QOTW: Will your next car be electric?

[Ttaskmaster]

That's a common myth, it's also wrong to say the thorium fuel cycle produces "safe" waste.

I said it was harder, not impossible. I also never said safe, but that the waste gave off less radiation than we're currently exposed to in the average household... probably detailed in another thread.

Nope,countries like India have put a lot of effort into Thorium based reactors

Correction, then - We, The West, abandoned research into it back in the 60s.

So in effect the car would pay for itself in 4-5 years if you could pick one up cheap used. Yes! Free driving. Free car. I'll take one.

It's not free at all.
You still need the initial outlay to buy it and you will never get that back. You just won't spend as much on fuel in the future. Given the cost of these against a 2nd hand ICE equivalent, you spend more on just the EV than I spend on fuel in 38 years.

Add to that there is NO real maintenance to speak of other than tires and maybe brakes. Hell yes.

And drive shafts and hinges and all the other things every other car still has, plus likely a wealth of electronic fiddling and probably software updates, eventually antivirus and malware protections, to teh point where it's like your usual Tuesday Windows™ updates.... I can't see many people getting cracked updates on Pirate Bay, and you won't be able to get Eddie The Spanner round the corner to fix it on the cheap, either.

Add to that the complete silence! Finally! And sports car like acceleration. Fun. I'll take one!

Have you ever ridden a proper-fast motorcycle? Speed and silence are your enemies, especially for people not used to such speed.
Besides, part of the fun in driving is the physical sensory feedback - BMW have taken away the feel of driving, now EVs are taking away the sound.
Why don't you just wait until cars drive themselves and rob yourself of all the fun at once? You'll save money and it'll pay for itself, I'm sure...

Now is the time people. Can't wait!

They're still ugly as sin. You'd have better luck trying to sell me a bubble car!!

[Corky34]

I said it was harder, not impossible. I also never said safe, but that the waste gave off less radiation than we're currently exposed to in the average household... probably detailed in another thread.

Actually you said "I thought it was well understood that research into thorium was clearly abandoned in 1964/5 because they wanted something easily refined into weapons grade, which is precisely what thoruim isn't."

To which i said that's a common myth, i also threw in the comment about "safe" waste as a general response, not to you specifically, but to everyone whose posted in this thread saying thorium reactors didn't produce any environmentally unfriendly waste and/or radiological waste, they're better than light water reactors because they produce less waste but they still produce dangerous waste products with long half lifes that are way higher than background levels.

[peterb]

It's not free at all.
You still need the initial outlay to buy it and you will never get that back.

You are correct, but that is true of any vehicle, however it is powered

You just won't spend as much on fuel in the future. Given the cost of these against a 2nd hand ICE equivalent, you spend more on just the EV than I spend on fuel in 38 years.

In a car or on a bike?

And drive shafts and hinges and all the other things every other car still has, plus likely a wealth of electronic fiddling and probably software updates, eventually antivirus and malware protections, to teh point where it's like your usual Tuesday Windows™ updates.... I can't see many people getting cracked updates on Pirate Bay, and you won't be able to get Eddie The Spanner round the corner to fix it on the cheap, either.

But there are fewer mechanical parts to fail, and the environment is more benign than in an IC pwered car. You could apply those arguments to the ECU in an I?C engine, yet it is rare for an ECU to fail, usually it is the sensors that are required to keep an IC engine running efficiently. There is no reason to suggest that the control electronics for an EV should be any less reliable. Variable speed electric motors and the control gear have been around for 40 years or so.

Have you ever ridden a proper-fast motorcycle? Speed and silence are your enemies, especially for people not used to such speed.
Besides, part of the fun in driving is the physical sensory feedback - BMW have taken away the feel of driving, now EVs are taking away the sound.
Why don't you just wait until cars drive themselves and rob yourself of all the fun at once? You'll save money and it'll pay for itself, I'm sure...

But you can't compare a bike with an EV. You ride a bike for the thrill (and because you like hospital food?) - but you can't get a family of four and their luggage on a bike - well not legally in this country. And I can't really see much fun in flogging up a wet motorway in the pouring rain with poor visibility, riding a bike, however much you like the noise of the exhaust.

[Ttaskmaster]

To which i said that's a common myth

So it's actually very easy to refine Thorium into weapons grade, compared to all the other options, then?
I wasn't joking about AWE, by the way. I've had long tea-time lectures from people that mess with this stuff for a living, as to why we do/don't use this that or the other.

but they still produce dangerous waste products with long half lifes that are way higher than background levels.

Not disagreeing with the first part. Would question the second, given the aforementioned lectures, though.

