eUKenGB

Well I didn't actually specify a time-frame during which oil will run out. What I did say is that oil is a finite resource and so if we continue to use it up, then there is NO question that at some time it WILL run out. But I also said that if we simply dismiss this and keep using it up on the basis that it's "not our problem" and we'll leave it up to future generations to sort out, that would be an extremely selfish attitude would it not? I understand the reluctance to lose the ICE that we have loved all our lives, but why is it so hard for so many to face the facts. If we keep using it, OIL WILL RUN OUT. This is a very simple FACT. Even if it's not for 150 years, it's still going to happen. Are we, as the consumers of said oil reserves not morally bound to be the ones to sort out what is after all, our mess. Or are you happy to simply pass the buck and let your kids (or their kids etc.) have to sort it out? So Mike (MPx) what are you actually proposing? That we do indeed simply carry on regardless and let future generations have to deal with the mess we caused? Or do you have an alternative proposal as to how we deal with what will, at some time, most definitely come to pass? I don't mean to be snarky, but it really is a puzzle to me just what is the alternative being proposed by those not accepting, or simply rejecting the inescapable fact that OIL WILL RUN OUT. Everyone HAS to understand and accept what IS eventually going to happen as sure as the sun is going to rise. Then, we can all work together constructively to figure out the best solution to the problem and unless anyone has any better suggestions (backed by science, not conjecture or wishful thinking), then electric power IS the solution. So now we just have to work out the best way to supply that. None of that is opinion, just the facts of the matter.

Entirely well balanced Andy (see, we're on first name terms 😀) Damage to the environment by the production of batteries is not insignificant, but not as detrimental as many claim. Yes it takes a lot of resources, but have you any idea what it takes to produce aluminium, yet no-one is moaning about that. The problem is that this ICE/EV thing is highly emotive and there are many who simply get hung up on misunderstood details. Let's face facts. Oil WILL run out so we have to develop a replacement for motive power. Some may argue that it will last longer than others state, but that's an irrelevance. There's no getting away from the facts and also no point in simply pushing on with our oil consumption regardless, perhaps in the hope it will simply become a problem that future generations have to deal with. How selfish is that. We are morally bound to develop a replacement for fossil fuel. Now. Secondly, electric is the only answer. Electric motors are well understood, basically cheap to manufacture, really efficient and very reliable with very, very few wearing parts (easily replaceable bearings). Ultimately, there is no alternative - until Dyson pulls his finger out as you suggest, but even a micro fusion reactor would undoubtedly then use electricity to drive an electric motor. So electric motors it is. The remaining issue then is how we make and carry around that electric energy to drive the motor. Here we have 2 possibilities really. Hydrogen Fuel Cell (FCEV) or BEV and since the FCEV also uses batteries, and with no other even imagined alternative (Hydrogen fuelled ICE is dead) that means we ARE going to have to deal with the production, usage and re-cycling of batteries. So we are going to have to deal with our battery concerns in any case. However it does mean a lot of resources will be plowed into battery development, improving the product in all those areas that need it. Just briefly, regarding charging and the grid, once you have home battery storage facilities, charging from solar panels and then supplying the home and car at other times, the actual impact on the grid can be minimised. So by decentralising electricity generation, the grid would not require such a major upgrade in order for everyone to charge EVs. I realise that inner cities are again the problem, but for those of us with the space to make use of solar/home storage, we would be taking less, or even nothing, from the grid, leaving more capacity to supply the required power increases in the cities. It may not be easy, but it is all doable.

Andy (if I can call you that, rather than C8RKH) I am very much aware of the softening of your attitude towards BEVs and I applaud you for that as it shows you are thinking about it rather than simply repeating the same thing over and over again. If nothing else, I hope this thread has served to educate others who might otherwise have remained more ignorant of the subject. I agree with almost everything you said, but have to respond to your point that people use the facts and arguments that support their case as everyone does that, but there needs to be a better understanding of the composition and production of batteries. They are not the root of all evil as you claim. There are certainly some components that are somewhat undesirable, but part of the technological improvements that are being developed is to reduce those, while also increasing performance. An important point that is also often missed is that batteries are not 'used' like fossil fuel. With the imminent introduction of million mile and greater batteries, they will be lasting more than the lifetime of the rest of the car and when it's all over, they CAN be recycled and all those components that are so objectionable from the point of view of mining, extraction etc just get re-used in new batteries. In fact as explained in the video I recently linked to, not only are they able to re-claim over 90% of the constituents of a re-cycled battery, but they are looking to achieve 100%. Also, the energy left in the batteries as they arrive for re-cycling can currently provide 50% of the power requirements of the re-cycling process itself. Perhaps the biggest problem of re-cycling batteries is the danger due to that retained energy. But once that has been dealt with, the process is really quite straightforward. It has to be said though that standardised batteries would make it all a lot easier. This is all completely different from fossil fuel which is used once and turned into pollution. There's no re-cycling of petrol after it's been used once. What concerns me is the myth and propaganda dispensed by those who have an agenda and then regurgitated by those who know no better. It's easy to spread nasty rumours about batteries. They're made of chemicals and magic and everyone knows that chemicals are bad. In fact batteries are no big deal in that regard. Petrol is stuffed with benzene based carcinogens used to replace lead, but the governments already sold us down that path so long ago it's been forgotten now and never gets a mention - not by said governments of course as they don't want to be seen as having wasted so much time and money while forcing us to end up with even worse health concerns. Lithium is a very abundant element and no worse than other similarly 'nasty' elements like Potassium and Sodium, which are used in fertiliser and to flavour our food respectively. Lithium is not used in batteries as bare metal, but just as a salt, like the aforementioned Sodium Chloride and in any case it only comprises about 2% of a battery. The use of Cobalt in batteries is also vilified, but its use is being reduced, with the aim to eliminate its requirement. But these are all elements that can be recovered by re-cycling the batteries and as they get ever closer to 100% recyclability, there will be less and less need for mining and extraction of additional quantities. I'm not blindly committed to batteries. If someone came up with a superior mobile source of electrical power, I'd be all for it. We HAVE to aim for 100% recyclable and reusable EVERYTHING. This planet is a finite resource. We cannot keep using it up. Nowhere is this more apparent than with fossil fuel. No matter how much anyone may bemoan the loss of the ICE, it WILL happen. There will come a time when there is NO MORE OIL. Better that we find a replacement BEFORE it happens. The governments realise that the population will never do that of its own accord and so ours has mandated that only electric cars can be sold after 2035. Like it or not, that's what IS going to happen. All we should be doing really is figuring out the best way to replace it and electric power is the obvious choice. It is THE perfect form of energy. Don't be fooled into thinking we can simply make sufficient petrol from crops etc as while it can be done, it would take an area larger than this planet to grow sufficient suitable crops in order to produce anything like the required volume of petrol etc. It's just not a practical consideration. It is however a possibility in small quantities for specialist applications that require petrol, but not for mass consumption in everyone's ICE powered vehicle. So the only possible replacement is electric power and electric motors. I do agree Andy that this conversion to electric will not be as simple as some proclaim. Of course the governments are doing their best to play down the difficulties involved - for obvious reasons. But it sure ain't gonna be easy, particularly in the big cities where even parking a car can be fraught with problems. However the government has set the deadline and one way or another, they will have to meet it, even if the way they achieve it doesn't suit everyone. I also did take note of your comment about the young being less interested in cars and I absolutely agree with you. As a long term motorcycle obsessive I am very aware of the similar situation in the reduction of new motorcycle riders, meaning the overall number of riders is reducing. Part of that is the same basic reason why there is less interest in cars. It's just heightened in bikes by the added risk factor of riding. It amazes me that youngsters are so lacking in enthusiasm for their own personal transport. I couldn't wait to get mobile and got my license for bikes and then for cars as soon as I possibly could. It was inconceivable to me that I might get to my 30s without ever having a car, or worse, not being able to drive. But this is not unusual these days. So yes, the times they are a changin'. I also agree, the introduction of on-street charging in cities should not be dismissed as trivial, but neither should anyone be thinking that the distribution and supply of hydrogen can simply use the existing infrastructure used for fossil fuels. Just to remind everyone, Hydrogen CANNOT exist as a liquid at room temperature. No matter the pressure, that single proton will not exist in liquid form until at -240° C and even then it requires a lot of pressure. Reaching and maintaining that temperature and pressure is hugely energy intensive and even then its density is low. Its use is not impossible, but the difficulties cannot be ignored or dismissed as trivial. Either way, it's batteries with or without some hydrogen as well and in each case, driving an electric motor. I think the subject of this thread should be changed from "Is electric the answer" to "Why electric is the answer" as there is no other possible alternative.

I have to say, I do have a slight problem with comments along the lines of "this thread is boring" or "is pointless". It is tantamount to stating that your interests are so much more important than what is being discussed, which is a somewhat arrogant point of view. Let those who wish to discuss the topic continue to do so and if it really does not interest you, don't read it. The fact it may be at the top of a 'new topics' list doesn't mean you have to view it. I would find discussion about the Elise and/or Exige, or quite frankly any Lotus other than the Evora, to be of no interest whatsoever, boring even if I actually spent the time reading them. But I would never presume to tell everyone involved in such discussion that it is uninteresting, pointless, boring, or whatever. As well as arrogant, it seems kinda rude to me. I just don't read those topics that don't interest me. Simple. But back to this fascinating topic of EVs. It is worth pointing out that although any road vehicle will continue to produce tyre pollution, that is not the case with brake waste/pollution from BEVs. With the use of regenerative braking, actual use of the brakes that causes the wear on the brake pads/shoes and hence the pollution is very much reduced. Almost eliminated, depending on the type of driving. Also, although not previously mentioned, almost all those 'service items' that an ICE vehicle requires to be replaced and thrown away at alarmingly regular intervals, are eliminated on a BEV. Manufacturers nowadays stipulate unnecessary replacement intervals just to provide work for the dealers. There is no way that an air filter needs changing after only a couple of years, when the car has maybe only done very few miles, or none at all. They do NOT magically disintegrate within the airbox of an unused vehicle any more than they would do sat on a shelf in a warehouse somewhere. Products like that have no 'sell by' date and owners are being hoodwinked by the manufacturers into changing stuff that doesn't need changing. Modern synthetic oil to be changed every year, even if not used? Ridiculous. This sort of scam should be illegal and is also unacceptable in the context of this topic since the switch to EVs is primarily related to reducing pollution, while the manufacturers continue to force the wastage of large quantities of car parts and huge volumes of lubricants such as engine oil. This form of pollution will be almost entirely eliminated by BEVs, yet it is barely mentioned when discussing their pros and cons. I would also point out that Hybrids don't solve that problem as with an ICE included, they continue to create that same type of wastage. Their much smaller electric capability will necessarily also restrict their ability to use regen. braking to reduce brake pollution to anything like the same extent as full BEVs. I am also puzzled how Bibs, who drives a Lotus for the driving experience can contemplate a Hybrid. If a BEV doesn't provide the visceral thrill of driving such a brilliant ICE powered vehicle, I rather think a Hybrid (unless of the exotic sports type) will be sorely disappointing as neither the ICE, nor the electric component of its propulsion system will be in any way thrilling. While they offer some battery only capability, it is very restricted compared to a BEV, with very limited performance and range. I'm afraid I am very much of the opinion that PHEVs (Hybrids) are merely a stopgap for those who have not yet grasped, or accepted the advantages of a full EV. But that is JMO. 😀 With regard to BEVs or just public transportation and no private cars, I think we're just talking different time frames. ICE will not be replaced by public transport alone, although I think it a very real possibility that is the ultimate result. ICE will be replaced by electric and eventually, maybe, private vehicles will also become obsolete due to changing personal habits and through legislation. I will see the former, but not the latter. Over the coming months we should be seeing the announcements from Tesla that raise the battery bar. Although still speculation at this stage, it looks very much like they will be announcing new battery tech gained from their acquisition of Maxwell, likely to be the 'solid state' design and with new constituents that will improve power density as well as discharge and re-charge capability, both in terms of the time taken and also the percentage usable for the thousands of cycles that will provide the multi-million mile capability that is expected. One inescapable fact is that battery technology is progressing rapidly, whereas other forms of power storage and distribution, like hydrogen, not so much, if at all. This is not down to any personal bias of mine. It's just what is happening. No one should base their expectation of our vehicular future on what exists NOW. One has to look forward at how technologies will develop and there is clear evidence that batteries will play a big part. As I have pointed out previously, Hydrogen (fuel cell) powered vehicles also require batteries, so if your concern is battery production and recycling and pollution thereof, Hydrogen is not your solution as a source of fuel. The current limitations of BEVs, due to range and re-charging while not on your own property are being dealt with. Human endeavour will and is being used to overcome those problems. Overcoming the laws of Physics makes Hydrogen a much harder nut to crack and hence less likely to be seen as playing as large a part in our electric future compared to batteries. Although I understand why this discussion might be compared with that of religion, there is a HUGE difference. Here, we are discussing mostly fact, whereas that doesn't enter into any religious debate. While I firmly believe that electric is the answer, I do see some possible variation on how the electricity might be produced. But whatever is discussed, facts are facts and should be based on reality. There have been some wild misconceptions aired in this thread but real facts are important. Opinions are something else. We can all have different opinions, but the facts are the same for all of us.

