back to article Back to the future: Honda's new electric car can go an incredible 80 miles!

Honda's new electric car, the Clarity, is garnering a lot of attention – for all the wrong reasons. Available later this year, the car is expected to cost the same as the new Chevy Bolt and upcoming Tesla Model 3, but will have just a third of their ranges, managing only 80 miles on a full charge. While that would have been …

Page:

  1. Richard 12 Silver badge

    Seems foolish

    Something that short-ranged is a second car, not an only car.

    And that means cheap.

    The putative household has a "proper" car they use at weekends and for shopping, and the short-range electric is for the daily commute.

    If it costs as much as a long-range electric, nobody will buy it - better to buy the long range one as an only car.

    This is why G-Wiz, the Renault thing and the other "road-legal quad bike" things exist.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Seems foolish

      In fact, it seems you might just as well put a vintage Rolls-Royce body on a milkfloat. I can't think of anywhere we would take our larger car in preference to the small one that would be achievable with an 80 mile range especially as that's likely to be 60 in an English winter if you don't want to have to take a welder along to treat your brass monkeys.

      1. 404
        Pint

        Re: Seems foolish

        'brass monkeys'....

        BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAhahahaHAHAHA!

        -at the pub since before it opened... this ones on me ... brass monkeys... heh

    2. fidodogbreath

      Re: Seems foolish

      Something that short-ranged is a second car, not an only car.

      Presumably, that 80 mile figure assumes that you aren't running power-hungry accessories like heat or air conditioning, at the optimum ambient temperature for battery efficiency.

      In a cold winter or hot summer, you'd be shivering or sweating in your roomy "premium interior" as you try to eke out 40-50 miles...

      1. ricegf

        Re: Seems foolish

        I commute in a 2012 Leaf (first-gen modern electric frog with Clarity's range), and A/C cuts range by 5 miles or less even in Texas summer heat - even less if the cabin is pre-conditioned while still connected to the grid. It's resistive heating and the cold battery during both days of the Texas winter that cuts range by double digits. So yeah, for most people ready to go electric, a current-gen Bolt or Model 3 makes more sense unless you're saving a LOT of money! Even with its limited range, though, we love our Leaf for driving around town, and are considering a Tesla to replace our remaining gasoline car.

    3. bombastic bob Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Seems foolish

      "the short-range electric is for the daily commute."

      not likely - typical commute involves a lot of "sitting in traffic" and on a nice hot day, your A/C is blasting [or on a cold one, the heater]. So after an hour of burning up the battery with 'accessory loads', you'll end up getting towed more often than not.

      This goes TRIPLE for Cali-Fornicate-You, where hour-long commutes are common, commute traffic is ALWAYS bad, and weather extremes at certain times of the year are guaranteed.

      Foolish indeed.

      (yeah they probably FELT that Cali-Fornicate-You residents are all a bunch of clueless greenies with 5 minute commutes and spare time to charge up the batteries on each end of every trip - ok SOME are, but not ME - I'll keep my dino-burner - It's an older mustang convertible, a LOT more fun!)

      1. CommodorePet

        Re: What about battery life

        California electric rates are also more expensive than most of the rest of the US, and come with the double whammy that the rate goes up (significantly) the more you use. Since charging an electric vehicle is an additional load, the economies here are not good (Los Angeles resident here). In Summer running the cooler can easily put the price per kilowatthour at 4x the base rate.

        The only way to mitigate that is to have an extra power meter installed that is just for the EV charger. That costs $2-3K, which would pay for a lot of dino-juice.

        80 miles would be out of the question here. Daily commute is OK, but if I need to drive to the airport (35 miles), park for a couple of days and then drive back, I'd be scr*wed.

  2. Snowy Silver badge
    Boffin

    Hydrogen fuel cells

    Hydrogen as a fuel is very poor when you consider the energy it takes to make it.