You are correct, but that is true of any vehicle, however it is powered

I just wish people would stop trying to sell things based on such a flawed argument.
Unless it actually facilitates a way for me to make that outlay money back, it never pays for itself.

In a car or on a bike?

That is actually my car. The bike is worse, but it's an old 1978 design and a massive engine.

You could apply those arguments to the ECU in an I?C engine, yet it is rare for an ECU to fail

It is not a massively common thing across all models, no, yet there is a Jeep outside with such a failure and we've had at least three more needing replacements this month.
I won't mention how often a Škoda ECU has brought custom our way, as people get quite defensive about these little hunk-o-junks...

Regardless, the point is that having no ICE does not make it maintenance-free, however much of a modern motorist mindset you slap on it. It still has all the other points of failure.

But you can't compare a bike with an EV.

I just did.... and I won, incidentally - 0-60 in 2.8 seconds.
Besides, enough people trash their fast cars, really fast cars and proper sports cars to suggest that high acceleration is not a good thing. Having a silent engine that doesn't really warn you if you're right at the point of overcranking it a touch too much is only worsening things...

You ride a bike for the thrill (and because you like hospital food?)

Oh... Do I?
Sorry, I didn't know. I always thought I did it because of the ease of handling, cheap insurance and tax, ability to skirt queues, ability to park almost anywhere and usually for free, ease of self-maintenance, commutability, social circle, open nature of the thing and the hundreds of other reasons... no-one told me it was for thrills... and you'd never think it, given how there's always some car trying to overtake, no matter how far over the speed limit I go!

but you can't get a family of four and their luggage on a bike - well not legally in this country.

That's kinda the point...!!

However, I can still get full marching kit, rifle, a 60mm mortar and 20 rounds of ammo on it, though...

And I can't really see much fun in flogging up a wet motorway in the pouring rain with poor visibility, riding a bike, however much you like the noise of the exhaust.

You've never been a biker...

[peterb]

You've never been a biker...

You implied that riding a bike was fun and the implication is that the speed and acceleration is part of the fun, but perhapas I mis-intepreted it and thee isn't any thrill in it.

No, not been a biker. I thought about it a few years ago, but the appeal has gone. However, this isn't a thread about biking, its about Electric cars!

[Ttaskmaster]

You implied that riding a bike was fun and the implication is that the speed and acceleration is part of the fun, but perhapas I mis-intepreted it and thee isn't any thrill in it.

Acceleration can be part of the fun on bikes, sometimes... not so much on a 125 or even on my old 650, as most vehicles on the road could outrun both.
But even with my current ride, it's very far down the list and getting further down as mundane cars get faster and more powerful. For me, it's all the other elements as well and being able to bring them together under any condition.

My point was regarding how the insane capacity for acceleration on some bikes is so often viewed as a drawback, if not outright complaint against them. Fast bikes tend to be loud as well, even stock, so having something fast and silent is, IMO, just asking for trouble.

Bikes only get away with it because they are small and (usually) ridden by people with appropriate training. Even with such low prices, it's comparatively rare for people to hop straight into biking on a massively powerful one.
I see making that kind of performance available to every big box (and even smaller boxes) on the road as even more worrying, as they're fast and silent and big and heavy and full of inertia.

Additionally, most bikers take on powerful machines because they can handle it and because they love riding. I don't know of anyone who hates biking and only got a "Fazer-thou", "Gixxer" or "Blade" because they needed some kind of transport... I know plenty of car drivers who hate driving, though and if every vehicle on the road is going to be a press-and-go EV with inherrent silent-super-acceleration driven by someone who potentially doesn't care a jot beyond their individual needs, I forsee a LOT of problems...!

Actual speed is negligible. I know for a fact my bike can do 160mph. I also know that if ever I do it, there will be a BMW driver hugging my backside and flashing his lights to get past!!

I just need something to get me from A to B with the appropriate balance of safety and speed - with the emphasis on safety.

For me, driving and riding are each complete ways of life and something at which to excel.
It's easy to just dump the clutch and take off, or whack the throttle open and go fast... It takes serious skill to get the perfect corner at normal road speeds every single time, or to plan and forward-observe to the point where you effortlessly glide through idiot-traffic like a Zen Master, barely noticing the challenges that you've advance-planned so well around, or to know exactly how to brake and (counter)steer to make the best of your weight transfer.

[DanceswithUnix]

ease of self-maintenance,

Agree with the rest of your list, but the ease of maintenance is down to your 1978 build date for the vehicle, a car of the same age would be similarly easy to fix. Just as well, given how often cars of that age needed fixing
Or perhaps I am just used to talking to Ducati owners.

