Renault's electric revolution

Oooh! Electric!

And now you know why the Government (euphemism) is so keen on introducing 'congestion charging' or road pricing. They'll lose the revenue from petrol/diesel so have to make it up from somewhere. They think long-term. B**tards!

By dsmac on 9 March, 2010, 9:55am

Lets clarify this con trick.

Lets be quite, quite clear Renault, all other electric carmakers, governments, greenies, crankies and the non-technical gullible people out there. Unless these so called ‘zero emission’ vehicles run on power somehow captured directly from the environment (i.e. solar or wind power) they DO NOT in practice have ‘zero emission’. They could be described as ‘zero emission’ at point of use i.e. when driven in cities but please, please note that this is rudely offset by the electricity generation required to charge up and power them. This is usually generated in power stations in the suburbs or countryside 80% plus of which in this country are currently fossil fuelled or nuclear fired with further future fossil fuel and nuclear generation on the cards.

Thus in the current climate and especially in this country where next to no government money is put into the research and development of renewable energy technologies it can only be looked upon as ‘sitting on’, ‘burying ones head’ or even possibly making the carbon pollution problem far worse. For as I understand it electricity generation and distribution is extremely energy inefficient with large generation loss experienced at fuel conversion (in the form of masses of waste heat) and also when the generated electricity voltage is then transformed up and back down (again masses of waste heat) to enable its transfer over the national grid system. Further power losses will then also occur upon charging (heat produced) and then storing the electricity in the electric vehicles inefficient battery storage system and then again from the electric motor (again heat produced) when the vehicle is used.

Or am I wrong?

By davidlivermore on 11 March, 2010, 2:00pm

I don't think you are wrong David but what concerns me even more is that while fossil fuels and so on may well be in decline, still not enough research has been carried out by Renault, or anyone else come to that as to the viable use of total electric power. Hybrids are now a known quantity and the motoring public has more or less accepted this as an alternate means of powering small to medium sized vehicles. However, the problem that concerns me is that even by 2011, the proposed rollout for these vehicles by Renault, the infrastructure for the charging and re-powering of these vehicles will not be there, or, will just be so inefficient or scarce in numbers, or even both, that the whole scheme would be unworkable. It may well work for short term commutes within say a 20-30 mile radius of the consumer's living address, but anything which entails anything more than a MAXIMUM of 100 miles just isn't viable. Another point worth considering is the life expectancy of the batteries. Everyone knows that over a period of time, batteries become less efficient and in the case of any battery, they require more and more attention the older they get until they get to a point not that far into their useful lives where they are no longer of any use.

Another point. What happens during the winter, especially one of the severity of this year which hasn't been seen for 30+years when the heater is blowing full blast, the rear screen heater, (which consumes the most power from a battery apart from the starter motor on a conventionally powered vehicle), is on to demist the rear screen, headlights, wipers and all the other accoutrements that drain life from the battery, what happens then? The effective range of a fully charged battery could be reduced by as much as 40-50 percent. That's of no use to anyone.

This scheme really hasn't been thought out properly, in keeping with most other hair brained schemes that our numerous government figures seem hell bent on promoting, probably with absolutely no intention of taking it up themselves. The message seems to be, as ever, do what we say, not what we do.

More research is needed before this is unleashed into society, MUCH more.

By nick7 on 12 March, 2010, 12:46am

Blah, blah. The bottom line is simple, getting away from fossil fuels and the freedom this realises. If you want zero emissions, buy your juice from a renewable supplier, if you need to travel further, go for an extended range ev (e.g. the volt or ampera, or various others coming on stream soon) or get in your fossil fuelled vehicle for these trips. Simple. Stop berating electric transportation, fossil fuels will soon only be for the fossils. Wake up and smell the coffee boys and girls, change is coming, and its coming fast. Be there or be square.

By Electric_or_Bust on 12 March, 2010, 7:38pm

Electricity - Zero emission!

Electric_or_bust
Where are they going to get all of the electricity required to recharge the batteries of these "Zero Emission" vehicles? From powerstations generating electricity by burning fossil fuels. You won't get enough "renewable juice" from a wind turbine to make a huge difference. Don't waste any more money on electric car technology and invest in Hydrogen technology. This will make electric cars obsolete. Electric car technology is for those people who don't really understand the environment but think they are "doing their bit", like the previous commentator.

By bigbazza on 19 April, 2010, 5:58am