Electric cars can 'fit with current driving patterns'

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 22 Jun 2010, 05:16

The Ecologist - 18/06/10

First results of UK-wide trials dispel fears about the 'range anxiety' of electric cars running out of power: typical users' driving habits can remain unchanged

Replacing petrol or diesel cars with electric ones would not involve any changes to our typical driving patterns, according to the first results of a UK-wide trial.

Results showed the majority of journeys were less than five miles, average daily mileage was 23 miles and vehicles were parked for 97 per cent of the time, typically overnight, allowing plenty of time for battery charging.

Article continues ...

Post by **clv101** » 22 Jun 2010, 09:18

...and vehicles were parked for 97 per cent of the time,

This is a key point. The capital infrastructure we use to burn oil has a load factor of ~3%. Compare that to a coal power station which might be over 60% or nuclear closer to 80%! This represents a huge waste. We've paid for those cars at £10-20k a time and they basically sit there doing nothing.

Private car ownership is a really dumb idea.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 22 Jun 2010, 10:07

I live in mine for the 97% of the time it's not moving

.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 22 Jun 2010, 12:39

clv101 wrote:Private car ownership is a really dumb idea.

+1

Certainly if I lived in town I'd get rid of mine. It's only used a couple of times a week as it is. The handbrake is often stuck - especially in damp weather - when I come to try to use the car!

Years ago I imagined a system whereby no-one owned private vehicles but there were plenty to hire for point-to-point use (as opposed to fixed route public transport), the basic concept being you saw the vehicle you needed and entered it using your debit card or whatever. A bit like the bike hire in Dublin sort of thing.

Trouble is, people are snobs.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 22 Jun 2010, 15:14

emordnilap wrote:Trouble is, people are snobs.

It just too easy to own a car that you park/don't use for 90% of the time. Cost of ownership has to go up to make it worthwhile using other modes of transport.

JonB · Post by **JonB** » 22 Jun 2010, 20:10

kenneal wrote:
emordnilap wrote:Trouble is, people are snobs.
It just too easy to own a car that you park/don't use for 90% of the time. Cost of ownership has to go up to make it worthwhile using other modes of transport.

Yep. And private hire etc. don't have child seats or the space for all the stuff you need with kids. Try going on a train journey with 2 under 5's and no stowage space.

Post by **clv101** » 22 Jun 2010, 20:39

I don't have kids... but why do kids need so much stuff when travelling these days? I've seen people fill an entire estate car with 'made in China' child orientated paraphernalia and one three year old sitting in the middle of it. Has it always been so? What did people do 20, 40 years ago when travelling with three year olds?

JonB · Post by **JonB** » 22 Jun 2010, 20:55

clv101 wrote:I don't have kids... but why do kids need so much stuff when travelling these days? I've seen people fill an entire estate car with 'made in China' child orientated paraphernalia and one three year old sitting in the middle of it. Has it always been so? What did people do 20, 40 years ago when travelling with three year olds?

We were all piled into the backs of cars without seatbelts.
My missus was one of 4, all crammed onto the back seat of a small car.
In the case of accident, through the windscreen and dead.
Child seats take up the extra space that was used to pack the stuff around
us that now means you need a bigger boot.
People also travel with much younger kids, so sterilisers etc are needed.
Pushchairs etc are actually smaller these days.

Post by **adam2** » 22 Jun 2010, 21:26

One reason for apparently needless car ownership is the need, especialy in the private sector, to get to work reliably.
Many commuters use public transport normally, but consider car ownership essiential for when the trains are not running.

Todays railway is increasingly a fairweather only railway, with services suspended in case of snow, or high winds, or heavy rain.
No one expects the railway to re-open on time after major engineering work.
Add the odd strike, and a car becomes essiential for many if dissmisal for poor attendance is not to be risked.

The fixed costs of car ownership are substantial, but having paid these costs, the marginal cost for petrol is far less than for train fares, leading many to say "I have got to have a car in case of snow, rain, wind, bob crow, or engineeering work, therefore having purchased, taxed and insured it, I may as well drive everday, I allways get a seat in the car unlike on a new shorter train"

Idealy we should live nearer our work, but in a big city only a minority will be in walking distance.

