|
Post by zanygame on Oct 26, 2023 7:38:31 GMT
Zanygame said; "Octopus day rate is currently 27.45p per kWh" What's their standing charge? There must be some catch. However, you're not getting 167mpg - that's Alice in Wonderland thinking. The "hybrid" is basically an ICE car with a small battery and electric motor that allows it to complete most of the WLTP test on electric power - and therefore give fictional mpg figures. I think the WLTP figures for your car are 170mpg, but the real world figures are below 40mpg. The fact is that the car manufacturers deliberately designed the hybrid to fool the official mpg tests - just as VW-Audi put in "cheat" software to make their diesels emit less NOX while on the test. If the ICE car manufacturers didn't make hybrids their average mpg (over their range of cars) would be much lower and they'd be fined heavily for every ICE car they made. It's a con, of course, but it's one in which the EU is complicit - otherwise nobody would be making ICE cars. You pay the standing charge whether you have an EV or not. Stop digging. And rinse repeat doesn't change the numbers. Numbers for my own car. Same with trying to muddy the water by raising cheat software (Which happened on ICE vehicles, 😅)
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Oct 27, 2023 8:01:55 GMT
Zanygame said; "Octopus day rate is currently 27.45p per kWh" What's their standing charge? There must be some catch. However, you're not getting 167mpg - that's Alice in Wonderland thinking. The "hybrid" is basically an ICE car with a small battery and electric motor that allows it to complete most of the WLTP test on electric power - and therefore give fictional mpg figures. I think the WLTP figures for your car are 170mpg, but the real world figures are below 40mpg. The fact is that the car manufacturers deliberately designed the hybrid to fool the official mpg tests - just as VW-Audi put in "cheat" software to make their diesels emit less NOX while on the test. If the ICE car manufacturers didn't make hybrids their average mpg (over their range of cars) would be much lower and they'd be fined heavily for every ICE car they made. It's a con, of course, but it's one in which the EU is complicit - otherwise nobody would be making ICE cars. You pay the standing charge whether you have an EV or not. Stop digging. And rinse repeat doesn't change the numbers. Numbers for my own car. Same with trying to muddy the water by raising cheat software (Which happened on ICE vehicles, 😅) I'm just interested in how Octopus make any money charging so much less than other providers charge. I can't get a deal anywhere near that. I wonder if they'll be the next energy company to go bust. As you say, if you charge your car solely at home overnight you're getting cheap motoring, but it doesn't mean that you're getting "167 mpg". You're not - you're getting very cheap electricity. Most people who use a hybrid never plug them in (as found in a survey of company car drivers) and are then surprised that they do NOT get 167 mpg - they get less than 40mpg. And the cheat software is no different from the "cheat battery". They're both devised to give buyers misleading information. It's just that the people who devised the WLTP tests were obviously complicit in the "Hybrid cheat" because, without it, no car company would be able to sell ICE cars because the fines would bankrupt them.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 27, 2023 16:02:51 GMT
You pay the standing charge whether you have an EV or not. Stop digging. And rinse repeat doesn't change the numbers. Numbers for my own car. Same with trying to muddy the water by raising cheat software (Which happened on ICE vehicles, 😅) Well if you're interested you would look it up yourself instead of keep asking me. Octopus is a not for profit company. Yes I am getting the equivalent of 167mpg. Link? I don't believe you. And if some don't more fool them. Apart from it happened with diesel and petrol vehicles, was clamped down on and no longer happens. Therefore is not happening on Plugin hybrids. Why don't you check the new test criteria instead of making shit up. Further I gave links to independent assessment plus my own real life figures. You are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Oct 28, 2023 8:22:20 GMT
There are loads of links showing that people usually don't charge hybrids. Why would they? The battery's so small. Like I said it's just to get the car through the WLTP tests and give a fictional mpg figure. The test could easily be changed to stop this cheat but they don't want to do that. As I explained if the test showed hybrids' actual mpg all the ICE car manufacturers would go bankrupt. The EU fine you heavily for every car you sell that breaches efficiency requirements. link
And a lot of them think, like you, that hybrids give them better mpg, when actually the reverse is true. Last year (IIRC) I noticed that CAR magazine - which has brief reviews on every car at the back of each edition - had said that the VW Golf GTE was "like having a Golf GTI but with a clear conscience". They were saying that it did better mpg than a GTI while performing about the same. Which is wrong. So I sent them an email explaining why the GTE was actually less efficient than the GTI - just like I've tried to explain to you. They actually printed my email and the editor added that he agreed with my figures and changed their review of the GTE. They're very inefficient cars as used by most drivers. And they're unsafe because of the Li-ion battery. Don't charge it anywhere near your house zany. You've been warned.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 28, 2023 8:46:07 GMT
Company cars. Where the business picks up the tab. Stupid businesses buying expensive plugin hybrids and not pushing for charging. Stupid government not thinking through tax breaks. Simple solution, reduce the mileage allowance and offer a monthly contribution for charging. That does not make hybrids less efficient, it makes people more stupid.
