Graham Butcher

This battery tech I talk about is NOT specifically aimed at electric cars, but they are now becoming the largest single user for batteries of this type and energy density. For those who would like to know a little more about the ongoing battery tech research that I mentioned, which is NOT being done by governments or car manufacturers and not even by lithium battery manufacturers, be they for BEVs, torches, E-bikes, vapes, laptops, etc. I attach one such link below. These studies are being done by scientific establishments across the globe, universities and the like, and they present problems for all types of lithium batteries, even solid-state ones, so we are not out of the woods and safe yet. This demonstrates the dangers of governments taking notice of think tanks, lobby groups etc, all of which have that "vested interest" in securing a particular outcome, all in the pursuit of wealth. The lithium dendrites are very similar to the tin whiskers that grow inside germanium transistors, which cause short circuits and kill old radios and electronics dead. I have repaired many old radios over the years that had fallen foul of these whiskers and been thrown away as scrap. This article from NASA explains and gives some very good photographic proof that these things exist. Tin Whiskers Growing Inside ~45 Year Old AF114 Transistors Lithium dendrites act like needles, not soft metal, study finds

Good job they were stored charged then 👍

Interesting, but I was not talking about car makers; I was referring to the scientists involved in the study of batteries of all types, the ones who come up with ideas and breakthroughs in technology, in the same way as it is scientists who come up with new medicines and vaccines and not the medical practitioners, ie, the doctors (doctors = car manufacturers). Why do you treat your E-bike batteries differently to your EV car batteries? Are they not the same technology but in a different package? Is cola in a tin any different to cola in a bottle? The principles extend to all batteries with the same kind of chemistry. I have a video doorbell that uses 2 x 18650 cells which are also used in lots of EVs, and I know from experience that unless I keep a strict eye on those 18650 cells and they get depleted, they take ages to take another charge and will then begin failing altogether soon after. I have had to purchase a few of these cells from Amazon now to replace ones that have been allowed to get too low.

Forget all about EV people like James and Kate, and the other EV bloggers etc, I'm talking about the battery designers and specialists in battery technology, not people with vested interests in just EVs. Is my mobile phone, or my laptop, also an EV? No, but what they all have in common are batteries.

All the experts that I have come across all seem to agree that you get optimum battery performance if you stick between the limits of approx. 20% and 80%, meaning that the range is already effectively reduced to just 60% of whatever fanciful claims they were making in the brochure. That translates into the need to plan at least one charging stop on longish trips, each way, thus adding to both cost and time taken to do the trip, and that is without the extra time required to maximise the range by attempting to sit in the slipstream of buses or trucks at speeds in the 50 to 55 mph range. Allowing a battery to get ultra low can considerably shorten its life expectancy, and the same is equally true if allowing it to charge above an 80% SOC level. Now if you're the driver of a company car and you know that you're going to be getting another new replacement car at the 3 year period, then all the above means bugger all to you as it is never going to come back to bite your arse; it becomes someone else's problem when the battery fails, needing £thousands to replace it with a new one. Even my brand new mobile phone has an upper limit built in of 80% SOC and switches off the charging once this level is reached. When battery gets into the lower regions of below 20%, it goes into low power mode and starts to shut down some services to conserve the battery. Indeed my also brand new laptop also has the same battery management control built in, and it will not go above the 80% level, regardless of how long I leave it on charge, and it also shuts down featured when it gets below 20% level. So I would say that by allowing your car to get to that level, you are actually playing with fire which could potentially hit you extremely hard in the trouser pocket department one day. It is also reasonably true of ICE cars by the way, once the low fuel warning light comes on, it is best to refuel ASAP, regardless of the cost as allowing the tank to get really low, also allows the sediment that slowly accumulates in the tank, to get sucked into the engine, where it could cause serious problems. Incidentally, there is zero issue with brimming your fuel tank on an ICE vehicle.

That is where adaptive cruise control comes into its own; set it correctly and then monitor it closely, just in case it has a glitch and malfunctions.

@lol-lol it really is amazing just much more efficiency you can get if you stick close enough to a lorry.

As is Scotland, judging by the number of posts you make regarding non-operational chargers. The chances of getting stranded someplace because of the lack of working chargers is increasing.

@Evolution13 I agree, location, location, but just not here. We have 2 large park-and-ride sites with a capacity of 2,300 spaces, and the number of charging bays between them is just 8, 4 at each location. That's a percentage of 0.003478%, so very slim chances of getting a spot on one of them, I would say. So this location is clearly not anywhere as good in the provision of charging at park-and-ride sites as those around you, I would suggest. For instance, if it were me, popping into town, instead of travelling just 1.5 miles to a car park, I would have to go 4 miles in the opposite direction to the park and ride, then ride 4.5 miles back into the centre – not really ideal, is it? Then I have that journey back again to get home. Hardly very planet-friendly or helpful for congestion, etc., is it?