    A couple of papers about it, a little old but physics has not changed in 10 years

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a926/4199381/

    https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hydrogen fuel cells

      Thanks for the article from Back-to-the-Future in 2006! Hydrogen as fuel is brilliant, and the cost/trouble to produce it will reduce over time. The only thing stopping it is finding a super efficient novel method for separating those lovely H atoms from the O in water. This is one of the first vehicles you can get with a fuel cell, so if you expect it not to suck, you will be sadly mistaken. Version 1.0 is usually a let down, unless you are an "early adopter" and are used to such things. Still, don't let us stop you from not getting past 2006 for your "latest info." I am looking forward to more of these vehicles and some hydrogen fuel stations to start popping up. It's a much better option than the current crop of electrics and hybrids, once the fuel is more generally available.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

      Plus, this new Honda has TWICE the range of either of their Formula 1 cars built with McLaren! :P

      1. Chemist

        Re: Hydrogen fuel cells

        "The only thing stopping it is finding a super efficient novel method for separating those lovely H atoms from the O in water. "

        Thermodynamics !. No matter how efficient (and it isn't at the moment) there is a fixed energy required to do it of ~280kJ/mol. There is also an energy cost in either compressing it or liquifying it.

      2. Adam 1

        Re: Hydrogen fuel cells

        Hydrogen is not a fuel in the same sense as petroleum or diesel. There aren't any special rocks you can whack a drill into and slurp it out. Instead you find the atoms attached in other molecules. You then need to apply some energy to those molecules to break the bonds. When you burn that hydrogen in a fuel cell, you get some of that energy back. In other words, it is closer to a battery. You consume some energy to charge it up (create the H2) then consume it in your motor.

        And whilst you can do it from water, it is probably​ cheaper at scale to start with natural gas. There are two big problems with using natural gas for that. Firstly, it is far more energy efficient to just burn the gas itself. Secondly the waste CO2 kind of misses the point of replacing the internal combustion engine. That plus the fact it isn't renewable, that hydrogen is very hard to store, that it's energy density is rubbish and so requires liquefication (hugely energy intensive) and is way more expensive means it will never be a better fit in cars than batteries. It's only advantage over batteries is that you can get 300-500km range in a few minutes. There are other use cases where fuel cells do make sense, but not here.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hydrogen fuel cells

          Hydrogen, like batteries, isn't an energy source but an energy carrier. Oil is what you get when solar energy has split organic compounds into an oxidiser and a reducer; the oxidiser escapes into the air as oxygen and the reducer stays behind as a hydrocarbon.

          If hydrogen can be produced using solar energy, it's basically the same process but we have to organise the splitting. The question is whether it is better to use the solar energy to produce electricity which then separates oxidiser and reducer in a cell, or whether it's better to use it to split water. If you split water the oxidiser doesn't have to be carried around with you, you just use air directly.

          There's no real difference other than efficiency between burning oil to generate electricity to split the redox components in a battery, and burning some oil to extract the hydrogen from other oil.

          tl;dr: Other things being equal a fuel cell and a battery do the same job, but the battery vehicle has to cart around the oxidiser as well as the reducer. After that it all comes down to efficiency, first cost, service life etc. to determine the economics.

          1. katrinab Silver badge

            Re: Hydrogen fuel cells

            Right now, it is better to sell the solar electricity to the grid to reduce demand from fossil power stations, and put petrol/diesel in the car.

      3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Hydrogen fuel cells

        "Plus, this new Honda has TWICE the range of either of their Formula 1 cars built with McLaren!"

        Not quite true. They got one car home in Melbourne only 2 laps down.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Hydrogen fuel cells

      "Hydrogen as a fuel is very poor when you consider the energy it takes to make it."

      The energy required to make it, i.e. separate it from the oxygen in water, is the energy that's stored in it as a fuel to be recombined with oxygen so this aspect doesn't really matter. What matters is the overall efficiency with which you can go through the entire cycle.

      But the issues raised in the articles are valid. It's difficult and potentially dangerous stuff to store and distribute and the overall environmental friendliness of it depends on that of the energy source.

      1. Chemist

        Re: Hydrogen fuel cells

        "The energy required to make it, i.e. separate it from the oxygen in water, is the energy that's stored in it as a fuel to be recombined with oxygen so this aspect doesn't really matter."

