Drivers of electric cars should be charged 10p per mile to pay for the power

Honestly what is it the privatised utilities they are all as bad as each other, "give us more money so we can buy the stuff we should have been investing in for the last 20 years"

Electric cars have been on the table for years now, expansion of broadband requirements ditto and water seems to be pissing out the ground at every major water main but still they act as though these instances are great surprises and they need major extra cash.

 

So wait a minute, not only do they want us to pay for the electricity, they want to add a tax to anybody that owns an electric vehicle.

Electricity should cost the same as petrol hey, yeah thats going to get people jumping the petrol ship isnt it. Seriously what world do these people live in!

On the plus side it'll never happen because imo electric cars arent the future and wont be popular enough to want the 'tax'.

 

That was interesting DXR some excellent points.

I'm unsure whether we'll end up with hydrogen or ev or if we'll all end up on bikes or horses at the moment tbh.

 

Hydrogen powered cars are the future, Electric cars are just a brief fasion statement phase.

 

And where do you get the Hydrogen from BTW?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

 

And where is all the Hydrogen going to come from, hmmm? Hydrogen is just an energy storage medium, and a poor one at that. You have to expend energy to create hydrogen (either from fossil fuels or cracking water), and more energy compressing the gas to get enough of the stuff to be useful in a tank.

And Hydrogen powered cars are electric - you won't see many IC hydrogen powered cars (look at the H powered beemer - 40 miles range on it's H tank)

For a given volume, Batteries will store more power than hydrogen will.

 

Actually wacking great solar powered hydrolysis plants in the middle east wouldn't be a bad solution as you say its a storage medium but its potentially better than our current "best" nimh batteries. Send fresh water in ships in one direction and get hydrogen back in the other then run them through fuel cells in peaking stations or in cars etc.

 

This might be a really daft question but do people not recharge these cars at their homes therefore paying for their own electricity?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7456141.stm

http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2004/04/63145

http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/

It's already happening in California. As technology advances, then there will most likely be advances in gaining more hydrogen to start expanding Hydrogen powered cars from California. Heck even James May drove one on an episode of Top Gear and filled it up from a normal gas station.

 

The only difference between a hydrogen car and a battery electric car is the energy storage method, the rest of the system is identical.

Hydrogen cars have stored hydrogen in a tank under high pressure that is feed into a fuel cell that converts hydrogen and oxygen into water and electricity, to obtain this hydrogen you need to produce it from water or from fossil fuels, IIRC the most efficient way we know of is from fossil fuels, this hydrogen has to be transported, stored and feed into the car's hydrogen tank, liquid hydrogen is very cold and if any leak occurs, and the hydrogen starts to burn, you will have serious problems....
Also the system needs regulation systems that are adapted to this type of fuel.

In the case of a battery operated car you have a battery that is recharged from your local power supply, if made smart (like most companies are pushing for) the car can choose to recharge from the grid or supply the grid with power from it's batteries, it effectively becomes a load bearing device.

But lets make a list:

C- both cars need exotic and valuable metals
C- both use an electric motor, so basically the "feel" will be the same
C- both are positive for the environment
C- both, in theory, will increase the need for power plants

H- the hydrogen car is less efficient per kw of power produced at the power plant
H- is mechanically more complex and has more moving parts(valves, sensors, etc...),
H- currently the most cost effective method uses steam reforming of natural gas, this produces great amounts of carbon.
H- hydrogen is very volatile, is odourless and burns invisibly.
H- hugely expensive new infrastructure for transporting the hydrogen
H- the "fuel" travels at visible speeds

B- the battery car is heavier
B- currently has a limited range that is more than enough for the majority of people
B- old lithium-ion battery technology is very dangerous in the case of an accident
B- new lithium-ion battery technology is very safe
B- incorrect disposal of the battery causes problems to the environment, but the value of the materials in the battery is big enough to make recycling viable and very attractive.
B- smart systems like V2G turn the car into a peak hour power supply, this reduces costs for the utilities.
B- the "fuel" travels at the speed of light

please add stuff that you find pertinent and inquire about some of my choices.

 

Difference between Hydrogen and Battery currently is, Hydrogen fills up at a station in a minute or so. Batteries take hours and hours to recharge.

 

As the price of petrol keeps rising as it inevitably will, then yes, electric cars would seem like a better (if currently less practical) alternative.

Unfortunately, they live in the real world. This country, along with many others, will be facing an energy crisis in the near future, and millions of electric powered cars wouldn't help that. We as a country need to invest in more alternative energy sources, and that money needs to come from somewhere. Other than raising the price of electricity wholesale, what else would you suggest?

They do, but the point is that the electricity is very cheap compared to normal fuel (petrol, diesel etc.), hence the reason for the added tax. I'm not sure of the exact numbers though, and don't really have the inclination to work them out.

 

Difference between Hydrogen and Battery currently is, Hydrogen fills up at a station in a minute or so. Batteries take about 1 minute to swap (see better place), 15 minutes on a quick charger, 8h on a 220/240V.

8h is about the same amount of time that one normally sleeps... so just leave it plugged in when you get home and you will have a full battery pack in the morning.

 

I agree that hydrogen is the way forward. Taking 8 hours to recharge your car is inconvenient no matter how you do it. Swapping batteries is also pretty inconvenient and costly.

 

Bull. I'm afraid.

You need MORE electricity to MAKE the hydrogen in the first place, unless you want to go scoop it out of Jupiter. GL with that.

Hydrogen cars means you still have to have filling stations and the fuel companies can still bend you over, whereas at least I can charge up my leccy vehicle when I'm at work or home. Also people are idiots and getting them to use a flammable liquid is dangerous enough, let alone a compressed even more explosive gas.

The very vast majority of journeys for most people are short commutes anyway, which makes electric vehicles work. It's only battery technology which is holding them back but it's getting better all the time. The problem is the internal combustion engine has had, what, 110+ years of serious development in vehicles? Batteries+motors have had.. 10? 20?

I agree that anything more than 20 minutes is too long and battery swapping is stupid (although perfect for a moped), but fundamentally the fact is that people are lazy and won't change they way they use vehicles. That's just a general criticism and fact of life unfortunately.

Compressed Hydrogen is just a stupid idea if we think of safety in crashes and fuel cells use more expensive metal than batteries.

+rep to DXR_13KE

Fresh water is a more limited resource than electricity unfortunately. Only oil is the only more demanded natural resource. When the oil runs out, wars will be fought over rights to fresh water. It will never end. Sad but true future in a more populous planet.

 

Legislate that no car can weigh more than 800kg... then use diesel... every one happy

 

I understand that, but my big gripe is that surely there arent enough electric cars on the roads to warrant even considering this tax atm.

I agree that we should be moving away from the traditional energy sources, But surely the costs should come from the huge profits of the energy companies. I know everybody should take responsibility, but i think people find it difficult when you hear, ''energy company X's profits increased to £700mil but they need to tax you to research alternatives''

Its not as simple as that i know but im talking from the view of average joe.

 

Yes it would, it would be terrible. Solar plants are not "that" efficient yet, and transporting an energy source from the middle east... sound strangely familiar some how

 

Hahaha

Solar plants aren't that efficient, but the material is at least recyclable afaik.

I would say glass covers + metal pipes + sun = water boiled for turbines is a better solution, if you're going to take up that much space for solar cells