Datahopa

A battery-powered car has broken the UK land-speed record for electric vehicles at Elvington airfield near York.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19739882 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19739882)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19740004 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19740004)

Congrats to them. I like the paint scheme they did, I'm sure the paint did not come like that when they bought the car off E-bay.

Ok, I want one! :)

It looks like a modified Lotus Elise or Exige.

As and when electric cars become common place, they'll have to make them sound like something or people wont hear them comming.

As a matter of fact, Snowy, it's an Exige. Great looking ride, but I like my girls to scream when I stroke them. :o

Lots of forum telling that EV is dead and asking "who killed electric cars"? Many believe that the EV is the best hope for a future less dependent on fossil fuels.   There have been pushes by many to popularize them.   But still, even with high gasoline prices, they just don't appear to be increasing in popularity in a significant way with the car purchasing public.   This week, with every little thing from denounced government incentives to lowered revenue forecasts, has been an especially tough one for the electric vehicle. 

Quote from: permyor on September 29, 2012, 11:41:40 AM
Lots of forum telling that EV is dead and asking "who killed electric cars"? Many believe that the EV is the best hope for a future less dependent on fossil fuels.   There have been pushes by many to popularize them.   But still, even with high gasoline prices, they just don't appear to be increasing in popularity in a significant way with the car purchasing public.   This week, with every little thing from denounced government incentives to lowered revenue forecasts, has been an especially tough one for the electric vehicle. 

Hi Permyor

It still seems a little early in terms of development of electric cars and the infrastructure that will be needed for charging, however I hope it happens sooner rather than later.

I know one thing for sure, I would like an electric car in my lifetime.

Thanks for the info and welcome to Datahopa. 

Welcome to Dathopa Permyor,

I think in about 4-6 years we will see a lot more electric, hydrogen, and other eco friendly powered cars available to the public from major car companies.

The process has been going slow for the car companies are a business and want to make money, so they have to create systems that are not easily reproduced and that they can patent.

OK people, there are five current issues which are having a profound impact on the developement of Electric Vehicles.

Firstly, as Data pointed out, infrastructure for charging, very big draw back that. Systems are in place to address this issue, but, it will take a time longer yet.

The next three can be summed up as follows, Cost, Weight and Longevity.

What do I mean by these ?.

All vehicle manufacturers are geared up to produce whatever they currently produce, the introduction of a new propulsion system means increased costs as they require production outside of the established format line with an unknown return on investment.

The weight of batteries as this time, produce pretty poor power to weight ratio's. Once the whole bulk of this storage medium has been addressed and the capacity has been improved, then I can see Electric Vehicles being far more popular.

Right, that has given an insight to 4 of the 5 issues, so what is the fifth ?. The fifth is the biggest reason that Electric Vehicles are still side lined.

Oil Companies and Governments.

Both will advertise that they are primarily concerned about the environment, lets get real here, both are concerned about revenue.

I would also like to bring their "green" credentials into question.

The best aspect is they move the pollution to power stations so keeping town pollution to a minimum. They are less green to build due to the batteries. Less green to run due to the weight you have to move around.
Hopefully hydrogen fuel cells will alleviate this but they're not a fully working tech yet and there are no hydrogen lakes. The hydrogen has to come from fossil fuel directly or indirectly (to create electricity for electrolosis or manufacture solar cells).

There is also the range issue. Generally about 50 miles, making hybrid car more practical. I just wish hybid cars were not as ugly as a Prius.

There are no easy fixes.

Here in the states there are more and more hybrids every day, and most are FAR more attractive than a Prius. However, my personal preference is for a Hydrogen fuel cell. A couple of companies are working on the idea of using solar power to supply the energy to fuel the electrolysis to provide the necessary hydrogen, but the biggest holdup lies in potential safety concerns for the Hydrogen tank. Since Hydrogen is one of the most explosive gasses on the planet, and since driving isn't exactly the safest of activities, a certain amount of thought needs to be put into the design of such a vessel (making sure it's not TOO BIG, for one thing). Personally, I like one of the experimental ideas I've seen that uses a tank that looks somewhat like a SCUBA tank, but is coated with a laminated carbon fiber/polycarbonate/kevlar shell, making it nearly impervious to destruction due to impact. Again, though, weight/volume factors come into play, mainly because such a tank would be pretty large on the outside, but prohibitively small on the inside. But there's hope. :)

I refer you back to reason five, until this situation can be addressed we stand little or no chance . Given that, currently, £0.80 in every £1 of fuel you buy in the UK is tax, alternative fuel systems stand little or no chance of developement.

Quote from: Snowcrash on September 30, 2012, 21:12:05 PM

Hopefully hydrogen fuel cells will alleviate this but they're not a fully working tech yet and there are no hydrogen lakes. The hydrogen has to come from fossil fuel directly or indirectly (to create electricity for electrolosis or manufacture solar cells).

And Hydrogen creates water vapour which in itself is also a greenhouse emission, although how much impact low level water vapour has is yet to be discovered.

As you said, snowy no quick fixes

Ok, people, that's just plain ridiculous! Since when is Water Vapour (e.g. clouds, fog, mist, rain, etc) a GREENHOUSE GAS?!?!?! DD, I love you dearly, but that's just plain beyond the pale! And for the record, Carbon Dioxide wouldn't be a bleedin' Greenhouse gas if we'd leave all the bloody trees alone! I'm firmly in favour of being "friendly to the planet", and I personally practice good stewardship, but some of these nut jobs who are spouting this garbage are just plain mental!

Sorry for the rant. I love you all. :)

Also, just to point out something that should be blatantly obvious, the "carbon footprint" of a solar cell, when amortized over it's productive lifetime, is almost negligible, compared to even hydro-electric energy production. Yes, the manufacture of a solar cell DOES produce pollutants, but nothing in this world is "carbon neutral"; not even raising crops. And bear in mind that Mankind STILL doesn't put out as many poisonous gasses (most days) as the planet itself does. Volcanoes still toss out more toxins than we do, on the average day.

Sorry Dave it's true, water vapour is a greenhouse emission:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html)

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this matter, I'm afraid. And even if I were to concede the point, you'll never convince me that we Humans put more water vapour into the air than oceanic evaporation does. :P

Just to qualify that Dave, you are correct in that 99.99% of water vapour in the atmosphere is natually produced.

Of course if we all started driving vehilces that produced water vapour tomorrow  that might have somewhat more of an impact!!

Just to state I am somewhat of a sceptic on the whole man made global warming theories as lets be honest the planet goes through cycles of warming and cooling all by itself without an intervention from us and has been WAY hotter than it is now n the past.

and I probably should have said gas rather than emission  ???

Hey, you're both right. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas but it also cools the planet due to being white and reflecting sunlight back into space. Have you never noticed a clear day get warmer when the clouds blow in?
The problem with water vapour is where you create it. Aircraft are the worst for this due to putting it into the 30k to 45k feet region; where it cools the planet but disrupts natural cycles. Most noticably recorded when all USA's planes were grounded on 9/11.

Volcanoes are bad polluters but they still don't release tons of CFCs. What pollution is key here. And it's very complicated not least due to human politics.

One of the worst greenhouse gases is methane and if the permafrost in Russia disappear, we're in for a whole lot of extra warming problems. Humans ARE making a big difference to global warming. Anyone who says otherwise is a global warming denier.

Oh, I'm not saying we don't contribute to this planet's atmospheric woes; of course we do. I'm just not convinced that our level of complicity is as high as some folks purport. The most compelling evidence that I can offer is the correlation between global mean temperatures and sunspot/CME activity, mentioned here (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html). Now granted, not everyone in the scientific community supports this theory/hypothesis, but then again, the same can be said for Mankind's contribution to climate change.

Oh! I forgot to mention... Volcanoes, to use the quaint Yank saying, "don't have a dog in the CFC race", since Cloro-FLouro-Carbons are pretty much all man-made, and don't generally exist in nature. :) So that part is all us. :) Better? :P

Recently I became quite convinced that man was contributing to global warming after seening a program on TV, they went up in a ballon and measured the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is no doubt it is increasing and has been since mans use of fossil fuels.

As for water being a green house gas ... I thought when there was too much water up there that it just comes back down as rain.  :scratch-head:


[attachment deleted by admin]

As the Earth warms, more water evaporates, more clouds. Also jet aircraft are still on the increase.

As for CO2, the problem is still getting worse.

Or maybe this one? :P

[attachment deleted by admin]

Dave, although I find global warming quite a serious issue, your posted graph has helped me see it in a new light.

Hehe, good one.  :LOL:

Oh, I take Mankind's sullying of our beautiful home very seriously, too. The problem I have is that most of the so-called "experts" are just plain too quick to lay blame for phenomena that they don't fully understand. I've never seen the skyline of London on an average day with my own eyes, but I've lived in several places in Southern California, and I've seen, first hand, the effects of our automobiles and factories on our atmosphere, and I've also seen the terrible toll that littering has taken on the wildlife (or what's left of it) that we should be harmlessly co-existing with (but aren't). Humanity is to blame for a lot of the ills that our planet is suffering from these days. But not everything that the environmentalist community is so gung-ho to lay at our feet is wholly our doing.

I have my own, rather depressing, views on this matter too. I am keeping them to myself at the mo.

Thanks Dave, for the wonderfully funny graph.

To para phrase Roger Waters (of Pink Floyd fame), we will probably amuse ourselves to death.