I thought that was looking a terrific idea and something I definitely would be interested in when it comes to market, then… I saw the price. £20K for a home unit. I won't live long enough to get anywhere close to re-couping such an outlay, let alone actually come out on top financially. As is so often the case, the upfront costs they want to charge for the benefit of being 'greener' makes it simply not worth it. Most stuff we buy simply doesn't need all the wrapping and packaging that creates so much of the garbage we have to deal with. Here's a radical idea. Instead of shops wrapping everything in nasty packaging, for which we are then expected to cough up £20K in order to be able to deal with it all, how about the shops, er, don't wrap and package everything? I realise it's a tricky concept for retailers to grasp, but I suggest it would be better to start there than with expensive devices we are expected to buy just to deal with the resulting garbage. Just don't make it in the first place. Or is that too radical? 😀

I think despite what we may want, in the long term, governments want to eliminate road injury and death. Whatever some campaigners may want others to believe, that can NEVER happen with humans actually in control of their vehicle. The only way to achieve that will mean replacing all cars with central computer controlled 'robo-taxis', in sufficient numbers to make them almost instantly available to everyone. It has to be the goal of every government. Not only actually making life safer, but they would be seen to be improving safety and being seen to be doing good is of course THE top priority for every politician (whether or not their actions have any actual effect). Also very important, it gives them control. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but it is indisputable that governments want ever greater control of the population. So yes, ultimately, I do believe that private vehicle ownership is doomed. However, it will be a fight as for so long we have had the independence of our own personal transportation (with its possibly customised personal space that goes with it). I suspect that won't be given up without a fight. But I think its eventual demise is inevitable, although not in our lifetime for sure. Regarding an earlier part of this discussion. Here's some interesting stuff about battery re-cycling:- https://youtu.be/Bpe8HalVXFU

And from where did this nugget of 'fact' originate? Indeed the lack of sound is an often heard complaint against EVs. But if it is mandatory for them to make a sound, why not have them emit the sounds of a big V8 or V12, or even better, the driver gets to select exactly what engine sounds are to be generated. Are the manufacturers not missing a trick here. Comply with the law AND give the user what they want to hear.

I am firmly of the opinion that one car (or motorcycle) will NEVER be enough to satisfy all my requirements, whether that be ICE or electric. However the majority of car users, in the UK at least, have no interest in cars and hence are quite happy with just one. Nitrogen powered cars have again been mentioned. It is easier to deal with than Hydrogen, but I am still at a loss as to how it could be used to power anything since it is fundamentally fairly inert. Just what is the chemistry behind its use as a fuel? I am also at odds with many here in that I see no reason why 'thrill' and 'fun' and the term 'driving experience' are the sole preserve of an ICE powered vehicle. If the car handles great and goes like stink, AFAIC that trumps any ICE powered lumbering behemoth. IOW, the performance is what it's all about, not how you achieve it. Clutch, changing gears and the howl of a multi-cylinder ICE are just part of the zeitgeist and will simply turn into anachronisms as people get used to their elimination. In years to come, no-one will bemoan their loss. Why fight it now. They serve no useful purpose. I defy anyone to drive the new Eviya and not honestly find it thrilling to drive, despite its lack of the above characteristics. Those who continue to deny that an EV can provide an even better 'driving experience' are fooling themselves with their own rose tinted spectacles of nostalgia - which of course is not what it used to be. 😀

