Wimminz – celebrating skank ho's everywhere

June 10, 2014

Electric cars – again….

Filed under: Wimminz — Tags: , , — wimminz @ 7:43 pm

Here we go…


“The first thing is the saving in petrol. Since the vast majority of the cost of petrol is tax, it’s expensive stuff.”

Someone who doesn’t get it.

Petrol / gasoline / benzine is currently, as I type £1.37 a litre.

There is approximately 9.7 kWh of energy in a litre of petrol (10.7 for diesel)

£1.37 / 9.7 = 14.1 p per kWh

The average price for electricity is currently 16.6 p per kWh http://blog.comparemysolar.co.uk/electricity-price-per-kwh-2013-comparison-of-e-on-edf-npower-british-gas-scottish-and-sse/

So, broadly speaking, electric car vs petrol car, similar kerb weight, rolling resistance, wind resistance, etc etc etc, so it is going to take a broadly similar amount of ENERGY to move either car any fixed distance or comparable route.

As I have said time and time and time again, it is no coincidence that the cost of ENERGY per kWh is broadly similar, NO MATTER WHAT FORM YOU BUY THAT ENERGY IN.


1/ it doesn’t matter what form you buy your energy in, the price per kWh is broadly similar

2/ the energy consumption of broadly similar vehicles is broadly similar, irrespective of how they are powered.

Where is the incentive to buy the electric car, at a fucking premium?

If, and ONLY IF

1/ the rolling resistance of electric cars was dramatically reduced, super skinny tyres etc, no mechanical drivetrain, etc

2/ the air resistance of electric cars was dramatically reduced, teardrop shape and maximum speed of around 50 mph

3/ minimal energy was converted to heat, eg 100% regenerative braking, eg no drivetrain, just 4 in hub stepper motors carrying tyres.

Then the electric car can beat the petrol/diesel car in energy consumption, and items 1 and 2 can be done in a petrol or diesel car…

A gasoline/ diesel car can be “charged” from empty in 5 minutes tops.

The energy density of petrol / diesel in kHw per cubic metre kicks all batteries asses, but that by itself isn’t a dealbreaker…. there are plenty of high end motorcycles with barely 150 mile range.

A petrol / diesel fuel TANK costs a few dollars to make, an electric fuel “tank” costs thousands.

These are presently insurmountable obstacles, for the automobile “as we know it” to change to electric.

Item #1 in red above will, never, change, such is the nature of markets.

This means electric car adoption will never happen because electric is a CHEAPER source of fuel, it never will be.

Which leaves two options.

1/ electric is available, petrol / diesel isn’t

2/ electric is legal, petrol / diesel isn’t

and one more small problem, each 30,000 litre fuel tanker represents 300,000 kWh, for a 30 ampere 220 VAC mains supply (30 x 220 = 6,600 Kw) that means it takes 10/6.6 = 1.5 hours to transfer the energy equivalent of 1 litre of fuel, assuming 100% charging efficiency of course, which is beyond pie in the sky, so a theoretical maximum of 16 litres of fuel per 24 hours, nearer 10 with charging efficiencies, and nothing else in the house running, and of course you can’t *use* a car that is plugged in at home charging (which you can only do anyway if you have a driveway) so half that for 12 hours charging a day, maximum of 8 litres equivalent of fuel per day… that’s not much range

So the electrical distribution grid itself also becomes an issue.

Tell me again how electric cars are, in *any* way, practical?

The only *practical* applications for electric vehicles (Smiths have been making them commercially for 70+ years) are, by definition, not anything that you could possibly categorise as a personal automobile. (think electric milk floats and electric vans and so on)

Suggesting electric cars as an “alternative” to petrol or diesel cars is like suggesting motorcycles as an alternative to petrol and diesel cars, the sort of alternative that means “completely bloody different” and not the sort that means “exactly the same, except for the vroom sounds” which is all anyone is talking about.

so, why not get an electric motorcycle?


With 9kWh in its battery pack, nearly twice the capacity of the Toyota Prius, the 2012 Zero DS is the fastest, longest-range electric motorcycle to ever enter production. 84mph top speed, 112-mile range. Is that enough to make it practical, useful transportation? More importantly, can a bike that slow be fun to ride? For more about electric motorcycles, check out


same fucking issues….


  1. A semi truck/lorry driving in an area with very small changes in elevation

    -Series Hybrid w/gas or diesel motor to act as a generator
    -Mapping system to determine where to speed up in anticipation of hills
    -Take a motor from one of the hybrid buses, beef it up for dealing with 80,000lb loads (http://www.hybridrive.com/)

    With little elevation changes (say across the SE USA or possibly the Outback), the amount of horsepower to keep the truck going would only be 100-200 horsepower on a relatively flat surface, rather than the 500-700 hp that the diesels come with.

    Even still, the truck would be useless in any areas with mountains and it sure as hell wouldn’t be fast. And maybe two people would ever buy it.

