Page 23 of 25

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postPosted: Wed 11 Sep 2019, 16:54:27
by dolanbaker
Cheap EV's are finally arriving.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/world-s-most-important-electric-car-unveiled-this-week-and-it-s-not-a-tesla-or-a-vw-1.4013578

World’s most important electric car unveiled this week - and it’s not a Tesla or a VW
At under €8,000 in China the Renault Kwid could have a greater impact in reducing emissions thanks to potential volume sales


Renault might just have launched the most significant car in the modern world, but nobody noticed.

The ultra-budget City K-ZE has just been launched in China and it’s astonishing, even for a brand long known for its EV commitment.

While most EVs are aimed to pull city dwellers out of internal-combustion cars, the City K-ZE is based off lessons Renault learned making its ultra-budget Kwid.

In short, it’s designed to electrify a chunk of the car market that never before bought cars at all, cleaning up awful scooter and motorbike emissions in developing countries.

....

It will use a Tianjin Lishen lithium-ion battery, built in China, with 30kWh of energy capacity, which Renault says is enough for 250km of NEDC-rated driving range between charges. That will probably circle down to towards the 180-200km area on the tougher new WLTP cycle, but it’s still impressive for the money.

It’s not stopping at budget cars for developing markets, either, with a pure BEV version of the small Twingo under development for a 2021 debut.


These vehicles are a real game changer.

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postPosted: Wed 11 Sep 2019, 19:31:23
by GHung
dolanbaker wrote:Cheap EV's are finally arriving.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/world-s-most-important-electric-car-unveiled-this-week-and-it-s-not-a-tesla-or-a-vw-1.4013578

World’s most important electric car unveiled this week - and it’s not a Tesla or a VW
At under €8,000 in China the Renault Kwid could have a greater impact in reducing emissions thanks to potential volume sales


Renault might just have launched the most significant car in the modern world, but nobody noticed.

The ultra-budget City K-ZE has just been launched in China and it’s astonishing, even for a brand long known for its EV commitment.

While most EVs are aimed to pull city dwellers out of internal-combustion cars, the City K-ZE is based off lessons Renault learned making its ultra-budget Kwid.

In short, it’s designed to electrify a chunk of the car market that never before bought cars at all, cleaning up awful scooter and motorbike emissions in developing countries.

....

It will use a Tianjin Lishen lithium-ion battery, built in China, with 30kWh of energy capacity, which Renault says is enough for 250km of NEDC-rated driving range between charges. That will probably circle down to towards the 180-200km area on the tougher new WLTP cycle, but it’s still impressive for the money.

It’s not stopping at budget cars for developing markets, either, with a pure BEV version of the small Twingo under development for a 2021 debut.


These vehicles are a real game changer.


Yep. Renault is way ahead of most big car companies and is focusing on affordability for city cars. Here's a review of the K-ZE from about a year ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S83HM4DZJA

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postPosted: Wed 11 Sep 2019, 22:24:53
by kublikhan
China already had EV cars in that price and driving range:

BYD e1
JAC iEV6E
BYD Yuan
Senova D50
Chery Eq

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postPosted: Wed 11 Sep 2019, 23:00:35
by asg70
You can't really escape the cost of the battery pack. You wind up having to scrimp in every other area to get costs down. Safety, build-quality, creature-comforts, and (worst of all) range. So just looking at the sticker price doesn't tell you much. What people in the developing world might accept as viable transportation is going to be far different from here in the West. Most of these cars are at about where the first-gen leaf was, or maybe even the old Toyota RAV4EVs (just with Lithium instead of NiMh). Given enough time they will move up the food chain to where, let's say, the Bolt is, but they're not there yet. I'm sure Tesla wants to be part of that transition with that factory they're building over there. I'm sure they'll be more forgiving of panel-gaps and paint chips ;)

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postPosted: Sat 14 Sep 2019, 17:20:03
by StarvingLion
dolanbaker wrote:Cheap EV's are finally arriving.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/world-s-most-important-electric-car-unveiled-this-week-and-it-s-not-a-tesla-or-a-vw-1.4013578

World’s most important electric car unveiled this week - and it’s not a Tesla or a VW
At under €8,000 in China the Renault Kwid could have a greater impact in reducing emissions thanks to potential volume sales


Renault might just have launched the most significant car in the modern world, but nobody noticed.

The ultra-budget City K-ZE has just been launched in China and it’s astonishing, even for a brand long known for its EV commitment.

While most EVs are aimed to pull city dwellers out of internal-combustion cars, the City K-ZE is based off lessons Renault learned making its ultra-budget Kwid.

In short, it’s designed to electrify a chunk of the car market that never before bought cars at all, cleaning up awful scooter and motorbike emissions in developing countries.

....

It will use a Tianjin Lishen lithium-ion battery, built in China, with 30kWh of energy capacity, which Renault says is enough for 250km of NEDC-rated driving range between charges. That will probably circle down to towards the 180-200km area on the tougher new WLTP cycle, but it’s still impressive for the money.

It’s not stopping at budget cars for developing markets, either, with a pure BEV version of the small Twingo under development for a 2021 debut.


These vehicles are a real game changer.


dolenbaker is a genius. Surely that "Renault" (aka not owned by France) puts its label on a chinese car subsidized by cheap oil surely means

"its a game changer"

Its a game changer all right. It further affirms that France is bankrupt and nuclear is irrelevant. Either you can source the oil or else EV's are impossible to own. And America, France, etc cannot source the proper crude oil, can they?

So whats the point of eV's then?

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postPosted: Sat 14 Sep 2019, 20:33:25
by Outcast_Searcher
StarvingLion wrote:
dolenbaker is a genius. Surely that "Renault" (aka not owned by France) puts its label on a chinese car subsidized by cheap oil surely means

"its a game changer"

Its a game changer all right. It further affirms that France is bankrupt and nuclear is irrelevant. Either you can source the oil or else EV's are impossible to own. And America, France, etc cannot source the proper crude oil, can they?

So whats the point of eV's then?

Are you capable of posting something meaningful, by chance? Or just empty histrionics?

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postPosted: Sun 15 Sep 2019, 10:11:24
by asg70
Outcast_Searcher wrote:Are you capable of posting something meaningful, by chance? Or just empty histrionics?


Just put him on ignore where he belongs.

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postPosted: Tue 17 Sep 2019, 12:14:48
by StarvingLion
Where's the EV that doesn't use lithium and cobalt?

Answer: [crickets]

Where is the electricity to charge them when states cannot afford Shale Gas?

Answer: [crickets]

How can you manufacture EV's of any design when you have no *usable* crude oil or gas to finance operation of plants?

Answer: [crickets]

Conclusion: You're all a bunch of soon-to-be OxCart Drivers who cannot afford a hamburger nevermind an ev

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postPosted: Tue 17 Sep 2019, 13:13:58
by dolanbaker
Some education for ya!
StarvingLion wrote:Where's the EV that doesn't use lithium and cobalt?

Answer: crickets

Where is the electricity to charge them when states cannot afford Shale Gas?

Answer: crickets
How can you manufacture EV's of any design when you have no *usable* crude oil or gas to finance operation of plants?

Answer: crickets

Conclusion: You're all a bunch of gizmo clicking peasants who cannot afford a hamburger nevermind an ev

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postPosted: Thu 19 Sep 2019, 18:16:09
by asg70
Well, I'd say this is big news. Rivian looks like it's going to have a bright future if it executes better than Tesla did.

(Oh, BTW, Plant, I'll be waiting all the cancer cases of the drivers from all that EMI).

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postPosted: Thu 19 Sep 2019, 18:28:10
by GHung
Tesla Model 3 named an IIHS Top Safety Pick+

Tesla’s 2019 Model 3 has finally had its turn undergoing the gantlet of crash tests at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and the battery-electric sedan has emerged with flying colors, earning a Top Safety Pick+, its first rating from the organization. .....

IIHS said the Model 3’s standard automatic emergency braking system earned a “superior” rating, avoiding collisions in both the 12 mph and 25 mph tests. Its lone available headlights were rated “good,” and it earned good ratings across all six crashworthiness tests, including the driver-side small overlap front crash test, where the organization recorded intrusions of 8 inches at the lower door-hinge pillar, presenting a moderate risk to the driver’s lower leg.
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/09/19/tes ... pick-plus/


According to Planty these things are death traps. Give'em a call Planty! Set them straight.

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postPosted: Sun 22 Sep 2019, 14:38:29
by Outcast_Searcher
asg70 wrote:Well, I'd say this is big news. Rivian looks like it's going to have a bright future if it executes better than Tesla did.

(Oh, BTW, Plant, I'll be waiting all the cancer cases of the drivers from all that EMI).

Seems like it. Could be HUGE for Rivian if they get it right. OTOH, since they're pretty new and untested, who knows? Given their lack of experience, taking a wait and see approach.

I still have far more faith in the collective competitive EV landscape (including the oft-derided HEV) from all the established competition, scaling up by a lot over the next few years. Despite all the nay-saying by Tesla fanbois, I think things like the established dealer networks, service experience, auto production experience, and strong financial footing of the established leaders in the auto market will tell the tale, re Tesla's ability to make a large profit over time.

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postPosted: Sun 22 Sep 2019, 17:48:41
by Plantagenet
asg70 wrote:Plant, I'll be waiting all the cancer cases of the drivers from all that EMI.


Personally, I'm not that concerned about the drivers...its the children who are exposed to EM in EVs who may have something to worry about.

The newly updated info at the National Institute of Health lists several recent studies which have found a higher incidence of Leukemia and other cancers in children exposed to EM fields like those produced by EVs.

cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/electromagnetic-fields-fact-sheet

The mechanism producing the higher incidence of cancer isn't well understood, but study after study seems to show a link in children. The effect, if any, in adults isn't jumping out of the data but children exposed to EM fields are more susceptible to getting cancer, apparently. I assume lots of children are riding around in EVs being exposed to magnetic fields, so perhaps this is something to worry about?

Right now a lot of attention is being paid to the possibility that the weak EM fields produced by cell phones and cause brain cancer. The EM fields in EV are even stronger, but so far the subject isn't getting only limited attention from epidemiologists.

I did a google search and found this recent article from the Sierra Club that poo-pooed concerns about EM fields in EVs sierra/electric-cars-dont-pose-risk-for-radiation

I have an electric Fiat 500e that I love. I have been hearing flack from some people saying that electric cars are “radiation boxes” and that the radioactivity caused by the electric engine is unhealthy. Your thoughts on this issue?

—Mary Anne in Encinitas, California

Various authorities ranging from bioengineers to Consumer Reports affirm that there is no risk of unhealthy radiation exposure from electric vehicles. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers studied radiation near an electric vehicle’s floor and found only 20 percent of the limit recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. The only precautions I have found are that people with implanted devices such as cardioverter-defibrillators should avoid getting too close to the motors or battery packs of electric vehicles when they are generating a lot of power.


This pro-EV article states that EVs are generating magnetic fields that are about 20% as strong as the "limit" for magnetic fields recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. I actually find that concerning. If its dangerous to be exposed for even a second to an EM field 5 time stronger then the EM fields in EVs, why is OK to be exposed for hours and hours while driving an EV to an EM field at 20% of the danger level you should avoid being exposed to?

Cheers!

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postPosted: Sun 22 Sep 2019, 18:22:55
by kublikhan
Personally, I'm concerned about you Planty:

There can be more significant radiation exposure from other forms of travel, such as flying. About 11 percent of the average American’s total exposure to radiation can occur on one coast-to-coast flight, according to the Centers for Disease Control. While this is less than the exposure from one chest X-ray, some studies indicate that flight crews and frequent fliers have an elevated rate of many types of cancer.
Electric Cars Don't Pose a Risk for Radiation

How much radiation can I get from air travel?
The amount (dose) of radiation you get from air travel is low, but the dose depends on a few factors.

1. Duration of the flight
The longer you are on a flight, the more radiation you receive.

3. Latitude
The farther north or south you are from the Equator, the more radiation you will receive. This is a result of the Earth’s magnetic field deflecting some of the cosmic radiation away from the equator and toward the North and South poles.
Radiation from Air Travel

Flight attendants may have a higher risk of a number of cancers, a new study finds. Researchers found that women and men on U.S. cabin crews have higher rates of many types of cancer, compared with the general population. This includes cancers of the breast, cervix, skin, thyroid and uterus, as well as gastrointestinal system cancers, which include colon, stomach, esophageal, liver and pancreatic cancers.

One possible explanation for these increased rates is that flight attendants are exposed to a lot of known and potential carcinogens, or cancer-causing agents, within their work environment, said lead study author Irina Mordukhovich, a research associate at Harvard University's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. [10 Do's and Don'ts to Reduce Your Risk of Cancer]

One of those carcinogens is cosmic ionizing radiation, which is elevated at higher altitudes, Mordukhovich told Live Science. This type of radiation is particularly damaging to DNA and is a known cause of breast cancer and nonmelanoma skin cancer. Air cabin crews receive the highest yearly dose of ionizing radiation on the job of all U.S. workers.

Risks of very frequent flying
The potential cancer risks for flight attendants are not limited to cosmic ionizing radiation. Cabin crew members are also regularly exposed to more UV radiation than the general population, which can make these workers more vulnerable to skin cancers. In addition, some studies have found that circadian rhythm disruptions, such as jet lag, might be linked with an increased risk of cancer. These disruptions could lead to changes in immune function and cell metabolism, which can reduce the suppression of tumors. Another possible threat to the health of cabin crew members is chemical exposure, according to the study. The women and men who worked as flight attendants prior to 1988, when smoking was first banned on some U.S. flights, were routinely exposed to secondhand smoke while on board the aircraft. Other chemical contaminants found in the cabin may include engine leakages, pesticides and flame retardants, which contain compounds that may act as hormone disruptors and increase the risk of some cancers.
Why Cancer Rates Are Higher in Flight Attendants

After all those frequent flyer miles you piled up you are bound to have been irradiated with all kinds of cancer risks: Cosmic rays, UV rays, engine fumes, etc. It's especially bad all the way up in Alaska. You see the Earth's magnetic field deflects cosmic rays away from the equator. So you are getting increased doses of cosmic rays up there.

Cheers!

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postPosted: Sun 22 Sep 2019, 18:39:23
by Plantagenet
kublikhan wrote:Personally, I'm concerned about you Planty


I'm concerned about you too, kubie. And I enjoy your posts....you are one of the better posters at this site.

kublikhan wrote:After all those frequent flyer miles you piled up you are bound to have been irradiated with all kinds of cancer risks: Cosmic rays, UV rays, engine fumes, etc. It's especially bad all the way up in Alaska. You see the Earth's magnetic field deflects cosmic rays away from the equator. So you are getting increased doses of cosmic rays up there.

Cheers!


Yes, I'm aware of that and it certainly is a concern.....You say nothing about your own plane travel, but I will assume like most people you have made trips by airplane and have also been exposed to radiation. I may have been exposed to more then you...but no doubt you also should concerned about this issue.

This kind of thing is just part of our modern life, I'm afraid. We are all exposed to all sorts of environmental and man-made risks in our modern world. Even the sun is a cause of cancer.....over 9,500 people in the US are diagnosed with skin cancer EVERY DAY. Chances are my sun exposure is les then yours because I live in such a cold climate.

Now that big forest fires are burning for months in California, Australia, Siberia, Alaska, etc. I've recently been studying up on the effects of PM2.5 pollution.....now linked to the development of Alzheimers and many other health ills. This seems to be mainly an urban problem where air pollution is high....something I don't have to worry about at all here in rural Alaska....unless we have smoke in the air from a big forest fire.

All we can do is be aware of these kind of problems and do our best to minimize our exposure to things that might cause trouble down the road.

I hope you are having a lovely fall there ..... wherever you are.

CHEERS!

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postPosted: Mon 23 Sep 2019, 10:52:29
by asg70
kublikhan wrote:Personally, I'm concerned about you Planty:
After all those frequent flyer miles you piled up you are bound to have been irradiated with all kinds of cancer risks: Cosmic rays, UV rays, engine fumes, etc. It's especially bad all the way up in Alaska. You see the Earth's magnetic field deflects cosmic rays away from the equator. So you are getting increased doses of cosmic rays up there.


Haha. Touche'!

Plantagenet wrote:All we can do is be aware of these kind of problems and do our best to minimize our exposure to things that might cause trouble down the road.


I'm missing the part where you declare from this day forward to minimize flying. My respect for you would skyrocket if you did that.

That's Plant in a nutshell. All talk, no action.

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postPosted: Tue 24 Sep 2019, 04:03:16
by The_Toecutter
kublikhan wrote:China already had EV cars in that price and driving range:

BYD e1
JAC iEV6E
BYD Yuan
Senova D50
Chery Eq


It's quite astounding what high volume production of the components composing these cars as well as the cars themselves can do, isn't it?

We're looking at battery manufacturing costs on the order of $150/kWh today, for batteries that may outlast the actual car they run. Many here used to tell me that this price was not possible. The materials costs are not proportionally cheaper between now and then when compared to the manufacturing costs now versus then; most of the difference is the result of economy of scale production.

Just think of where EVs would be today if the major manufacturers were serious about them in the 1990s, back when Robert Stemple was predicting $150/kWh for NiMH in volume of 20,000 cars per year, back when the Solectria Sunrise was getting a real world 200-250 mile range and set a record while hypermiling approaching 400 miles on a charge. Now the OEMs in 2019 are trying to play catch-up to Tesla's high-end high-priced offerings from 2013 and the Chinese can't stop ripping off other nations' manufacturers' EV technology(Wikileaks revealed some interesting things about BYD regarding this).

It won't be long before EVs are cheaper to buy than comparable gasoline cars. When it comes to the performance-oriented offerings, we've been there for quite a while, but the low-end market is closing in fast. Of course, it won't really matter much if most people can't afford to purchase them. The auto industry as a whole is probably a zombie horde at this point, walking but dead. My theory is that Mr. J.B. Straubel of Tesla saw that writing on the wall. There's this saturation of new cars piling up at dealerships around the U.S., and while Tesla can sell everything they can make, it also probably won't continue. The sub-prime used car market, which is what the majority of Americans can afford(as opposed to shiny new Teslas), is a bubble that is about to pop.

Prediction: there will be a massive glut of automobile inventory piling up in the early 2020s, both ICE and EV. EVs will fare much better on the whole regarding sales as a percentage of inventory.

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postPosted: Tue 24 Sep 2019, 09:42:23
by asg70
I think JB left out of no-confidence for Tesla, not the auto industry as a whole.

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postPosted: Tue 24 Sep 2019, 14:33:21
by Outcast_Searcher
asg70 wrote:Plant, I'll be waiting all the cancer cases of the drivers from all that EMI.


Science has repeatedly concluded that non-ionizing radiation from relatively low powered electric fields like those from EV's, Microwaves, etc. show no evidence of causing cancer.

But when Planty gets certain ideas in his head, he just can't let them go, regardless of the facts.

Let's pretend, for example, that with all the concerns over children's health re their terrible diets, lack of exercise, getting diseases like type 2 diabetes (formerly unheard of in children), could have absolutely no link with the possibility of increased blood cancers.

When scientists detect a real link where EV's cause cancer, and publish multiple studies demonstrating it, THEN we should perhaps seriously start to worry.

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postPosted: Tue 24 Sep 2019, 15:27:00
by Plantagenet
Outcast_Searcher wrote:Science has repeatedly concluded that non-ionizing radiation from relatively low powered electric fields like those from EV's, Microwaves, etc. show no evidence of causing cancer.


Actually, your claim is untrue.

We've already discussed this and I provided links for you to several scientific studies showing an increased risk childhood leukemia (blood cancer) in children exposed to EM fields. Have you forgotten that we already discussed this? Or are you lying about this for the purpose of trolling? What gives?

I just posted a link again above to the National Cancer Institute for mos/asg/ennui. I'll post it again for you Here is the link again to the cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/electromagnetic-fields-fact-sheet

Please note the following quote from the National Cancer Institute:

A pooled analysis of nine studies reported a twofold increase in risk of childhood leukemia among children with exposures of 0.4 μT or higher. Less than 1 percent of the children in the studies experienced this level of exposure (25).
A meta-analysis of 15 studies observed a 1.7-fold increase in childhood leukemia among children with exposures of 0.3 μT or higher. A little more than 3 percent of children in the studies experienced this level of exposure (26).
More recently, a pooled analysis of seven studies published after 2000 reported a 1.4-fold increase in childhood leukemia among children with exposures of 0.3 μT or higher. However, less than one half of 1 percent of the children in the studies experienced this level of exposure (27).
For the two pooled studies and the meta-analysis, the number of highly exposed children was too small to provide stable estimates of the dose–response relationship. This means that the findings could be interpreted to reflect linear increases in risk, a threshold effect at 0.3 or 0.4 μT, or no significant increase.


More studies need to be done since this is a rare cancer and the number of children who got leukemia after prolonged exposures to EM fields is small. The way the epidemiologists have tried to compensate is to pool separate studies so the number of people is pooled, giving a larger population sample size. The total number of separate studies pooled in these 3 scientific review papers is 31----that means that, taken together, these 3 separate reviews utilizing the results of 31 separate local studies found a 40% to 100% increase in leukemia among children exposed to EM fields. Thats a huge increase in the number of cancers in children exposed to EM fields.

Outcast_Searcher wrote:... when Planty gets certain ideas in his head, he just can't let them go, regardless of the facts.


When Outie gets certain ideas in his head, he just can't let them go, regardless of the facts.

Outcast_Searcher wrote:When scientists detect a real link where EV's cause cancer, and publish multiple studies demonstrating it, THEN we should perhaps seriously start to worry.


Right-O. Its not like corporations would ever sell dangerous or unhealthy products to the public. We can trust corporations to thoroughly test their products and always put people's health ahead of profits. Don't bother learning the facts or thinking for yourself .... just put your faith in Outie's delusional fantasy that corporations always sell safe products.

Image
Cheers!