But that really negates the actual advantage of having an electric car, it would be as cheap to run an ICE car, especially after you have shelled out for that full solar and batteries and the like.

I know. But the practise is still happening and yet people are quoting the SMMT figures as these cars are actual sales and as you have just confirmed, they are not, just dodging the fines and then being SORNed. People should stop claiming that sales are going up and targets being met. It is not just the media spreading misinformation but there are those on here are doing similar.

What, you mean to tell me that there are EV owners with home charging who don't take advantage of cheap rate electricity? Are they off their heads, it should be a no brainier to buy it then.

Now that makes perfect sense for a keeper, but as we all know there are those like companies, and some private buyers who will be getting new cars far sooner than the 3 years that most leases are for. It's those folk who have to suffer massive depreciation losses.

I watch many videos on both sides of the fence which have that affect on me, but to ignore them is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.. Some people are natural presenters, others aren't but the information they present could be crucial.

Cars with less than 100 miles on the clock, and upto 3 years old? These are ex lease, mobility, fleet etc?? 🤔

The real problem there is the increased complexity, the ICE or the HV system should not be adversely affected by each other. I think that anything going with either system will also shut the other one off rendering the car inmobile.

@lol-lol In that case, you might be an ostrich. and have a skewed bias yourself? I really do think that you should actually watch some of his latest videos, see the evidence that he gets from their own website and then try to justify your viewpoint and statement about him being biased.

Are they using their own data? If so, then it's quite possibly flawed. Check out Barrie Crampton's videos on YouTube for the evidence.

@Evolution13 Well, you read what I read, and that info is just not present. What it does actually highlight, in theory at least, is that the data is just not being recorded correctly, that also seems to be the case in the US. A car fire, is just recorded as a car fire, it does not specify what type of car, its fuel, where it started and maybe not even if the car was in a road accident, etc. Wouldn't you have thought that that kind of data ought to have been recorded in order to learn from the resultant data in order to ensure that we make progress in the right directions rather than assumptions?

According to the Daily Mail, the fire services are starting to investigate and record the actual cause of car fires after claims the hybrid cars are 3 times more likely to kill the occupants in a fire than a normal ICE car. Interestingly, the government are saying that according insurance analysis the opposite is correct, but they will not share their findings publicly. It seems that Tusker, insure 30,000 company cars say that they find the hybrids are more likely to catch fire. So it seems that we shall have to wait to see what the truth is when the fire services actually get some useful data from their findings in due course. It has been mentioned before that the figures that have issued by the insurance industry is flawed, hopefully we get to the truth either way. Victory for the Mail on Sunday as emergency services start tracking cause of fires in hybrid cars | Daily Mail Online

Well that suggests to me that the national power generation is currently not really able to cope with the demand unless it is both windy and sunny, hence the mention of sunshine in the article. I still cannot see a time when we will have sufficent electricity to cope with all the EV vehicles that the government are hoping will on the roads by 2030, especially when you factor in that the vast majority of heavy transport are going to have battery packs in the realms of 600 to 900KWh each and the size of some the haulage fleets, it looks highly unlikely to happen.

If this free electricity actually happens as reported here, maybe a good time for those with EVs to fill their boots with a cheeky daytime boost as well? Households could get free electricity for doing washing on sunny weekends - BBC News

Do you think that will be enough, as the number of BEVs grows, many of them will be capable of this type of charging? Stand at any busy filling station and count the number of cars being filled in an hour, and given that currently an ICE car is capable of many more miles between fill-ups than BEVs are, that means that as ICEs are phased out, there will be massive demand for such chargers as BEVs are going to need twice the charging to rival what some ICE cars can achieve per tank. I can't see just how that is sustainable, even when Hinckley Point and other power stations come online. The demand for electricity is going to be massive.

So just where do you think here in the UK or in any densely populated country that would require it to be able to service a reasonable stream of cars in a given time period is going to get its energy from if not the grid? Even with the BYD Power Bank batteries, they have to be charged up as well.

While this is getting the charging times to a point where they almost could match that of refilling an ICE car (depending on the tank capacity), has anyone actually stopped to consider where the energy is going to come from in order to cope with recharging a few cars one after the other in a similar fashion to how a regular filling station can service loads of cars on the same pump? The size of the grid connection to a charging hub with, say, half a dozen of these chargers is going to be massive and so is the cost of running the grid connection to the hub site.