As for ECUs, it would help if they didn't get placed in the worst parts of the engine bay like right next to the exhaust manifold.

No, not been a biker. I thought about it a few years ago, but the appeal has gone. However, this isn't a thread about biking, its about Electric cars!

Do electric bikes not count? http://charged.io/best-electric-motorcycles/

[Corky34]

So it's actually very easy to refine Thorium into weapons grade, compared to all the other options, then?
I wasn't joking about AWE, by the way. I've had long tea-time lectures from people that mess with this stuff for a living, as to why we do/don't use this that or the other.

I didn't say anything about the difficulty involved, i was simply replying to your claim that it was well understood that research into thorium was clearly abandoned in 1964/5 because they wanted something easily refined into weapons grade, which is precisely what thoruim isn't.

Research into thorium was not abandoned because they wanted something easily refined into weapons grade, it was "abandoned" because...

1. The existing major industrial and utility commitments to the LWR, HTGR, and LMFBR.
2. The lack of incentive for industrial investment in supplying fuel cycle services, such as those required for solid fuel reactors.
3. The overwhelming manufacturing and operating experience with solid fuel reactors in contrast with the very limited involvement with fluid fueled reactors.
4. The less advanced state of MSBR technology and the lack of demonstrated solutions to the major technical problems associated with the MSBR concept.

Uranium - Plutonium -fueled reactors were developed for weaponisation reasons because we didn't know about the enrichment process back then, however thorium wasn't abandoned because it isn't easy to make weapons grade fissile material, far from it as MSBR are excellent at producing tritium.

Not disagreeing with the first part. Would question the second, given the aforementioned lectures, though.

Maybe you should ask them about U-232 and Tl-208 then, although i suspect they'll tell you it's nothing to worry about or something as the industry wants to protect themselves and their massive subsidies, I'm sure they're all really nice fellows but depending on them for impartial information about nuclear reactors and weapons is a little like asking for impartial information about crude oil from Exxon-Mobil, Shell, or BP.

[peterb]

Do electric bikes not count? http://charged.io/best-electric-motorcycles/

Well the thread title is electric car - but I guess EV might include bikes. Or these http://www.cyclingweekly.com/group-t...e-bikes-322613

[Ttaskmaster]

Agree with the rest of your list, but the ease of maintenance is down to your 1978 build date for the vehicle, a car of the same age would be similarly easy to fix.

Part of that is being able to just look and see, rather than relying on the laptop diagnosis and then chasing chains of sensors, switches and relays to find what has caused what, or whether it's just CAN bus having a hissy...

As for ECUs, it would help if they didn't get placed in the worst parts of the engine bay like right next to the exhaust manifold.

A lot of Škoda ones are under the nice, heavy battery, IIRC!!

Do electric bikes not count? http://charged.io/best-electric-motorcycles/

Good lord.... Half of those are ugly at best and look like they're made of LEGO™... and those are the ones I could potentially live with!!

Research into thorium was not abandoned because they wanted something easily refined into weapons grade, it was "abandoned" because

Because going against existing major industrial and utility commitments, increasing said incentives, working around said inexperience and making sufficient use of less advanced technology back in the mid-Sixties, as just cited, was NOT something especially easy given the easier options more readily available.

Today, yes, things probably are vastly different and Thorium is now being looked at again.

Maybe you should ask them about U-232 and Tl-208 then

Do I have to?
It's a mission and a half just getting them to answer concisely how many sugars they want in their tea!!

although i suspect they'll tell you it's nothing to worry about or something as the industry wants to protect themselves and their massive subsidies, I'm sure they're all really nice fellows but depending on them for impartial information about nuclear reactors and weapons is a little like asking for impartial information about crude oil from Exxon-Mobil, Shell, or BP.

No, they're quite impartial, actually, sometimes even contrary to the point where you'd wonder why they work for a nuclear weapons company in the first place. Part of being a scientist, I guess.
But in an argument between one guy with a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering who specialises in nuclear energy, and a bunch of other guys with Ph. Ds in nuclear engineering who specialise in nuclear weapons, I'll likely lean toward the weapony guys' advice on what is and is not...

[Gerrard]

but you can't get a family of four and their luggage on a bike - well not legally in this country.

I have seen one these on the road once! The sidecar has room for 2 kids.

[Corky34]

Because going against existing major industrial and utility commitments, increasing said incentives, working around said inexperience and making sufficient use of less advanced technology back in the mid-Sixties, as just cited, was NOT something especially easy given the easier options more readily available.