I dont drive, and cant walk to work, taxi fares can be an appreciable burden at times of "snow, rain, bob crow, or engineering work"

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 23 Jun 2010, 08:27

Private car ownership is a really dumb idea.

If you can have a car at my house at 6.30am every weekday and not mind it being dropped off 25 miles away an hour later, and have it dropped off at my work at 4.30pm and not mind me driving it another 25 miles and dumping it, cool.
Cars might be sat doing nothing 97% of the time, but most people need them 7-9am and 3-6pm, no one wants a car at 2am on a tuesday.

You'd also need to be able to let me keep it till 7pm if theres a crash on the motorway and I get stuck in traffic, with no warning, and indeed, be able to receive a txt at 4.30 saying I dont want the car at 4.30, I want it at 7.30 instead.

You'd also need to be able to provide a car at a few minutes notice if ever we want to pop out to the shops or to visit family, or if its a sunny day and we fancy a trip out.

Do you think you can provide this for under £2000 per year, including insurance, fuel, servicing ect?

If so, sign me up!

If you cant provide me a comparable service for a comparable price, why exactly is my choice "really dumb"?

Many commuters use public transport normally, but consider car ownership essiential for when the trains are not running.

The Manchester Metrolink my collegue uses is closed for at least a full month a year, and thats full closure, not closed for an hour because a train broke, which happens weekly.
Or at least, my collegue arrives late and says, sorry the trams were delayed.

Post by **clv101** » 23 Jun 2010, 08:43

DominicJ wrote:If you can have a car at my house at 6.30am every weekday and not mind it being dropped off 25 miles away an hour later, and have it dropped off at my work at 4.30pm and not mind me driving it another 25 miles and dumping it, cool.
Cars might be sat doing nothing 97% of the time, but most people need them 7-9am and 3-6pm, no one wants a car at 2am on a tuesday.

My street is full of cars - at every hour of the day. As is the street where my office is. There is absolutely no shortage of cars. The problem is that each one is reserved for only one person. It's about as inefficient as a system could be.

Even at rush hour that 97% figure doesn't change much. Think about it, dropping to 94% would represent a doubling of the amount of moving traffic against the average rate. I doubt even in rush hour the idle rate dips below 90%.

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 23 Jun 2010, 14:02

Think about it, dropping to 94% would represent a doubling of the amount of moving traffic against the average rate. I doubt even in rush hour the idle rate dips below 90%.

Do you have actual evidence for that?

That cars do nothing 97% of the time is not up for dispute, the problem is, everyone wants to use them during the same two short stretches of the day.
The same applies to all transport, buses run empty or with a couple of passengers most of the day, but at those key times, people are packled in like sardines.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 23 Jun 2010, 14:21

DominicJ wrote:That cars do nothing 97% of the time is not up for dispute, the problem is, everyone wants to use them during the same two short stretches of the day.

I haven't since 1986. Since then my use has almost always been outside the rush hour, bank holidays, and all other busy times

.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 23 Jun 2010, 14:33

The only quote I can find is from the ETA. Not exactly authoritative.

Over ten million cars travel each day at rush hour with no passengers, the study found, which translates to around 38 million empty seats.

So - 10 million cars out of 30 - 40 million (?) on the road is about
25-30% ?

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 23 Jun 2010, 14:47

Why does everyone have to go to the office every day? We've all got internet connected computers at home and internet connected computers at the office so why not send our brains along all those little wires some days of the week instead of incarcerating then in a metal box for a few hours each day?

It would save companies a fortune in office rental and servicing costs. It would save employees a fortune in travel costs. It would save the country a fortune in road building and maintenance costs.

Perhaps the government should tax businesses on 50% of their office space unless they only have office space for 50% of their staff. That might encourage managers to trust their staff to work from home a bit more. You can doss at work as easily as at home so what's the difference. The manager knows what work load to expect, or should do, so whether that work is done at home or at the office, who cares in the end.

Says he, sitting in his office at home. I'm off out into the sun now to do some potting on for a while. I'll do some work later this evening.