Top Gear!

I'm not saying that electric isn't the future, I'm saying that it isn't the present. Without a bigger range, a better battery life and cheaper cost it isn't going to work. And to my mind speccing out a car and charging £30k isn't the way to improve, that would be better done by having low spec cars and working on range/battery life first.

And I won't watch anything with Robert whatshischops since he had a rant about TG doing something about hydrogen cars. It wasn't the point he was making but the fact that he came across like a really unpleasant guy. He looked like a twat...on coke, and for that reason I dislike him and anything he's in.

I certainly do agree that the electric car is viable should certain conditions be met

approx. 250 mile range on a full charge. You could get away with less but this is a realistic minimum to not have to worry about range.

A battery lease model, you don't actually own the batteries but lease them such that would allow them to be swapped in a reasonably quick manner for fully charged ones.

Where swapping is not possible allow for quick charging in no more than 20 minutes.

The fact that the developed world already has an excellent electricity distribution system which should mean setting things up is a simpler job than setting up petrol distribution was but still a massive undertaking.

All sounds peachy until you ask yourself where the juice is gonna come from? The national grid is hardly blessed with a huge surplus of power, so if we all switch to e cars, where is the power for millions of cars on charge each night?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barryfullalove

I'm not saying that electric isn't the future, I'm saying that it isn't the present. Without a bigger range, a better battery life and cheaper cost it isn't going to work. And to my mind speccing out a car and charging £30k isn't the way to improve, that would be better done by having low spec cars and working on range/battery life first.

And I won't watch anything with Robert whatshischops since he had a rant about TG doing something about hydrogen cars. It wasn't the point he was making but the fact that he came across like a really unpleasant guy. He looked like a twat...on coke, and for that reason I dislike him and anything he's in.

---

Just because he had a rant everything he says is irrelevant? :dozey: He was also right, because Top Gear said that the Hydrogen car was the future and said that the Tesla was too expensive when hydrogen cars are so expensive now that virtually no one can afford them.

He might be carrying on like a tit, but tell me the fault in his reasoning
[youtube]LPi8EhT_fYA[/youtube]

The fact of the matter is that if Top Gear had done what you and I would have done and plugged the car in the night before, they would have got to their destination. That is the long and short of it. I agree that electric cars aren't for everyone at the moment and it'll be a long time till they are for everyone, but there's no need to artificially set a car up for a fall......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

All sounds peachy until you ask yourself where the juice is gonna come from? The national grid is hardly blessed with a huge surplus of power, so if we all switch to e cars, where is the power for millions of cars on charge each night?

---

Well I'm a firm believer in nucular (sic). Nuclear would easily satisfy the demand.

A very good point indeed. We are already facing a very serious energy crisis as it is which successive governments have failed to face up to instead indulging in platitudes about renewables and efficiency and ignoring the fundamental issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

A very good point indeed. We are already facing a very serious energy crisis as it is which successive governments have failed to face up to instead indulging in platitudes about renewables and efficiency and ignoring the fundamental issues.

---

Agreed. Sadly the stigma of nuclear power has put people off. If Fukushima killed 100 times the amount of people it will kill with slightly elevated levels of cancer it'd probably still be better than coal power generation. People seem to wilfully ignore the fact that burning coal releases FAR more radioactivity than nuclear power generation does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Well I'm a firm believer in nucular (sic). Nuclear would easily satisfy the demand.

---

I agree, but who's gonna pay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

I agree, but who's gonna pay?

---

I'm not sure I understand that question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I'm not sure I understand that question?

---

Well, we have several nuke plants due for decommissioning. As I understand it, there are plans to replace those, but many more would be needed to power all the cars on the road. Getting the finance in place to pay for the replacement plants is tricky enough so where will the money come from to pay for the additional plants?