        If only this were so. There are inefficiencies in the process - esp. electrolysis where ( from memory only ~~50%-70%) of the input energy produces hydrogen. When combined with the need to compress or liquify the gas it looks pretty dire. As someone mentioned above making hydrogen from natural gas is the usual route but necessarily produces carbon dioxide from a finite resource

        People have mentioned "better catalysts" for the electrolysis process but catalysts only change the kinetics of a reaction NOT the thermodynamics.

        Now I'm fairly sure the long-term future of transport is going to have to include electricity either directly or as a source of energy for synthesis of a fuel but the thermodynamic requirements will always need to be met.

      2. breakfast Silver badge

        Re: Hydrogen fuel cells

        From what I could follow, there is definite potential to use hydrogen to get energy from out-of-the-way renewable locations into power networks ( or cars or whatever ) when it is impractical to build massive powerlines. It may also make a good balancing medium to allow us to smooth out renewables production against demand. So there are certainly uses for it in terms of energy infrastructure and if it does fall into those usage scenarios then bringing it into usage as a regular fuel is not so far fetched.

        1. Jim84

          Re: Hydrogen fuel cells

          Everyone is correct in that hydrogen is expensive (and dangerous) to transport and store, with tanks and pipelines that need special coatings, and liquification taking large amounts of energy.

          Ammonia is a different story, as it is easily stored as a liquid at room temperature at mild pressures like propane. It has about half the energy per kg as petroleum.

          It is difficult to burn, but at the gas station hydrogen can be produced from it and mixed with ammonia to create a 2% hydrogen 98% ammonia mix that can be burnt in modified diesel engines.

          The real problem with it is where does the energy to make it come from? If it is from burning natural gas or coal then the whole exercise is pretty pointless. If it is from nuclear energy, then that works better, however for the process to be efficient you need a heat source greater than 540 degrees Celsius. Which is why the proposed molten salt reactors might fit the bill:

          www.energyfromthorium.com/2011/10/29/nuclear-ammonia/

  3. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Crazy Operations Guy
      Headmaster

      Re: Back to the Future needed 88MPH, not MPG.

      This car would technically get infinity miles per gallon as it doesn't use a gallon of anything...

      This car may very well be able to go 88 MPH (but couldn't keep that up for a full hour), the '80 miles' quoted in the article is the -range- that it has, not its top speed.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

  4. Gene Cash Silver badge

    That's crap. My electric motorcycle has about 120 miles range, and it's barely able to get me to some of the places I want to go without charging.

    I wouldn't even bother looking at 80 miles. Don't forget that's a circle of only 40 miles radius since you have to get there and back.

    I can carry my car charging system, but that's 45lbs extra.

    Also, car charging is scarce in the US, and fuel cell hydrogen is non-existent, and will probably remain so, for the reasons Snowy lists.

    Musk realized battery costs were the limiting factor LONG ago, and started building the gigafactory to make cheap plentiful batteries.

    Why can't Honda think that big? Why are they thinking so small?

    "no automaker knows more about customers of electrified vehicles than Honda" - fucking SERIOUSLY? He said that with a straight face? Does he really NOT know about Tesla??

    1. Eddy Ito

      He, meaning the marketing droid who wrote it, clearly chose his words very carefully. First he was likely talking strictly about years since their first electric the EV Plus was released back in '97 and went through the release of the gen 1 Insight and they've had hybrid and/or EV models since while Tesla didn't exist until '03. Notice he also used the term "electrified" which I'm sure in marketing speak is meant to include hybrids. Yes around the same time as the EV Plus is when GM was doing the EV1 but then GM took a break from the "electrified" vehicle world for a bit and no doubt those years don't count for GM. In short they may actually have had customers of their "electrified" vehicles longer than the others even if the volumes aren't really comparable. If you go by miles driven then it's probably Toyota for "electrified" and Tesla for "electric".

  5. Crazy Operations Guy

    One of the factors I'd be interested in

    I'd be interested to see the overall environmental impact of electric cars versus standard petroleum based vehicles. Specially in terms of manufacturing and disposal impact. Yeah, an electric vehicle doesn't produce pollution -now- but what about disposing of the battery when its capacity wears down to nothing? What about all the by-products required to produce the battery in the first place?

    I'm not trying to troll or disparage the electric car idea, I'm just curious about the overall impact.

    1. Steve Todd

      Re: One of the factors I'd be interested in

      The batteries are actually highly recyclable. See http://www.greenprogress.com/environment_article.php?id=1762

    2. a_yank_lurker

      Re: One of the factors I'd be interested in

      First and foremost the environmental issues are different points in the manufacturing and use of the car. Overall, I suspect, if one is honest the net environmental problems are awash between ICE and electric cars. They will have different issues. One issue with EVs is the load they will put on the electric grid and is the grid resilient enough to handle it.

      1. Crazy Operations Guy

        Re: One of the factors I'd be interested in

        "One issue with EVs is the load they will put on the electric grid and is the grid resilient enough to handle it."

        That is sort of my primary concern. Of course that would be highly variable. In a place like Shanghai where most of the electrons come from burning dinosaurs, the conversion losses from fuel-heat-steam-turbine-transformers-power lines-transforms-batteries-motor may actually make that EV require twice as carbon to be tossed in the air to move the same distance as a petrol-guzzling car. But then you might have a place like Reykjavik where the electrons are going to be from Hydro, so that EV is going to put a trivial amount of CO2 in the air compared to a standard car.

        What I'd really like to see is some kind of map done up that would show "Here are the areas that using an EV would produce more pollution than a standard car". Figure in all the energy costs and pollution generated from every step of a vehicle's life cycle (EG, manufacturing, shipping costs, daily use costs, disposal, maintenance, etc).

        I want to avoid a situation where I am not really helping the environment but rather just moving my pollution to some poor nation on the other side of the globe. Similar to the whole early hydrogen cell issue in that while the vehicle produces less pollution, the energy required to produce and transport the hydrogen in the cell ends up producing almost twice as much pollution.

        1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

          Re: One of the factors I'd be interested in

          Back of the envelope calculation: In the UK there are about twenty million cars, doing perhaps 12,000 miles a year (okay, it's a conservative envelope; I do three or four times that but never mind), It seems to take about thirty or so horsepower to cruise at 70mph; call it 20kW. Maybe 15kW as an average? And a finger in the air 30mph as an overall average?

          So, 12,000 / 30 hours * 15kW * 20e6 = 120e12Wh - 120TWh. According to Wikipedia, the UK generates around 335TWh a year. Which implies that to move completely to electric cars, the UK would need to increase its generating capacity *and* all its distribution infrastructure by a minimum of 30% - and that doesn't even consider vehicles other than cars.

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: One of the factors I'd be interested in

            "perhaps 12,000 miles a year (okay, it's a conservative envelope; I do three or four times that but never mind)"

            I do 60-70,000 per year, but I know lots of neighbours who barely manage 20 miles per day on their commute, so 12,000 is probably a reasonable average.

      2. Dave 126 Silver badge

        Re: One of the factors I'd be interested in

        > One issue with EVs is the load they will put on the electric grid and is the grid resilient enough to handle it.

        Electric vehicles - when parked at home - can conversely help to smooth the demand upon the grid, by using their batteries as local storage. It's a question of implementation. The mass manufacturing of Li-Ion cells for cars also brings down the cost of batteries for domestic or local power banks.

        I'm not saying you're wrong, but only that this is complex.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: One of the factors I'd be interested in

          "Electric vehicles - when parked at home - can conversely help to smooth the demand upon the grid, by using their batteries as local storage."

          You could charge the battery off-peak which eases Neil's worry about generating capacity although the overall amount of power generated still increases as he says.

          But you seem to be implying that you could use the battery to store power for the home. You'd be a bit annoyed to get into your car and find it grind to a halt a few yards down the street because you'd just been using its battery to cook your breakfast.

          1. Dave 126 Silver badge

            Re: One of the factors I'd be interested in

            > You'd be a bit annoyed to get into your car and find it grind to a halt a few yards down the street because you'd just been using its battery to cook your breakfast.