Only because they are not using the potential like I do. Are you suggesting we should stop making more efficient vehicles because people are too stupid to use them properly? Last year (IIRC) I noticed that CAR magazine - which has brief reviews on every car at the back of each edition - had said that the VW Golf GTE was "like having a Golf GTI but with a clear conscience". They were saying that it did better mpg than a GTI while performing about the same. Which is wrong. So I sent them an email explaining why the GTE was actually less efficient than the GTI - just like I've tried to explain to you. They actually printed my email and the editor added that he agreed with my figures and changed their review of the GTE. Actually ICE car fires are far more common than EV ones A Freedom of Information request submitted by Air Quality News revealed that the London Fire Brigade tackled 54 EV fires in 2019, compared with 1898 fires involving petrol or diesel cars. True, there are far more petrol and diesel cars on London roads than EVs, but this still means there were proportionally fewer electric car fires than fires involving ICE cars.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 28, 2023 9:33:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 28, 2023 9:39:40 GMT
The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) has this week asked owners of ‘ro-ro’ vessels – roll-on, roll-off car carriers such as ferries – to start planning for the possibility that an electric car onboard will one day spontaneously catch fire.Sounds sensible. EV fires require different reactions to ICE fires. Still very rare though.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 28, 2023 11:31:19 GMT
I'm waiting for EV's to be banned from the channel tunnel - after all if you are a truck transporting EV batteries you are not allowed through now.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 28, 2023 12:18:51 GMT
I'm waiting for EV's to be banned from the channel tunnel - after all if you are a truck transporting EV batteries you are not allowed through now. Might happen. Though I suspect alternatives to a ban might be found
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Oct 30, 2023 9:11:03 GMT
The point that you miss, zany, is that the consequences of an EV car fire are FAR more serious, because the fires are so much higher temperature and basically can't be put out. I also believe that, when there's more data on this subject, it'll be shown that EV fires are more common than those in ICE cars. I'm still waiting for the Fire Brigade's report on the Luton Airport fire where all 1500 cars were written off and the multi-storey car park has partially collapsed. ICE car fires tend to be localised and most certainly do NOT burn hot enough to melt steel structures.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 30, 2023 10:14:22 GMT
The point that you miss, zany, is that the consequences of an EV car fire are FAR more serious, because the fires are so much higher temperature and basically can't be put out. I also believe that, when there's more data on this subject, it'll be shown that EV fires are more common than those in ICE cars. I'm still waiting for the Fire Brigade's report on the Luton Airport fire where all 1500 cars were written off and the multi-storey car park has partially collapsed. ICE car fires tend to be localised and most certainly do NOT burn hot enough to melt steel structures. I didn't miss it, you didn't raise it. Yes I agree that though they are far less likely to catch fire when they do its a bigger issue. Further they are more likely to catch fire when being charged and unattended whereas ICE vehicles its usually when they are being driven. Both need separate measures. ICE vehicle fires often lead to road closures adding huge costs to them through lost time for hundreds of drivers. EV fires are at very high temperatures and difficult to extinguish, the current advice is to contain the fire and let them burn themselves out. Already they are looking at vehicle fire blankets to starve the fire of oxygen rather than trying to cool them with water. The Fire at Luton airport was caused by a diesel car. This is interesting. cleantechnica.com/2021/11/22/rosenbauer-introduces-new-firefighting-equipment-for-ev-battery-fires/Rosenbauer thinks about new firefighting techniques all the time. While EVs are no more at risk of fires than a conventional car, battery fires are different than gasoline fires and require specialized equipment to put them out effectively. Battery fires tend to be significantly hotter than gasoline fires. Today, most fire departments just pump copious quantities of water onto a burning electric car. The problem is, batteries are encased in a protective housing that is designed to be waterproof. See the problem? Rosenbauer has developed new equipment for dealing with that problem. It consists of two components — an extinguishing unit and an operating unit, connected by water hoses. Firefighters place the extinguishing unit between the battery and the road if the EV is still on its wheels or attach it to the outside of the vehicle near the battery if the car is on its side or upside down on its roof. The device is controlled from about 25 feet away. When activated, the extinguishing unit drives a mandrel with a piercing lance into the battery with a force of several tons, then sends water through the lance to flood the interior of the battery with water. The unit can be left attached to the battery during transport. As long as there is a supply of water, more can be forced into the battery compartment in case of re-ignition.
