in a thought provoking article on `How Green are Electric cars?'

In a worst-case situation, with electric power generated from a high proportion of coal — as it is in a wide swath of the country’s midsection — an electric car or a plug-in hybrid will generate slightly more full-cycle global-warming emissions, as the report calls the greenhouse gases, than the best gasoline-engine subcompact. In areas where the cleanest electricity is available — regions served by hydroelectric, natural gas or nuclear generating plants — greenhouse gas emissions may be less than half that of today’s best gasoline-engine vehicles.

In other words, the electric car cannot does not and should not, live in isolation of the greenhouse gas emission requirements. What is significant in the article
[read in full HERE] is that the electric car only actually beats the gasoline engined vehicle when the average mpg of the ICE is around the 30mpg mark. Although we're talking American gallons and American sources of electrical generation it does confirm that `electric` does not mean `green`, unless and until the whole life emission requirement - or the true `cost` of that electrical energy driving the wheel - is actually borne in mind.
What the `Leccy Liars want to do is flim-flam the moronic masses with their selective statistics. At current technology levels, going electric actually kills the planet faster than consumption of hydrocarbon resources.

A paradigm shift in tech is required. Until then the leccy lie is nothing more than parallel shit...

And at the same time the hydrocarbon industry is not standing still, has already begin putting its environmental house in order and that the ICE remains a far more efficiently-produced motive power source than any other, short of pedalling, is not in doubt. And lets not forget that total costs for the use of hydrocarbon-based energy IS passed directly and completely to the consumer whereas in most cases electrical vehicles are subsidised and their true costs subverted by any number of sleight-of-hand financial manipulations. If electrical energy had the same government tariffs slapped on it as fuel duty, I wonder how `efficient` we'd find electrical vehicle ownership?

And if you want proof, just look to household electrical bills.

[gn2]

Don't know if it's still the case, but I believe that once upon a time the electric TT bikes were charged from mobile petrol generators.

[Bluebottle]

Hang on, what about this supposed lie - 2p a mile tank-to-wheel?
Is that brushed under the carpet now or is it accepted as a fact?
And if I can do it for 0.0p am I telling a lie?

In the mean time lets take a look at these new beasts:
coal fired american vehicles and petrol powered TT bikes that happen to have electric motors;
you know they aren't "green" or "clean", I know they aren't. What is there to discuss?

I'm pretty sure you know "green" or "clean" electricity doesn't come from coal and you were using the terms for effect in making your point. Just in case, lets define it as power generated from low impact hippy dippy things like wind, wave, water, photo energy, atmospheric change etc, some people stretch it to include renewable energy and by-product sources.
Not widely available yet, but possible.

Now lets suppose a curious person and renowned liar cobbled together a couple of these methods and found that he had free go-go juice sufficient to get him to and from his (previous) job with no emissions from vehicle, generator or transmission. Zero emissions, zero cost.

How is said liar Killing the planet?
How can it be dirtier than burning fuel?
What is the trick statistic?

So, toe to toe, any ICE of your choosing against this electric charlatan.
Which is cheapest to fuel?
which is most polluting?
(I have a slow puncture on the front so you might win on tyre pressure today)

[Bluebottle]

Thought not.
That kind of buggers up the conspiracy theory then doesn't it.

So, it is possible for an individual electric bike to run with no emissions at all, but can it be done by large numbers of people? Lets see.

As it happens I have experimented with electric vehicles and found some drawbacks are real, some are bullshit and some you can work around. I have also built lightweight small engined vehicles as championed by Irev. I may even have learned a few things about both along the way. It is boring to anybody but me so I don't go on about it unless somebody challenges me with stuff that just isn't true.

I'm not an expert on electrics but I can compare one of my vehicles, a real bike, against what has been said and anybody who is interested can make up their own mind.

First off, batteries:
Irev reckons mining for the rare materials is massively over-wasteful and (from another thread) that batteries will only last 2 years and cost thousands to replace.
No. Perhaps you are thinking of Lithium and rare earth's? My batteries are "solid state" lead/acid - uses the most abundant substance on the planet.
Recyclable, doesn't have the "acid mist" or the sulphuric acid pollution of a traditional lead/acid car battery.
Mine have already lasted more than 2 years and the cost was less than £200 but that may have gone up.
They aren't as light as Li. but they are a damn sight more friendly, have good deep cycle performance and don't have "charge memory" problems.

So, while there are known ethical. longevity and cost problems with rare materials. I weighed it up, didn't use them, there is no reason why other people can't do the same.