    Comment by pinzon — June 10, 2014 @ 11:25 pm

  2. I’ve been trying to explain this shit to people since I was hired to design an electric car during Oil Crisis 1.0, and why the Prius is a retarded way to build a hybrid since it came out. Even if he didn’t have the technology to do it up right Ferdi understood the problem and the solution back in the 1890s.

    They don’t listen any better now than they did then, even on “tech savvy” sites like Slashdot. I’m tired of it. You can take over the gig.

    You can have “Hydrogen Economy” too if you want it.

    Comment by kfg — June 11, 2014 @ 8:35 am

    • Kudos for hanging in there.
      LOL @ hydrogen economy! Just like the windmills and centralized solar-farms it´s the same canard as our German “Energiewende”.
      One energy-mafia(gasturbines) kicking the other(atomic pressure cooker) off the state-tit.

      If it were actually a danger to the current bankster owned energy monopoly it wouldn´t get a single dime from their politician bitches.

      That´s why the state subventions to private solar arrays got quickly canceled over here, when it actually looked like the decentralization of energy generation was on the verge of succeeding. Even though you weren´t allowed to use the power yourself but had to dump it in the grid first!

      Comment by hans — June 11, 2014 @ 12:33 pm

  3. “3/ minimal energy was converted to heat, eg 100% regenerative braking, eg no drivetrain, just 4 in hub stepper motors carrying tyres.”
    This and your other 3 bullet points!

    I immediately said bullshit when the tester in the youtube vid remarked there was no “engine-breaking”. WTF!?!
    I´m only an interested amateur but isn´t that the main fucking point of having an e-motor(s) driving your goddamn vehicle?

    It´s like these bastards (yes even TESLA!) just aren´t allowed to build a proper e-car that plays to the strengths of the technology.
    They probably even tried to figure out how to put a friggen gear box on these things.

    Comment by hans — June 11, 2014 @ 12:21 pm

  4. Yea, electric cars simply don’t make sense from a financial or practical point of view. Limited range and energy transfer rates are a non-starter for most. The sunk cost of the lightweight materials, electronics, and battery usually wipe out any savings that would be had by using electricity as the fuel source. Many will argue that IC engines are only 30% efficient compared to the 85% efficiency achieved by electric motors, thus making electric cars more efficient. That fails to capture the true losses in the system, like the energy lost converting fuel into steam to power the mains turbine, the resistive losses from transmission of the electricity over the grid to the charging station, and the various losses from the voltage transformers within that system. Yes, you could argue that there is energy lost in transporting oil from the middle east and refining it, but my point is, it’s not such a clear comparison in terms of energy efficiency. Even in this example, the fuel used to generate the electricity could vary between coal/nuclear/gas/hydro/solar/wind/etc. and further change the equation.

    A much more practical way of achieving an efficient vehicle would be to reduce a lot of the safety regulations relating to crash protection, allowing cars to become substantially lighter. If you’re thinking motorcycles with an outer shell, you’re on the right track. I’d envision a super-lightweight, low to the ground, 3-wheeled diesel with modest cargo space could seat two and achieve around 100mpg for an affordable price. Some interesting thoughts on the matter here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/fuel-economy/3374271-2. Going much further above 100mpg will probably give decreasing returns in efficiency per cost, require much more expensive materials and enter into the same territory as the electric cars in terms of market penetration.

    Off topic, but alternative energy sources might not be such a bad idea for residential use. Solar cells are getting cheaper to produce, though more importantly, they may provide backup power in emergencies. While it may take decades for them to pay for themselves, they could prove necessary in the event that an increasingly fragile mains grid goes down in a major blackout. The main problem with solar is that it peaks in energy output at a time when energy is cheapest, so an energy storage system of NiMh batteries would likely be most practical in terms of payoff, and ability to use backup energy during the night. The batteries will need to be replaced after a while, though I’d expect them to last longer than any other backup generation system. YMMV

    Comment by freeman — June 11, 2014 @ 3:15 pm

    • the word NOBODY wants to talk about with solar cells, what’s that, EFFICIENCY? No, not that word, this one, HALF-LIFE.

      Comment by wimminz — June 11, 2014 @ 4:19 pm

      • I haven’t done a great deal of research, but from what I’ve read, it seems the drop in efficiency is < 1%/year. http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/life-expectancy-solar-PV-panels

        My understanding of PV cells is pretty limited, but an power output decrease over time makes perfect sense. Breakdown of the outer layer from exposure to the sun and weathering would decrease the amount of photons reaching the semiconductor material. Also, and I may be wrong on this, my understanding is that the way they generate electricity is by having photons collide with electrons in the semiconductor, causing electrons to jump to a more excited state, allowing them to flow and generate electricity. Over time, that would suggest less electrons would be available in the material.

        Comment by freeman — June 11, 2014 @ 5:04 pm

        • The cheap chinese ones EVERYONE is fitting to their roofs have a half life of about 6 to 8 years…

          Comment by wimminz — June 11, 2014 @ 5:06 pm

    • Something like this is what I had in mind:

      Comment by freeman — June 11, 2014 @ 7:16 pm

      • assholes can’t even build a fucking website that works without JS….

        Comment by wimminz — June 11, 2014 @ 7:30 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: