|
|
Post by jonksy on Dec 25, 2023 20:27:07 GMT
But these so called fast chargers are not popping up all over the country are they?
There are plenty of reasons for going electric: that pesky CO2 stuff, for one thing. But there’s another incentive for making the switch other than doing your bit for the polar bears: electric car charging costs. You see, charging an electric car has been - historically, at least - cheaper than filling up with conventional fuel. And that means over the course of electric vehicle ownership, you could save yourself a lot of money in running costs. Really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 25, 2023 21:46:08 GMT
But these so called fast chargers are not popping up all over the country are they?
There are plenty of reasons for going electric: that pesky CO2 stuff, for one thing. But there’s another incentive for making the switch other than doing your bit for the polar bears: electric car charging costs. You see, charging an electric car has been - historically, at least - cheaper than filling up with conventional fuel. And that means over the course of electric vehicle ownership, you could save yourself a lot of money in running costs. Really.
As I was saying, be careful with MSM intelligence, because it is not that high. Two mistakes here: First of all the round trip efficiency of batteries is about 90% so in their example it should be 'will cost you 64.8 times £0.34/ 0.9' Second mistake is various suppliers are doing a tariff where it is approx. 10p/kWh for 5hrs and 38p/kWh for the rest of the time. You basically need a tariff like this and a fast charger at home. Actually I was wondering that in the future, like houses offer parking spaces for a fee, in built up areas they could run a little business charging people's cars on their driveway. This would spread them out. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 26, 2023 8:45:26 GMT
Jonsky wrote: A tad harsh Jonksy, I believe they work fine in the summer. I believe neither of you have the faintest idea how they work. They don't work and that is the fucking problem with them zany. They are just a noise producing bit of crap......LOL....Just like the bumburghers. You have no idea how they work, you're just noise. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Dec 26, 2023 8:49:42 GMT
They don't work and that is the fucking problem with them zany. They are just a noise producing bit of crap......LOL....Just like the bumburghers. You have no idea how they work, you're just noise. I know exactly how they work zany. They fucking don't. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 26, 2023 8:52:13 GMT
But these so called fast chargers are not popping up all over the country are they?
There are plenty of reasons for going electric: that pesky CO2 stuff, for one thing. But there’s another incentive for making the switch other than doing your bit for the polar bears: electric car charging costs. You see, charging an electric car has been - historically, at least - cheaper than filling up with conventional fuel. And that means over the course of electric vehicle ownership, you could save yourself a lot of money in running costs. Really.
As I was saying, be careful with MSM intelligence, because it is not that high. Two mistakes here: First of all the round trip efficiency of batteries is about 90% so in their example it should be 'will cost you 64.8 times £0.34/ 0.9' Second mistake is various suppliers are doing a tariff where it is approx. 10p/kWh for 5hrs and 38p/kWh for the rest of the time. You basically need a tariff like this and a fast charger at home. Actually I was wondering that in the future, like houses offer parking spaces for a fee, in built up areas they could run a little business charging people's cars on their driveway. This would spread them out.Its already starting to happen co-charger.com/rent-my-charger/We're looking at putting some in in our business carparks which stand empty at night and half empty on week days. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 26, 2023 8:52:51 GMT
You have no idea how they work, you're just noise. I know exactly how they work zany. They fucking don't. No you don't. Not a clue |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Dec 26, 2023 8:57:19 GMT
But these so called fast chargers are not popping up all over the country are they?
There are plenty of reasons for going electric: that pesky CO2 stuff, for one thing. But there’s another incentive for making the switch other than doing your bit for the polar bears: electric car charging costs. You see, charging an electric car has been - historically, at least - cheaper than filling up with conventional fuel. And that means over the course of electric vehicle ownership, you could save yourself a lot of money in running costs. Really.