Today, yes, things probably are vastly different and Thorium is now being looked at again.

You seem to be putting the horse before the cart, nuclear reactors were a byproduct of the Manhattan project, the weapons came first and civilian reactors were based on the ones used in the weapons program, the first working thorium reactor came less than 10 years later and eventually abandoned because uranium reactors were more efficient, not because the fissile material can't be used in the weapons program.

The only reason thorium is being looked at again is because nuclear has a bad reputation so thorium is being peddled by the nuclear industry as the "clean" alternative, it's the same as the petrochemical industry telling people unleaded petrol is a "clean" alternative to leaded petrol, it's not "clean" it's just cleaner than what we previously used.

But in an argument between one guy with a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering who specialises in nuclear energy, and a bunch of other guys with Ph. Ds in nuclear engineering who specialise in nuclear weapons, I'll likely lean toward the weapony guys' advice on what is and is not...

Really, each to his own i guess but personally I'd listen to the guy who deals with the application of fission and fusion of atomic nuclei over the guy who only deals with warheads, especially as the latter only deal with weapons and not the nuclear power plants that we're discussing.

[cheesemp]

I hope so. My ageing i20 is still super reliable (7 years old an £20 on repairs) but I've been keen to replace it for a while. I'm the ideal electric car owner - wife has a bigger petrol car for longer journeys - I have a ~40 mile round trip commute which is all the car will do. Only big issue for me is price. I think i'll save about £140 a month based on fuel+tax but don't have masses of spare on top of that. That puts me in the ~£10000 market which is second hand leafs/zoes from what I can tell. It then a case of knowing the car will last me 7+ years while still making the journey with heater/ac on in the cold of winter without needing to do 40Mph on the motorway. I think that's easily doable with a bigger battery leaf but they are still ~£18000... Not sure if its worth the risk with a lower capacity. Looking forward to some more price drops when the new model Leaf/Zoe arrive soon.

[Ttaskmaster]

because uranium reactors were more efficient, not because the fissile material can't be used in the weapons program.

You seem to be putting the horse in the cart.
Again, I never said can't be used. I said it wasn't easy.

it's not "clean" it's just cleaner than what we previously used.

Again, never argued against that point, either.

especially as the latter only deal with weapons and not the nuclear power plants that we're discussing.

I was specifically talking about weapons, actually, hence listening to the weapon guys about weapon matters, at least one of whom I know has previously worked in the energy industry anyway. But if you think a non-weapons guy knows weapons better than a bunch of weapon guys, feel free to listen to him. End of the day it's a bunch of equally qualified Ph.Ders arguing amongst themselves and us taking sides like the ringsiders at a boxing match.

None of which gets me any closer to a non-ICE car that is suitable for my needs...

[Rad77]

Range, recharge time and charging infrastructure, battery longevity and replacement cost and of course initial cost.

It's hard to tell from my budget end of the market but the Tesla S pricing doesn't seem too far adrift from a roughly equivalent ICE car - so a competing car at £60k would probably give you a more srubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishy interior and you might get slightly better handling but against that you have the totally unique space-age quality of the Tesla, the rocket like, uninterrupted by gear changes, straight line performance (plus the advanced traction control to use it) and all that semi-autonomous wizardry. All of which is currently almost unique in the market.

Range is 200 miles on the smallest battery, so recharge time and charging infrastructure are not going to be a factor on most journeys.

Battery longevity and replacement cost are certainly a consideration, but the lifespan of the battery is around 10 years, by which time you'll want the available replacements because the tech will have moved on hugely. If you had a 10 year old luxury ICE car you might also be worrying about some costly replacement parts I'd have thought.

The catch 22 that currently exists at the lower end of the market seems to be:
If you cover a lot of miles, the leccy car is much cheaper. However they are not really suited to long journeys...
Conversely an electric car is ideally suited to short commutes but if you don't do many miles then you can't justify the high purchase price or the alternative of expensive monthly battery rental.
Once electric vehicles hit real volume production numbers the premium cost falls away (they will be cheaper to make than ICE cars) and it'll be a no brainer. I think that tipping point is not far off.

[Ttaskmaster]

Question: Everyone keeps trying to sell these cars using the INSANE acceleration as a major factor... with additional focus on the town driving superiority of these things.
Aside from my assertion that many drivers really aren't to be trusted with such ridiculous power in the first place - When on Earth are people going to need this?

How often do you need to reach 60mph in under 2.6 seconds, when moving off the lights down the Oxford Road, or ambling out of Sainsbury's?