donald said:
GRA said:
While there will undoubtedly be the occasional crazed, lovesick and adult-diaper-wearing astronaut who really needs an 800 mile range car...
Sorry, I have no idea what that means.
H'mm seeing as how you're in the U.K., I figured the tabloids would have been all over this when it happened:
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1587281,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Turns out she probably wasn't wearing diapers, but the story is sooo much better that way.
donald said:
It is usual to find cars with that sort of range in Europe. US bloat-tanks might not have that range, but that's just a demonstration of crass excess, as are 4x4s and SUVs in Europe that have equally rubbish range.
Reality is that it has been the norm in Europe to have a 60 to 65 litre tank, with 80 litre tank options for bigger vehicles. As fuel economy has improved to 60 odd mpg, most cars of 3 to 6 years old will have that range. As it happens, newer cars are now being fitted with 45 litre tanks. Still, the lowest ranges for euro cars is around 500 miles. Typical 600 to 700. A few with over 1000. It's the norm in a country that doesn't treat liquid fuel like water and commute to work in pick-up trucks.
Why have that range? Well, you just don't need to waste your time trying to fill up. I fill up once a month, if that.
We've got cars like that too, although the majority are European imports, and diesels aren't as popular here. Tanks have either been getting bigger or staying the same size even though the cars get better mpg. I suspect it's more common in German makes, where you may not need to be able to go 700 miles non-stop, but you may want to go half that at 200 km/h. As Jeremy W alludes to, on road trips, for most people the tank capacity that matters isn't the gas tank, it's their own tank capacity, whether stomach, kidneys or intestines.
donald said:
Anyhow, the point was :-
It's a fool's chase to try to create an EV that emulates an ICE.....
Really? tell that to Mr.Musk and all the rest of the companies that are investing tremendous amounts into this technology.
You've taken it out of context. My point is that with current technology an EV can't get close to matching an ICE on BOTH lifetime CO2 footprint AND range, based on data I'm aware of.
That wasn't me, that was JasonA, and I don't think either of us is arguing that the current gen. of BEVs can match ICE ranges, although the Tesla can fake it. I'm talking about the next and subsequent generations with higher specific energy and energy density batteries.
donald said:
A doubling of Tesla's current (240Wh/kg? 260?) specific energy would get us there
That would not only put its CO2 footprint so far ahead of an ICE that it should be outlawed, but 2 tons of battery also would lead to a 3.5 ton car, at least.
Lugging around 2 tons of battery with an enormous ICE-thrashing CO2 footprint just for the odd one or two annual trips needing that is flat out not what all the grants are there to promote.
I was clearly talking about increasing the specific energy in newer batteries, not adding twice as much of the current batteries (which are around 1,300 or 1,400 lb. for the pack). The next gen Panasonic batteries that Tesla may well introduce on the Model X and offer for the Model S will boost EPA range over 300 miles with no change in weight or space. While this is still far short of the 300+ miles plus a reserve in typical conditions for the life of the car that an ICE can manage, it does narrow the gap.