Rosenbauer says it has tested the system with factory, professional, and voluntary fire departments in Europe, and on different battery designs including pouch, prismatic, and cylindrical cells with good results. The equipment is designed to integrate with current fire department training and tactics.
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 30, 2023 12:23:33 GMT
I used to drive an ICE BMW X5, which I gave up when replacement was due. I haven’t yet replaced it and enjoy test driving EV and hybrid vehicles. Those I’ve driven have been quiet and comfortable, and have rapid acceleration. If I was a Ferrari or Maserati driver, I could enjoy them. But I’ve enjoyed BMW, Lexus, and Mercedes EVs and will probably select one of those. Meanwhile, we happily exist on Mrs P’s hybrid Outlander…
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Oct 30, 2023 14:46:49 GMT
The point that you miss, zany, is that the consequences of an EV car fire are FAR more serious, because the fires are so much higher temperature and basically can't be put out. I also believe that, when there's more data on this subject, it'll be shown that EV fires are more common than those in ICE cars. I'm still waiting for the Fire Brigade's report on the Luton Airport fire where all 1500 cars were written off and the multi-storey car park has partially collapsed. ICE car fires tend to be localised and most certainly do NOT burn hot enough to melt steel structures. I didn't miss it, you didn't raise it. Yes I agree that though they are far less likely to catch fire when they do its a bigger issue. Further they are more likely to catch fire when being charged and unattended whereas ICE vehicles its usually when they are being driven. Both need separate measures. ICE vehicle fires often lead to road closures adding huge costs to them through lost time for hundreds of drivers. EV fires are at very high temperatures and difficult to extinguish, the current advice is to contain the fire and let them burn themselves out. Already they are looking at vehicle fire blankets to starve the fire of oxygen rather than trying to cool them with water. The Fire at Luton airport was caused by a diesel car. This is interesting. cleantechnica.com/2021/11/22/rosenbauer-introduces-new-firefighting-equipment-for-ev-battery-fires/Rosenbauer thinks about new firefighting techniques all the time. While EVs are no more at risk of fires than a conventional car, battery fires are different than gasoline fires and require specialized equipment to put them out effectively. Battery fires tend to be significantly hotter than gasoline fires. Today, most fire departments just pump copious quantities of water onto a burning electric car. The problem is, batteries are encased in a protective housing that is designed to be waterproof. See the problem? Rosenbauer has developed new equipment for dealing with that problem. It consists of two components — an extinguishing unit and an operating unit, connected by water hoses. Firefighters place the extinguishing unit between the battery and the road if the EV is still on its wheels or attach it to the outside of the vehicle near the battery if the car is on its side or upside down on its roof. The device is controlled from about 25 feet away. When activated, the extinguishing unit drives a mandrel with a piercing lance into the battery with a force of several tons, then sends water through the lance to flood the interior of the battery with water. The unit can be left attached to the battery during transport. As long as there is a supply of water, more can be forced into the battery compartment in case of re-ignition.
Rosenbauer says it has tested the system with factory, professional, and voluntary fire departments in Europe, and on different battery designs including pouch, prismatic, and cylindrical cells with good results. The equipment is designed to integrate with current fire department training and tactics. For a start I didn't agree that EV's are less likely to catch fire than ICE cars. There's no data that demonstrates this. In particular the data on EVs is minimal because there are few around and they do low mileages. Also the problems with their fires is that they cause huge amounts of damage - like destroying nearby houses. And the information about the Luton fire is not yet clear. The FB say it's "thought to have been started by a diesel car" but there's not been any evidence of that yet. But one diesel car on fire doesn't destroy a whole multi-storey car park and all the cars in it. Also a recent EV fire, which caused the destruction of the house it was parked outside was NOT being charged at the time. EV's are perfectly capable of spontaneous combustion. They're also capable of exploding when being charged or while being driven (both activities cause the battery to heat up). The problems with Li-ion batteries tend to increase with age - especially when they're subject to vibration or shock which is what happens with cars. And the stuff about extinguishing the fires is also wrong. Li-ion batteries do NOT require oxygen to burn so starving them of oxygen doesn't work. The combustion of these batteries is a chemical reaction that will continue to occur until the battery is completely destroyed. During this process the temperatures can reach 5000C (about 5 times higher than a petrol fire). I've yet to read of any way of putting the fires out. Neither water nor oxygen deprivation seem to work - although water can control the temperature to a certain extent. They're an accident waiting to happen zany. I just cannot understand why they were give approval given how dangerous they are. The only hope for BEVs is that solid state batteries can be made to work (and be affordable) but it still seems years away.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 30, 2023 15:06:55 GMT