We seem to have moved away from the discussion of electric propulsion.

Yes of course. However, I did not say cars should have a max. speed of only 70.

It does look interesting and the interior is certainly more appealing than a Tesla, but 217 mph? Really? Do we actually need that sort of performance when it cannot be driven at more than 70 mph (or thereabouts, depending on country) and keep ones driving license. I'm all for decent performance, but this is entirely unnecessary and more importantly, completely UNUSABLE. It's not even intended to be a track car. Keep the torque, limit power and top speed to half that, extend range to more than 500 miles and make it even cheaper. That would be even more interesting.

I have heard that. But they each had/have very different design goals. I doubt the Esprit was designed to be bulletproof (apart from in a Bond movie of course 🙂)

I wouldn't lump them all together in the first place. Different individuals and entirely different business practices. Apart from each being successful in their own field, I don't see any similarity whatsoever and only one of them I actively consider dishonest and despicable. At the end of the day, I just buy/use the best products that suit my requirements, no matter the head of any particular company. I hate Sky with a vengeance after they screwed me for £5K over work I did for them many moons ago, but I used their satellite service for years as they were the only supplier of decent TV for me due to the hopeless terrestrial signal here in the wilds of Surrey. O'Leary is entirely up front about the service he provides. If you don't want that service, don't use it. I wouldn't not use Ryanair just because of their boss and I have no problem at all with Musk in any case as he has achieved so much of interest to me. I just don't generally like his cars. Having said that, I cannot help but feel a desire for Tesla's forthcoming CyberTruck. Weird, but oh so desirable. YMMV.

Looks like a very interesting and promising new technology. I really think the next decade is going to be extremely exciting as we watch the development of new vehicle power tech, like the above to improve use of hydrogen and also batteries. In many respects I wish it had all taken place over the last decade so I would now be taking advantage of all the advances and improvements they will bring to our driving experience and to our environment.

I've got a CX500 to convert, although I'm calling it a Café Roadster as there's no way it'll have clip on bars half way down the forks like we used to have in the original Café Racer days. I was working at Honda UK when the CX500 was introduced and although doing much of the technical training on it, I hated it, having been completely seduced by the CBX1000. But now I can see that a CX can be made into a fine looking machine. Even the engine that I thought so pig ugly at the time can be made to look great. So that's my plan. Not top priority, but I'll get there.

