Within a few years, EVs that can go 500 miles on a charge are likely to be common.
There are already some that do 600 miles.
When I got my first EV, it did about 80-100. My current one comfortably does 250 and often close to 300 miles.
Cheers,
Keith
Because, most of the time you wonāt be using the brake pads at all.
That also tends to apply to tyre wear, as recovery braking has less tyre wear than friction breaking.
Having said that, even small EVs often are very pokey, so you could easily wear out the tyres quickly if you are heavy footed and like to utilize āsport modeā.
Cheers,
Keith
You might want to check out the channel āFully Chargedā on YouTube.
Cheers,
Keith
1 Like
Agreed. I know that. I would look into plug in hybrids.
Having said that, last month in Iceland I did about 1200km (a bit more but rounding down) on a āself-chargingā hybrid Toyota Highlander, I think thatās a 2.5L petrol engine.
I managed 7.2l/100km (over the 1200km) driving normally (including sport mode for overtaking) which I think was pretty good for such a big engine.
Some people were driving Teslas. I wouldnāt want to be on one on a mountain road there thoughā¦ 
Iāve ordered a home charger, but will only get it installed in July. Until then I have to charge in town, but itās not too bad if you find a supercharger.
Everyone I talk to says the same, about not ever wanting to switch back 
1 Like
@Lefteris You know, I was you until I finally caved in and got this one. I was fearing having to do annoying charging stops at inconvenient times - for example, at night on the way home from a gig - and weāll see how it goes. Iām also the type that can go pretty far in a car without stopping, so I think this will mean a few extra stops. But it might be good for me
Two things convinced me that now was the time to switch after all;
- Here in Denmark it will, within some years, not be possible to drive in inner Copenhagen if youāre not in an electric vehicle. And it will eventually not be possible to buy (or sell) a vehicle on fossil fuel. I had my previous car for a long time, 10+ years, and this will happen within that time frameā¦
- The 30min charging stop is to charge from 10% to 80% - which is actually a lot of extra range. Charging the low percentages seems to be a lot faster than the last few. Ex. my car charges with around 120Kw when almost empty, but drop to 50-70Kw when nearing 80%. But you donāt have to charge it fully up (I know this is a habit hard to break, when coming from an ICE car) - so if Iām on my way home and just need an additional 100km rangeā¦ then thatās 5mins or so. I can wait that longā¦ and then charge up to full on my home charger, which is cheaper anywayā¦
Itās down to battery management. The battery comprises thousands of individual cells. When charging and considering battery health, itās the individual cells that matter.
Charge management systems distribute charge around the individual cells to minimize damage to them caused by an individual cell.
The bigger the battery capacity, the more individual cells there are, and the easier it is to distribute the charge across the cells so that no individual cell is being charged too fast, which can cause damage.
As the charge cycle reaches the end, many of the cells will already be full and the charge has to be distributed to fewer cells so, to avoid damaging them, the charge rate slows down.
I hope that makes sense.
Cheers,
Keith
1 Like
Haha I can imagine. Iām not adverse to the technology but not 100% convinced either.
In London itās going to be the same like you described for Copenhagen, steadily but surely I believe.
I am ok with changing my lifestyle for something a bit more inconvenient for the greater good of the environment and humanity by extension.
However, what I see is that the burden is placed on the people. Surely, we polute. But so far, what have the alternatives been?
Even now, everyone is jumping on the EV train and in a few years time it is likely a new tech will come and then the narrative will be āoh the EVs are unsustainable you have to get this new oneā.
My point is, we just consume what we are given. Thereās not much choice.
At the level where choices exist the game is still the same.
Fossil fuels are still allowed to be extracted, aeroplanes still run on jet A1 and ships on heavy fuel oil (even if they some advertise as eco friendly because they use lng which is cleaner but more potent greenhouse gas).
The only cleaner alternative for marine Iāve seen is the wind assisted propulsio soā¦ Here go Cutty Shark 
And electricity is still produced by fossil fuels or nuclear fusion.
So, I wonder, if there really was will to sort out the effing problem once and for all, why donāt they stop wasting (our tax) money on things that are not for the long term and donāt they pour all the funds of the world in making nuclear fission an actual thing we can use?
