Interesting article, hope it actually comes to the market..
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524
The government will still tax non-polluting cars just as they do with petrol/diesel ones so at the end of the day it'll be the same s**t. The only difference is that the world might be less affected by this but it's gonna take a few more decades for that.
Is that really her name? Poor girl
^^^ this ^^^Originally Posted by ordo
PHEV's were sold like hot cakes overhere in Holland due to the lower tax bracket. Good for the environment etc. But bad for the government's income revenues. Guess what: PHEV's sold after 1-1-17 are in the same bracket as all others. Only REAL electric cars like the Tesla are still in a lower tax bracket (for now...)
Menno
Err, I was rather thinking it was a noteworthy item of chemical engineering, not about tax.
Seems a rather dead-end approach.
In their process, water is used to produce hydrogen which is ultimately used to produce this 'diesel'.
It's far more efficient to use the hydrogen in a fuel cell to directly produce electricity (and power motors). Any internal combustion engine is much less efficient than such a fuel cell.
As an alternative to fossil fuels, vegetable oil is already used to produce biodiesel and ethanol (again from crops) is widely used as a fuel (in Brazil for example).
Thats going to happen in the UK too, car leasings tax costs were partially calculated on CO2, pure electrics with zero CO2 benefit from very low tax (if any). Thats all changing.
And global warming given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Yes indeed, it's one of few actual uses per se I have heard of for it.
Given many cities a considering banning diesels this may be a way for them to continue to be used. Especially for vans and small trucks, which is an area which electric is not so good. Guess the challenge with all these things is the costs and the energy needed to make it. Although getting oil out the ground takes a fair bit.
I would like to see energy equation for this 'breakthrough'. To be precise, how much energy you have to invest per unit of fuel mass as oposed to value of energy that you can extract from this fuel mass.
I bet that the result is negative, and this is just nice marketing stunt... :)
Of course it is - they're using wind energy in a convoluted way to make this fuel but could be used far more directly.
My electric van is awesome! It works really well for me and saves around £2500 pa in fuel costs.
Maybe but if they use renewable energy then the cost is what's necessary to make the energy available at all times.
By putting a sail on the roof of every car?
OK... let us pretend that we are little children and we can play wannabe. :)
Let us suppose that all cars today are changed with electrical cars, one for one gasoline or diesel powered. We are all happy because this is green s**t and nature loves us...
Where will we obtain the energy needed, in the amount needed, to charge this cars when we plug them into sockets!? What is the primary energy source for this?
Let's not kid ourselves gents... :)
Last edited by gollUM; 16th January 2017 at 21:52.
Don`t see the logic here. The problem with diesel is all about particulates, and that'll be just as bad with the synthetic diesel.
Interesting article, but a blind alley as far as I can see. Expensive to produce , economically it doesn`t make sense.
Paul
Well they are saying it has a lot less particulates because it is a much purer product. I am no chemist, but if they can make diesel, then why not petrol. Surely it is just as case of fractionating?
Well, in that scenario the government, or indeed private companies would have built the infrastructure. So you would have wireless charging, contacts in the road, ( think scalextric without the tracks ) cars would have roofs made of solar panels, the kenetic energy produced from vehicles would be stored in super lightweight batteries for use on non contact roads, vehicles could be self generating, like each wheel being a dynamo etc etc.
Obviously, the tech' just isn't there atm, especially batteries. Also there is no real "will" ( aka funding ) by any nation to put in force the measures required.
Indeed, this seems to be the most feasible near and medium term way forward. It's renewable, does not contribute net carbon dioxide, and uses existing technology and largely existing distribution infrastructure. If it uses land then so be it -- something has to give to maintain human development with currently available technologies.
Wireless (induction) charging in the roads is already a reality. It will be a long time until it's likely to be commonplace though.
Solar roofs will add a little energy but nowhere near enough to charge the vehicle fully.
Kinetic energy regeneration is already used in almost every electric vehicle on the road. Around 30% of my vans electricity consumption is regenerated under braking.
Self generating vehicles is a total fallacy though, it's "perpetual motion" all over again.
A couple of interesting observations from Car magazine this month (feb). The first one was the real financial cost of running an EV for 8 months was £5.83/mile! This is because of the staggering depreciation... c. 60%. Next was a comment in the letters concerning the simple logistics of EV i.e. time taken to charge (apparently they can get it down to 15 mins with a 2000A charging point - if such things existed/were possible), capacity required at filling stations to cope with cars taking 15mins to fill up. Then there was the calculation for the amount or energy required to run all of these filling points.... 108GW!
To me EV is a short term idea and no way can it be considered as a long term solution. Lugging huge batteries around with long charge times is plain daft; it'll never get down to a few mins like it does with petrol and it's only going to get worse as energy densities increase with the demands for longer range. Add to that the environmental costs of these batteries (a factor often brushed under the carpet by the EV aficionados). At the moment it looks like H2 is the best bet in the longer term however if they can get the H2 into a more energy dense form i.e. e-derv, then that's even better.
Interesting to see how Toyota are moving their future research into H2 vehicles; seems they're starting to think there's a limit set by chemistry on what you can do with batteries.
An American guy created an engine in the 60's that ran on water, and eventually someone videoed it in the early 90's and put it on youtube, but he soon disappeared after that and all his research, tools, and engines.
Kidnapped by Exxon no doubt.
made me laugh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car
Not sure it's a short term solution, as many manufacturers are now building multiple options and sure they would not be doing so if it was not a good option, VW, Jaguar, Tesla....However I think there will be some big shifts in the way they work over the next 5 years and that's the great thing about some big car companies joining in, is the resources they have and are prepared to invest.
Not sure how car magazine come up with a figure of £5.83 per mile, our calculations from when we bought ours 10,000 miles per year, old car 14p per mile for the diesel 32 miles per gallon, electric 2p per mile 8.8p per KWH and we get 4.2miles per kWh. No car tax £295 per year saving. Cheaper servicing, less brake wear. We opted to lease to avoid depreciation risk and hopefully at the end of the 2 year the next phase of cars will be out. Range can be a problem but we charge at home and have only used the public infrastructure one even in 9 months. Done 7,000 miles, there has to be a mind shift to doing things in a different way, not going to a petrol station has saved a fortune in random purchases too.
Depreciation. New car 21K with government cash back (due to change I think). Resale value 9K. Not sure how the sums stack up leasing.
Sounds like you're comparing quite a large/older SUV type vehicle with a new EV - 32mpg and £295 tax. A more efficient SUV even like the massive XC90 is £20 tax and 65+mpg!
There are even several zero road tax petrol/derv vehicles around though, I agree, the charges for road tax change in April to typically £140pa for everyone except EV.
Last edited by solwisesteve; 17th January 2017 at 14:03.
The reasons why depreciation is currently so high are all down to the new technology. Fewer electric cars are currently manufactured so the cost are higher although no one pays anywhere near list for an EV (Tesla excepted).
Likewise, people are cautious of buying new and even more so second hand so residuals are lower.
Once the vehicles become more mainstream both of these issues will disappear and the age/value curve will more closely resemble ICE vehicles.
I do 9000 miles a year in mine and I've used a public charger three times in eighteen months. I'm saving £2500 pa on fuel which alone will pay for the van in five years (I paid £12,500 for a one year old, 4,500 mile E-nv200).
Last edited by Dave+63; 17th January 2017 at 14:22.
Petrol can be made synthetically, but it's expensive. Your 'it's just a case of fractionating' is somewhat simplistic; you're assuming that the synthetic process used to make the diesel also produces sufficient light fractions that can be separated by fractionation. Fractionating is just that, it's fractional distillation and it shouldn`t be confused with the cracking of hyrdocarbons to produce shorter chain (more volatile) molecules.
As for the synthetic diesel being purer, that doesn`t relate to the particulates problem because the particulates are actually minute particles of soot....which is carbon produced from incomplete combustion!
Dave 63 puts forward a strong case for electric vehicles and the sensible side of my brain is forced to agree with him. Indeed, my motoring pattern is now suited to an electric vehicle, I rarely do more than 20 miles/day and it's usually less than 10. we could easily manage with one electric vehicle, possible two. I`ve always got the MGB to fall back on if the sun's shining!
I think it's still early days for electric vehicles and I would still have reservations about depreciation and potentially high repair costs. As a low mileage driver it makes sense for me to buy cars a couple of years old and keep them till they're 8 or 9 years old, that's the way to keep depreciation low but the risk of expensive repairs is clearly a factor. Fuel consumption doesn`t really enter the equation for me.
The 'benefit in kind' brigade will still keep running their diesel Beemers and Audis because at the moment it's financially attractive, and whether they admit it or not they love the kudos of running a prestige badge even though they probably couldn`t afford to buy the vehicle out of their own pockets. Unless that financial equation alters nothing will change. For the rest of us, who actually have to buy cars out of our own pockets, depreciation will always be the biggest factor. Unless a lot of miles get covered the differences in fuel cost is far less significant when looking at total ownership costs....and it's the total ownership cost that matters.
The tree huggers will find it hard to accept, but the only way to get people to change is via their pockets. However, as I`ve said in the past, the government backed the wrong horse by promoting diesel cars and waving the 'reduced CO2 ' banner. We can do virtually nothing to influence global warming but we CAN influence the air quality in our built-up areas. As for promoting electric vehicles, how would the government raise the shortfall in tax revenue resulting from a big drop in diesel/petrol usage?........put up income tax and VAT! So we all end up with electric vehicles and higher tax bills......be careful what you wish for!
Paul
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 17th January 2017 at 17:56.
"Audi makes diesel from C02 and water.." oh, and a shed load of electricity, mostly from coal, gas and nuclear power stations.
Brighty
No they deliberately used renewables.
Paul, I didn't wish for it, I merely found it to be a an interesting feat of chemical engineering, as I said previously. .
All I can say is try one Paul.
The sensible option is to either lease or PCP a new one and then hand it back at the end of the contract. The deals have been very good with high residuals (far higher than actual residual values) so it's not worth buying at the end. Either that and/or buy an older car (2-3years) after the huge depreciation.
There are unlikely to be huge bills, it's only a battery, electric motor and potentiometer after all! Talk of battery replacement costs are just scaremongering really, it's analogous to worrying about the cost of a new engine when buying a second hand petrol/diesel car. Nissan give an eight year warranty on the 30kwhr battery pack and there are 24kwhr Leafs with over 150,000 miles on the clock still on their original battery. Battery packs are made up of a number of cells which can all be individually replaced if necessary.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