            As I said, it's a question of implementation. Say there were peak demands on domestic power a couple of hours after you have arrived home from work: there would be scope for reducing the peak loads on the grid by using your car battery. There would still be plenty of time to top up your car between midnight and seven am. Also, I suspect most people will have an EV with a range well in excess of their daily commute.

            The idea is to reduce the spikes in demand on the grid. And the spikes really are 'spikey'!

    3. Enniskillen

      Re: One of the factors I'd be interested in

      While you are on the internet, why don't you look it up ? There is a plethora of information out there confirming that even with the need dor battery recycling, Electric cars are more environmentally friendly.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: One of the factors I'd be interested in

        "There is a plethora of information out there confirming that even with the need dor battery recycling, Electric cars are more environmentally friendly."

        And there is also information arguing the opposite, because this is the Internet and, like Borges's library, it contains both truth and falsehood.

        I remember a Scientific American article - now surely obsolete - which showed on a State by State basis which were the coal States and therefore in which electric vehicles were more polluting. It's a very localised thing. But you can't help noticing too that the simplest way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the US would be to drive smaller vehicles. A Tesla may output less carbon dioxide than another two and a half tonne car in a gas-fuelled State, but both of them emit far more per passenger mile than a Prius.

      2. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Unhappy

        Re: One of the factors I'd be interested in

        "Electric cars are more environmentally friendly."

        but only if you think that CO2 is "a pollutant". which it's not. [CO2 absorbs almost no infrared energy corresponding to normal earth temperatures, i.e. above about -50F, and so it cannot be causing any kind of warming greenhouse effects except maybe in Antarctica or during an ice age. Water, on the other hand...].

        gasoline is liquid energy, available for at least 50 to 100 years into the future, and it gives us MOBILITY. Inventing new ways of getting around is still good, of course, but don't delude yourself into thinking you're "saving the planet" by driving an electric car. If nothing else, they tend to emit "smug". heh.

        (a hybrid, on the other hand, makes more economic sense because of the mileage improvement and range of a normal dino-powered vehicle)

        My preference would be gas-turbine powered electric generators driving the motors and charging the batteries intermittently while you drive. THAT could be the best hybrid solution of them all. Gas turbines can run on diesel fuel, propane, alcohol, whatever (except maybe gasoline since it's probably too volatile).

        not sure why nobody's doing that... (maybe it makes too much sense?)

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: One of the factors I'd be interested in

          "but only if you think that CO2 is "a pollutant". which it's not. [CO2 absorbs almost no infrared energy corresponding to normal earth temperatures, i.e. above about -50F, and so it cannot be causing any kind of warming greenhouse effects except maybe in Antarctica or during an ice age. Water, on the other hand...]."

          Science has known about the pass-thru and absorption effects of CO2 since long before we were looking at climate change/global warming or whatever. That's known, provable and demonstrable physics. It's not something recently "invented" by tinfoil hatters to fool you into paying for "green" initiatives. Whether or not you believe in AGW isn't even relevant here. It's basic science, not a spiritual belief.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    80mile range?

    Ok for local trips but anything else?

    Forget it.

    I drive a PHEV with 20 mile range but have an ICE engine to back me up.

    I have not put any petrol in the tank since Mothers day but there again I've not been anywhere more than about 8 miles from home in it since then.

    The nice sunny weather has allowed me to charge it for free thanks to the PV system on my roof.

    As for charging points... These are a joke. Operated by different companies with different connectors. CHADEMO, Type 2 or whaever. It is a minefield. To run an EV car, you have to sign up to at least two different Charging point operators.

    Going pure EV and going any distance from home unless you are driving a Tesla is a joke.

    Next year, the year after? Maybe.

    Oh, and your range is dependent upon the outside temperature. In winter it drops considerably. They don't tell you that.

    1. Chris Miller

      Re: 80mile range?

      My PHEV - which I love dearly, for the tax benefits, if for no other reason - claims (mfr's numbers) a 30 mile range, from a 12 kWh battery which takes ~5 hours to recharge from a 13A domestic plug. I could spring several hundred pounds (net of government grant) for a 'fast' charger that delivers 16A (4 kW), but that still takes 3½ hrs from 'empty' and you can't do much better than that from a standard domestic supply.