Ah, where to begin. I guess it was when my friend told me at the age of 14 that he and some other mates had a couple of BSA Bantams that they rode around a field and I thought that sounded like a lot of fun. So spending all my savings, I picked up an old Francis Barnet from the local garage, took it home and told my father. Who duly went nuts, but did in the end allow me to keep it and I've been obsessed with them ever since. After university I worked for Honda UK (had a Kawasaki Z1 at the time), but then the lure of the CBX1000 was too great. Working in the Technical Training Centre, I was involved in the original model introduction and launch of that monumental machine. Did most of the introductory technical training on it too. Had a few of them since then and still have a CBX as one of my 'projects'. I see many threads on here about driving through the Alps and Pyrenees etc, often the same roads and places I've ridden during my regular European tours. But I have little interest in taking any car there. So many other cars that frequent those wonderful roads, but when you're riding a bike they're just a mobile chicane that adds a bit more spice to the ride. However in a car, they can be a total road block, all the way over the pass that you've come 1,000 miles just to drive over at a fun speed. Just no contest in my books. In that situation, it's a bike every time for me. I have tended to stick with Hondas as they have made some great bikes, I KNOW how Honda makes bikes and appreciate the quality of their engineering, so feel most at home riding or working ( and racing many years ago) on Hondas. Not exclusively though as I've had a Harley Davidson (soon to get another) and others (like Yamaha MT01 as I see elsewhere in this thread). In fact very unlikely to buy any new Honda now as they just don't seem to make anything that remotely interests me these days. I'm way past wanting a new FireBlade as that would be even more performance I could not possibly use. I'm arrogant enough to know that's not down to any lack of ability on my part. It's just the laws of physics. Unless a bike can bend light around that blind corner so I can see what's ahead, there's no possible way I could ride any faster. Not that I really want to these days if truth be told. I don't know whether that's simply age or that I've managed to convince myself to ride slower due to the current obsession against speed our government and law enforcement seem to have. I don't want points on my license, I really don't want to lose my license and I absolutely and definitely 100% don't want to go to jail and that is where they can put you these days for riding at a speed I might have considered inconsequential some years ago. Although I do still have some fast sports bikes to ride, I tend to concentrate on more interesting projects based on older bikes. All told, I have quite a few underway at the moment (see here, not all with actual photos), some of which I am aware might be termed 'long term projects'. Keep me busy though for the rest of my life. As they say, keep it rubber side down.

Now you make me feel old. When I first got into biking I built 2 Tritons. Good times, through my rose tinted spectacles. After so many years of riding good bikes however, I am now fully aware of actually how dreadful they really were. Oily jeans and numb hands. Those were the days.

OK, what I really want is:- IPS (i.e. auto, NOT manual) N/A (i.e. non 'S') Premium and Tech packs (for A/C) MY12 or later full tan (Cognac or other mid brown) interior black body colour Can P/x my SL500 only half a mile away Roughly in order of importance. So it HAS to be IPS N/A, but it's unlikely a private seller would want P/x (unless they're after an SL500 as mine's a cracker) and the last one is somewhat frivolous with the rest in between. But hopefully it gives an idea of what might or might not be suitable. I realise these are very difficult times, but hopefully we could find a way to reach agreement and then worry about how to enact it. Anyone able to 'assist' in my quest?

I hope you're not accusing me of double standards. 😉 Battery technology will certainly get way better "IN THE FUTURE", but it's already good enough to be viable for most use cases. By alternatives, I guess you mean hydrogen as what else is there? But there are problems with its use as a fuel that are less likely to get much better "IN THE FUTURE" due to the laws of physics. I'm looking forward to the micro fission reactor. Small enough to easily fit in a car and sealed for life with all the energy that will ever be required for that vehicle. No refuelling or recharging - ever. Ok I made that up, but it's not completely beyond possibility. Sadly, I very much doubt in my lifetime.

If any battery is charged faster than it can handle, then yes it can be damaged, but the vehicle's charging system will (or should anyway) only allow it to charge at a rate the batteries can deal with. So battery technology needs to improve to allow faster re-charge times without damage and there are several new technologies on the horizon that look promising in this regard. Are Tesla not already claiming that they will soon be selling cars with batteries that will last half a million miles before possibly needing replacement. In theory it's possible for a battery to work forever, so the charge/drain cycle does nothing except move the electrons around. But that's still beyond the current horizon I suspect. Seems to me that once an EV can get 500 miles on 30 minutes of charge time, that dispenses with almost all arguments against BEVs.

All good info. So a genuine MY12 car could have door pins. Which does explain some of the confusion. As for Lotus using Honda parts - highly unlikely in any case as Honda do not as a general rule supply parts to any other manufacturer of any sort.

Nope, not for me anyway. Just says that publication has not been made available for download. Anyway, no worries as I found it elsewhere and was able to download it.

I'm afraid I'm no expert on battery re-cycling. I wasn't stating that the recycling of Lithium was a 'full on industry' as you put it, merely pointing out that it is possible and being done rather than all batteries just being thrown into landfill which is the popular belief. However I have no specific knowledge of where it is being done, if at all in the UK, nor how you might invest in it. It is still early days with relatively few EV batteries needing recycling yet, but that is going to increase massively over the next few years and there is much research being conducted on how to improve the recovery rates of the constituent elements. But part of the battery development process also involves how to improve their recyclability. New innovations with better and safer electrolytes is a case in point as they currently are the biggest hazard with regard to safety. However, new electrolyte formulas based on inorganic solutions promise to improve or even solve that. Also, new battery tech that can improve or solve the degradation process inherent in today's cells reduces the whole recycling problem anyway. There are already battery technologies that do not degrade in use, but sadly not suitable for EVs - yet anyway. As you say Andy, the best form of recycling is re-use and that is also being studied. The idea of home generation is very attractive, reducing or eliminating the cost of energy for that home. Solar and wind can both be used in a domestic environment, but are heavily subject to local weather conditions and again, that's where batteries can help. If a home has its own electricity generation capability and a battery bank to store it when being produced faster than being used and then release that power e.g. at night when there would be no solar generation, that home can be self sustaining. Even producing some surplus that can be fed back to the grid. Possibly even for some payment. This not only makes financial sense for the home owner (and Elon Musk), but also reduces the load on the grid so it perhaps doesn't need the massive infrastructure upgrade in order to supply power for all the new electric vehicles, with much of that power being locally generated. But of course, it needs batteries to function, although not with the same efficiency requirements as for EVs. So re-purposing old EV batteries for grid storage is ideal and already being done. The lower energy density is not such an issue for this local grid storage rather than in an actual EV so it's a good re-use of old EV batteries. But ultimately they need to be recycled and generally need to be 'flattened' first, i.e. drain them of all power which is a terrible waste if all that power is not used productively. It occurs to me they could simply drain old batteries by using them to electrolyse water to extract hydrogen which can then be used for hydrogen powered vehicles, which may well gain a foothold in our future transportation. In the same vein they are already looking at utilising some power from off-shore wind farms to produce hydrogen by electrolysis of the (obviously readily available) water. Having said that, the BMW hydrogen project cars store hydrogen at high pressure and very low temperature, in basically a special vacuum flask. With the massive insulation that provides, the hydrogen stays cold for quite a long time. But as it slowly warms, the excess pressure has to be vented to atmosphere (or explode). Worse than any leakage I mentioned before, this causes those cars to lose their entire tank of hydrogen fuel in 17 days. So full to empty in only a few days even if not used. For fuel cell vehicles they have developed a way to store hydrogen over some special (ceramic?) materials that like to hold on to it, so it can be stored at room temperature and more reasonable pressure. However, I don't see the energy density of hydrogen as stored in a vehicle massively improving, due to the fundamental laws of physics, but battery technology will almost certainly increase energy density 2 or 3 fold in our lifetime. Undoubtedly with improvements in recyclability too as that does need improving. Ultimately, yes for EVs I believe batteries will win out over hydrogen. With improving battery technology, for me it makes the most sense and I really love the idea of being able to make my own car fuel at home - I won't be doing that with hydrogen. But I also believe hydrogen will have its uses. On a different note, a few years ago I was amazed to find out that a modern nuclear sub is built around a sealed for life power system. It is installed as the sub is built and never changed in the lifetime of the vessel. No refuelling - ever. Wouldn't that be great for cars. 😀

Know anywhere I can download that? I've not got an Evora pdf for the earlier cars.

Well the stats are undoubtedly questionable and I don't believe anything has been proven. As I said, if you can see the car before being able to tell if the lights are on, then it cannot possibly help. Neither can it help when the other road user simply does not look. Regarding the difficulty of spotting motorcycles, it's due to something known as 'looming', where the brain ignores something that doesn't seem to move and just gets bigger. That's why it's good practice to move sideways across the field of vision of someone you want to see you. But again, I don't believe there's any proven case that having lights on necessarily helps. I'm sure lots of car drivers are convinced that ABS has reduced accidents and they'd be wrong too. All too often unsubstantiated claims are made and then sometimes taken as gospel and statistics as we know can be made to prove anything. 😉 But anyway, the efficacy of always driving with headlights on is not something I wish to argue about here. We're all grown up enough to make our own decisions.