Iāll stop ranting and go look for a plug in hybrid now
1 Like
If you are in the UK, then over 40% of electricity is from renewables (mostly wind or solar) and that is increasing yearly. There have been many months where renewables have produced the majority of UK energy.
Cheers,
Keith
Iāve seen that. Caveat is that Iām not 100% sure thatās the case daily. Iām happy to be wrong on this one.
Even so, freaking EDF still raises the prices every month even though their energy mix is something like 90% nuclear 
Personally, I donāt see it.
The only possible alternative in sight is hydrogen fuel cells. These have their place (heavy industries and, perhaps, trains, ships, etc.) but are unsustainable for personal transport.
The only real foreseeable alternative to current EVs is better EVs, which means different batteries: higher energy density, better resilience to damage caused by charging, faster charging capability, lower price, perhaps better charging infrastructure.
The main reason I lease my car, and have done for the last 8 years, is that currently battery technology is still quite immature when it comes to EVs, and is evolving quite quickly. We have gone from EVs with a range of around 60 miles to ones with a range of 600 in less than 10 years.
If there is an alternative to EVs the it is cycling walking, or public transport. All of which are available technology today.
Cheers,
Keith
1 Like
I read an article recently about the use of graphene in batteries. If I remember correctly using a tiny amount of graphene increases the energy density by a huge factor. Iāll see if I can find it again.
Nuclear energy has many, many problems. But it is low carbon. In that respect itās better for the environment from a climate change perspective than coal, oil, or gas.
Of course, there are other issues. Notwithstanding that stations like Sizewell C are an extremely expensive way to generate electricity compared with alternatives.
Cheers,
Keith
No doubt itās a super complicated question, and getting the math right is almost impossible. Everything we produce requires energy and raw materials and as such has a cost on the environment. Personal cars are, I believe, a very small part of the problems the world currently faces. I donāt even drive that much per year, so if Iām being honestā¦ the right thing to do, if I only had the environment in mind, would have been for me to just fix my old car and drive it a few more yearsā¦ fossil fuel or not!
2 Likes
I am liftsharing to work twice a week.
Stuck at traffic on the M25 one afternoon on the way back, we were discussing about this issue and having the lockdowns at the back of my mind, I wonderedā¦
What if people didnāt have to commute? What if going to the workplace was not an obligation but a choice, how many cars would be off the roads every day? What would the benefit for the environment be on terms of emissions reduction?
What would the damage be for big oil in terms of lost revenues?
1 Like
@Majik
Have you heard of another possible fuel (not hydrogen) for use in internal combustion engines?
I read an article in the paper a few weeks ago where they use the heat of the sun to convert some chemical or other into fuel. (I canāt remember the details) when this fuel is used in engines, the only emission is water.
Itās in the very early stages of development.
Iāve not heard of that.
The problem is, by definition, any hydrocarbon based fuel will have carbon emissions of some form, usually CO and CO2, and often NO2 and other emissions.
And most car engines are designed to run on liquid fuels with high energy densities, which tend to be hydrocarbon based. It is possible to use things like methanol as an additive to reduce emissions, but only to a certain extent.
So colour me sceptical.
Itās notable that even hydrogen cars do not burn the hydrogen. Instead they use it in a fuel cell to drive an electric drive train. Hydrogen cars are electric cars, just with a fuel cell instead of a battery.
If you find a reference to this I would love to see it.
Cheers,
Keith
These are all good points.
Also, what would be the damage to the profit margins of all those landlords who have built and are renting out gleaming corporate palaces, along with all of the shopping and entertainment to cater for the workers?
What would be the impact on the middle-managers whose only job and skill is to walk the office floor to make sure people are busy?
Iāve been working from home, with a few exceptions, for over a decade. The technology to do it was available back then, and has only got better and better.
Clearly not every job can be done this way, but the pandemic showed that a great many could. In terms of working practices, it gave a glimpse of a future we could have if we wanted
Cheers,
Keith
1 Like
Congrats and nice work for going electric!
2 Likes
To add to that, NOx is product of the combustion. Increasing the combustion temperature reduces CO2 but increases NOx emissions. So, itās hard not have more of one or the other.
Methane burns cleaner (less CO2) but methane slip (methane escaping to the atmosphere unburnt) is very much a problem as it is 20 times more potent ghg.
1 Like