      So if I bought a top end Tesla (100 kWh), how would I charge it in less than a day? It's fine if there's a Tesla 'supercharger' at the bottom of the road (i.e. you live in (parts of) London), but for me the nearest is 30 minutes away - and I'm not going to drive for an hour (plus 30 minutes for the actual recharging) every time the batteries get low. I guess the idea is that you top it up every day for short trips and for the occasional long trip you're almost certain to be passing a 'supercharger' at some point.

      But if that was my driving pattern (which it is), I'm not much better off than with my PHEV; plus I don't have any issues with 'range anxiety'. I expect there must be a Tesla owner on the forum who can put me right ...

      1. Jim Mitchell

        Re: 80mile range?

        @chris miller

        "I could spring several hundred pounds (net of government grant) for a 'fast' charger that delivers 16A (4 kW), but that still takes 3½ hrs from 'empty' and you can't do much better than that from a standard domestic supply."

        From the Tesla web site, they have 3 home charging options: 40A @ 240V (9600KW), 48A @ 240V (11520KW), 72A @ 240V (17280KW). Refill of 300mile range is "5:47" with the 72A charging.

        Perhaps you need to raise your standards for your domestic electrical infrastructure?

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: 80mile range?

          "Perhaps you need to raise your standards for your domestic electrical infrastructure?"

          That takes us back to Neil Barnes's point. If this sort of car charging was to become universal then the infrastructure would need investment and that's not a decision for the individual motorist.

        2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

          Re: 80mile range?

          40A @ 240V (9600KW), 48A @ 240V (11520KW), 72A @ 240V (17280KW).

          The first two are 80% of the "budget" on a normal UK household install which is 65A fuse at delivery point. So you cannot run them and an electric shower or stove safely at the same time. The last one is above the normal UK electric supply. Other Eu countries are not much different. Depending on where you go domestic supply is standardized at 50-65A as well.

          Perhaps you need to raise your standards for your domestic electrical infrastructure?

          Maybe. If you buy a Tesla for most households in Europe you will need a new feed. You will need to order a proper 2 or 3 phase supply instead of the standard domestic single phase one.

          Thankfully Tesla is rare and is likely to remain such for the time being. If it stops being such, the grid will need a massive upgrade.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: 80mile range?

          You have forgotten a decimal place in your maths, 40A@240 is 9.6KW or 9600W, 9600KW is the output of a small gas turbine power plant!

    2. kmac499

      Re: 80mile range?

      80 mile range is the school run or commute to the train station, neither of which requires a 'luxurious' vehicle.

      Compare the Honda to the Mahindra e2o, currently available for, after the govt subsidy, about £13k.for the basic model or £16k for the up market verion with the useful extra goodies. It looks quite cute as well.

      1. Commswonk

        Re: 80mile range?

        kmac999: 80 mile range is the school run or commute to the train station, neither of which requires a 'luxurious' vehicle.

        Entirely true, but to expand on a point in my previous post (apologies for the adjacent posts!) I'm far from certain that such use would be particularly wise in the winter. Quite apart from the vehicle occupants being cold (somewhat undesirable in itself) how is a purely electric car with limited range going to provide a draught of warm air to keep the windscreen clear of frosting (inside and out) and have enough power available to operate a rear window heater?

        To make matters worse normal respiration generates a lot of moist air which will freeze on the inside of the windscreen very easily, particularly overnight. I know that having a window slightly open can help but who is going to do that in the middle of winter in an unheated vehicle?

        Can any all - electric car owner enlighten me (us!) on this point? I genuinely don't know how this problem is managed.

        1. clanger9

          Re: 80mile range?

          @Commswonk good question, because it's not obvious from the manufacturer literature how they solve the "heating problem".

          I have a PHEV and it appears to have both a ~2kW heat pump and ~5kW resistive heating. The heat pump doubles up for air-conditioning duty in summer. Add in headlights, rear demist and heated seats and it can be pulling 8kW before it turns a wheel. That sounds like a lot, but it's still pretty small compared to the power needed to drive it along (max power on mine is 108kW, average is more like 20-30kW at speed).