I didn't miss it, you didn't raise it. Yes I agree that though they are far less likely to catch fire when they do its a bigger issue. Further they are more likely to catch fire when being charged and unattended whereas ICE vehicles its usually when they are being driven. Both need separate measures. ICE vehicle fires often lead to road closures adding huge costs to them through lost time for hundreds of drivers. EV fires are at very high temperatures and difficult to extinguish, the current advice is to contain the fire and let them burn themselves out. Already they are looking at vehicle fire blankets to starve the fire of oxygen rather than trying to cool them with water. The Fire at Luton airport was caused by a diesel car. This is interesting. cleantechnica.com/2021/11/22/rosenbauer-introduces-new-firefighting-equipment-for-ev-battery-fires/Rosenbauer thinks about new firefighting techniques all the time. While EVs are no more at risk of fires than a conventional car, battery fires are different than gasoline fires and require specialized equipment to put them out effectively. Battery fires tend to be significantly hotter than gasoline fires. Today, most fire departments just pump copious quantities of water onto a burning electric car. The problem is, batteries are encased in a protective housing that is designed to be waterproof. See the problem? Rosenbauer has developed new equipment for dealing with that problem. It consists of two components — an extinguishing unit and an operating unit, connected by water hoses. Firefighters place the extinguishing unit between the battery and the road if the EV is still on its wheels or attach it to the outside of the vehicle near the battery if the car is on its side or upside down on its roof. The device is controlled from about 25 feet away. When activated, the extinguishing unit drives a mandrel with a piercing lance into the battery with a force of several tons, then sends water through the lance to flood the interior of the battery with water. The unit can be left attached to the battery during transport. As long as there is a supply of water, more can be forced into the battery compartment in case of re-ignition.
Rosenbauer says it has tested the system with factory, professional, and voluntary fire departments in Europe, and on different battery designs including pouch, prismatic, and cylindrical cells with good results. The equipment is designed to integrate with current fire department training and tactics. Read it properly. I added in the codicil before stating the bit I agreed with you on. Further up in this thread I gave the information on percentage of car types that catch fire. Compared to ICE ones that melt tarmac and block roads for hours or days. I quote the fire brigade, you quote your crystal ball. Bet I'm right and you're wrong. Oh and myth buster says. Myth: EVs are more prone to catch fire and more dangerous than gas cars. Myth Busted: Just as it's true that your gas car can catch fire, it is true that an electric vehicle (EV) can catch fire. However, EVs are some of the top-rated cars for safety and are less likely to catch fire compared to gas cars. Tesla claims i nternal combustion engine cars are about 11 times more likely to catch fire than a Tesla. It says the 300,000 Teslas on the road have been driven a total of 7.5 billion miles, and about 40 fires have been reported. That works out to 5 fires for every billion miles traveled, compared to 55 fires per billion miles traveled in gasoline cars. You really ought to stop imagining numbers and do a bit of research before pretending you know what your talking about. I said usually. How many times has that happened? But they do require oxygen to spread beyond the vehicle. Excuse me if I don't take your word for it as you've got pretty much everything else about them wrong.
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Oct 31, 2023 8:33:12 GMT
Sorry zany but you can't just continually deny facts. Li-ion batteries do NOT require oxygen to burn. The "thermal runaway" reaction is basically a chain reaction and all the reagents required are in the battery itself. All that needs to happen is for the battery to overheat or for a fault to develop. EVen submerging the battery in water doesn't stop it burning.
As for Tesla's claims, "they would say that wouldn't they". Their cars also go for 400 miles on a charge.
The kind of figures I'm looking for are the number of fires per mile for all cars - and the cost of damage done. It would also need to include older cars (difficult for EVs right now) because faults are more likely to develop with age. It also needs to include the number of cars written off because of "potential" battery damage. As you (should know) the reason why BEVs are now so expensive to insure is because even minor shunts can cause battery damage and if the battery is damaged it needs replacing - which is usually "uneconomic repair". The battery can also be damaged by kerbing because it's so low down.
And we do need a proper report from the fire brigade on the Luton Airport fire - they seem to be keeping very quiet about it. Every car in the car park was written off and the car park has partially collapsed. How come? There were 1500 cars in the car park - probably about 50 BEVs. So presumably that goes down as 1450 ICE car fires and 50 EV fires - when if there had been no BEVs there would almost certainly been just 1 fire.
This all maybe academic though because if the insurance industry all pulls out of insuring BEVs (as John Lewis has) there will be no market for them.
|
|