As I was saying, be careful with MSM intelligence, because it is not that high. Two mistakes here: First of all the round trip efficiency of batteries is about 90% so in their example it should be 'will cost you 64.8 times £0.34/ 0.9' Second mistake is various suppliers are doing a tariff where it is approx. 10p/kWh for 5hrs and 38p/kWh for the rest of the time. You basically need a tariff like this and a fast charger at home. Actually I was wondering that in the future, like houses offer parking spaces for a fee, in built up areas they could run a little business charging people's cars on their driveway. This would spread them out. Batteries are cap tested and the lowest pass is 85/ That doesn't mean that they will produce that current for the full length of the journey. An average BEV has a supposed 180 mile range providing the sun is shinning and there is no rain. You do the maths BVL there isn't a car on the road that can do 180 miles in an hour or less. At 60mph a car is travelling a mile a minute. You are fucking lucky these days if you can maintain a speed of 50mph including on our overburdened motorways. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Dec 26, 2023 9:13:00 GMT
I know exactly how they work zany. They fucking don't. No you don't. Not a clue I leave the lack of knowledge of the subject with those who are fooled by a snotty nosed little Swedish bint. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 26, 2023 11:59:27 GMT
I leave the lack of knowledge of the subject with those who are fooled by a snotty nosed little Swedish bint. You'll leave it because you haven't a clue. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 26, 2023 12:25:00 GMT
As I was saying, be careful with MSM intelligence, because it is not that high. Two mistakes here: First of all the round trip efficiency of batteries is about 90% so in their example it should be 'will cost you 64.8 times £0.34/ 0.9' Second mistake is various suppliers are doing a tariff where it is approx. 10p/kWh for 5hrs and 38p/kWh for the rest of the time. You basically need a tariff like this and a fast charger at home. Actually I was wondering that in the future, like houses offer parking spaces for a fee, in built up areas they could run a little business charging people's cars on their driveway. This would spread them out. Batteries are cap tested and the lowest pass is 85/ That doesn't mean that they will produce that current for the full length of the journey. An average BEV has a supposed 180 mile range providing the sun is shinning and there is no rain. You do the maths BVL there isn't a car on the road that can do 180 miles in an hour or less. At 60mph a car is travelling a mile a minute. You are fucking lucky these days if you can maintain a speed of 50mph including on our overburdened motorways. I admit the older batteries were pretty shit on range and general performance. The new ones are performing well even at -10C and have a lot greater range. It just saddens me that despite all the grants and all the hot air produced on climate change, and despite the UK being "world leaders", we have had to rely on Chinese brains for the right battery. I'd place the Japs as number two on that front. 1000km of range is now possible. You can maybe knock that back 20% for aging and non-ideal conditions, but I'd day 1000km is all the vast majority will ever need. The other problem with older batteries is they could be destroyed in 500 charges. I'm seeing claims of 5000-6000 cycles claimed now. The lithium batteries could be destroyed fast if you either let it discharge to zero or you charged to 100% so you need a good 30% just to maintain the longevity of the battery. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Dec 26, 2023 13:10:06 GMT
Batteries are cap tested and the lowest pass is 85/ That doesn't mean that they will produce that current for the full length of the journey. An average BEV has a supposed 180 mile range providing the sun is shinning and there is no rain. You do the maths BVL there isn't a car on the road that can do 180 miles in an hour or less. At 60mph a car is travelling a mile a minute. You are fucking lucky these days if you can maintain a speed of 50mph including on our overburdened motorways. on range and general performance. The new ones are performing well even at -10C and have a lot greater range. It just saddens me that despite all the grants and all the hot air produced on climate change, and despite the UK being "world leaders", we have had to rely on Chinese brains for the right battery. I'd place the Japs as number two on that front. 1000km of range is now possible. You can maybe knock that back 20% for aging and non-ideal conditions, but I'd day 1000km is all the vast majority will ever need. The other problem with older batteries is they could be destroyed in 500 charges. I'm seeing claims of 5000-6000 cycles claimed now. The lithium batteries could be destroyed fast if you either let it discharge to zero or you charged to 100% so you need a good 30% just to maintain the longevity of the battery. The new ones are even worse BVL. Why do you think it is that aviation hasn't adopeted litheum batteries? Boeing tied them on their 787's below are the results and it isn't good reading the FAA along with the CAA and EASSA have banned the use of Litheum batteries on aircraft and have reverted back to the use of either lead acid or Nicad. Unfortunately for you.....You have broached
a subject that I am well eductaed upon as I worked for the FAA during that period of time and helped with the investigation of these battery fires I received letters of thanks and commendations from Boeing, Bombardier and Embraer for my diligence1 and hard work I put into the investigation. There is not one single thing you can tell me about batteries BVL.
What Caused The Battery Fires That Grounded the Boeing 787 10 Years Ago?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Dec 26, 2023 13:13:25 GMT
I leave the lack of knowledge of the subject with those who are fooled by a snotty nosed little Swedish bint. You'll leave it because you haven't a clue. If you say so zany. But if I may remind you.....You haven't been correct on this subject even once. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 26, 2023 13:34:02 GMT
I admit the older batteries were pretty shit on range and general performance. The new ones are performing well even at -10C and have a lot greater range. It just saddens me that despite all the grants and all the hot air produced on climate change, and despite the UK being "world leaders", we have had to rely on Chinese brains for the right battery. I'd place the Japs as number two on that front. 1000km of range is now possible. You can maybe knock that back 20% for aging and non-ideal conditions, but I'd day 1000km is all the vast majority will ever need. The other problem with older batteries is they could be destroyed in 500 charges. I'm seeing claims of 5000-6000 cycles claimed now. The lithium batteries could be destroyed fast if you either let it discharge to zero or you charged to 100% so you need a good 30% just to maintain the longevity of the battery. The new ones are even worse BVL. Why do you think it is that aviation hasn't adopeted litheum batteries? Boeing tied them on their 787's below are the results and it isn't good reading the FAA along with the CAA and EASSA have banned the use of Litheum batteries on aircraft and have reverted back to the use of either lead acid or Nicad. Unfortunately for you.....You have broached
a subject that I am well eductaed upon as I worked for the FAA during that period of time and helped with the investigation of these battery fires I received letters of thanks and commendations from Boeing, Bombardier and Embraer for my diligence1 and hard work I put into the investigation. There is not one single thing you can tell me about batteries BVL.
What Caused The Battery Fires That Grounded the Boeing 787 10 Years Ago?
As you can see, the safety standards were behind the times, i.e. no consideration for thermal runaway. About 10 years ago the nickel–metal hydride battery was popular because it gave greater energy density and was used in many Japanese cars. These are the ones you see with the bad fire problems. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93metal_hydride_batteryThese are known to be bad batteries and are being replaced with Lithium iron phosphate batteries. For the latest versions the energy density had almost reached the level of the other type but are far safer and should not catch on fire. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_batteryFor aircraft batteries, every kg of additional weight is expensive over the lifetime of the craft, so chances are they used these higher-performing batteries, but less safe. The new ones, even when badly damaged will not go into thermal runaway. They might get hot still, but you need to design the proper thermal management, as the idiots seemed to have learnt after the event! If you really want to be safe, these new solid state batteries are quite incredible. I have a video somewhere of a Chinaman using one to power a mobile phone as he drills a large hole through the middle of it. The battery carries on working! |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 26, 2023 14:42:37 GMT
A tad harsh Jonksy, I believe they work fine in the summer. Right now I understand the solar + heatpump + water heater and batteries, if all done properly will be cheaper than conventional gas heating. It's a large investment, but over say ten years you would be better off and still have a warm house. They do make sense for new houses because a lot of the cost is retrofitting better insulation. Remember before 1973 fuel was very cheap. My view is it is high time the proles got to work improving their accommodation. Less paperwork and more graft is needed. If the Victorians could build so many quality houses then we should be able to do it, and we can knock the crap ones down. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Dec 26, 2023 15:03:02 GMT
Right now I understand the solar + heatpump + water heater and batteries, if all done properly will be cheaper than conventional gas heating. It's a large investment, but over say ten years you would be better off and still have a warm house. They do make sense for new houses because a lot of the cost is retrofitting better insulation. Remember before 1973 fuel was very cheap. My view is it is high time the proles got to work improving their accommodation. Less paperwork and more graft is needed. If the Victorians could build so many quality houses then we should be able to do it, and we can knock the crap ones down. Don't worry Red BLV's perpetual motion will win the day. |
|