          The heating system makes for a nice, toasty warm cabin in winter (you can even pre-heat the cabin before you set off if it's really cold), but it does reduce battery range. My car manages 40+ miles in the summer on battery power, but this will fall to 25 miles or so in the winter (on a 10.5kWh charge). All because of the heating system. Granted, I can put the system into "eco" mode to save energy, but hey life's too short...

          Different manufacturers seem to have different ways to solve the heating problem. I believe early Nissan Leafs only had resistive heaters, which aren't as efficient as a heat pump. I don't know how Tesla do it - they've got 85kWh+ to play with, so maybe heating efficiency is less of a concern...

    3. Commswonk

      Re: 80mile range?

      Anonymous Coward:

      Oh, and your range is dependent upon the outside temperature. In winter it drops considerably. They don't tell you that.

      And I daresay the inside temperature drops as well. I suspect they don't tell you that either.

      I also wonder if the "80 mile range" is continuous running; what is the range is under stop - start driving conditions? After all, acceleration requires more power than running at a steady speed and regenerative braking won't recover all of that additional demand.

    4. ricegf
      Facepalm

      Re: 80mile range?

      "As for charging points... These are a joke. Operated by different companies with different connectors. CHADEMO, Type 2 or whaever. It is a minefield. To run an EV car, you have to sign up to at least two different Charging point operators."

      *sigh* It pains me to see so many upvotes for a fundamentally flawed paragraph such as this (I say this gently and without intending offense). Here's the reality.

      Every single EV on the market today supports the standard connector used in that region - called J1772 in the USA and Mennekes in the UK and Europe. These are used for slower charging - overnight at home, at work, or at a destination such as a hotel or theatre.

      Every single EV on the market that supports rapid charging supports EITHER a fully compatible superset of the slower regional standard universally called the Combined Charging Standard (CCS), OR the older Japanese CHAdeMO standard. These are used for recharging in under an hour when traveling.

      Tesla also has their Supercharger network with proprietary connectors that only a Tesla vehicle can use, but a Tesla vehicle can certainly use the slower regional standard via an included adapter, and the CHAdeMO rapid standard via an available adapter - rather like a USB to USB-C charging adapter.

      So what do rapid charge stations do? Exactly what petrol pumps do - they support both standards! A petrol pump supplies gasoline (often in 3 grades) via one hose and diesel via the other. Rapid charge stations simply provide two connectors, one for CCS and the other for CHAdeMO. It's impossible to plug the wrong connector into your car, unlike putting the wrong grade of gasoline into your car - or worse, a diesel truck!

      BTW, I only belong to one charging network: EVgo. I've never needed any other membership to roam the DFW Metroplex, which is about twice the size of Northern Ireland, in my first-generation 80 mile range Leaf. All of their local stations support both CHAdeMO (used by my Leaf) and CCS. Your Membership May Vary. But yes, just accepting a credit card like the petrol pumps would be a definite step in the right direction as well. Just give it a little time. :-)

      Hope this clears up the confusion about a "minefield" that is actually somewhat simpler than drivers currently face in petrol-fueled vehicles.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: 80mile range?

        "These are used for recharging in under an hour when travelling."

        How much under? That's like saying I'd have to spend "under" two hours or "under three hours" additional time on a long journey recharging when I'd need at most one fill of the tank of petrol taking a few minutes. In turn that implies that motorway service stations would have to have many times the number of charging points compared to the number of petrol pumps if such short-range vehicles became the norm.

    5. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: 80mile range?

      "To run an EV car, you have to sign up to at least two different Charging point operators."

      Sometimes the free market is trumped by proper regulation and this seems to be a case in point. It's not as if the motor industry doesn't have decades of experience of building cars with standard "charging ports" that work pretty much the world over.

  7. The Serpent

    If they used yesterday's ranges to lower the cost such that you got an actual car (instead of something like a Twizy) for 7 or 8 grand (with no battery "hire") I think they'd be on to something

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon