The Fisker Emotion

[NemesisUK]

Boasting a 400 miles range and charge times of 1min or less! Still to be proven though.

https://www.fiskerinc.com/emotion/

[Zotto]

Curious about price...

[NemesisUK]

Press suggests approx $130,000

[Guest]

I can't believe Fisker have the know how to achieve this when companies like Panasonic have been working on batteries for decades. Reformed in 2016 - leaves my spider sense tingling.

Fisker Automotive was a company known for producing the Fisker Karma, which was one of the world's first production luxury plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. It debuted at the 2008 North American International Auto Show, and first deliveries were in 2011. Production of the Fisker Karma was suspended in November 2012 due to bankruptcy of its Battery supplier A123 Systems,^[9] with about 2,450 Karmas built since 2011 and over 2000 cars sold worldwide.^[10] In February 2014, Fisker Automotive's Karma vehicle design, tooling and a manufacturing facility in Delaware were purchased by Chinese auto parts conglomerate Wanxiang Group. Henrik Fisker, the founder of Fisker Automotive, retained the Fisker trademarks and the Fisker brand and launched a separate company, Fisker Inc, in 2016. Wanxiang later renamed its new company Karma Automotive.^[11]

 

 

[st4]

Boasting a 400 miles range and charge times of 1min or less! Still to be proven though.

https://www.fiskerinc.com/emotion/

Once that becomes reality - and the Battery cope with this for 200k miles combustion engines will be dead - and with good reason. They’ll be matched in all present ways plus have the refinement and performance bested.

Don’t see it happening - remember the Karma - they had a habit of catching fire


Sent from my Iphone using Tapatalk

[Linas.P]

Yep... I don't put much hopes into this... 

That is not the first time Fisker is trying to pull this-off. The Chinese company seems to be more credible in fact, but I don't see it like mainstream manufacturer, not even in Tesla's niche competitors sense, which itself if balancing on the razor edge over bankruptcy as it is yet to make any profit.

I think these cars will be available in limited editions, number in countries like US. Uber rich will grab few from pre-orders that will be all we hear about them before the company will go bust again.

[NemesisUK]

It's a beautiful car but I don't imagine it will be anything other than a very limited manufacture, proof of concept perhaps. 

But that's the point, Fisker and Tesla are putting a spotlight on the emerging technologies surrounding EVs. VW are investing  €100m in the development of 'solid state' batteries. Batteries with ultra-rapid recharge times. Potentially being able to add significant charge miles whilst the EV is stopped at traffic lights.

We are rapidly approaching a turning point in EV development, bring it on! 

[Bluesman]

Until they do something about the charging time it's a non-starter.

Then once they have done that they need to guarantee at least 450 miles per 1 min charge.

And once those two things have been sorted they need to address how all those millions of people who live in a city and are lucky if they can park within a short bus ride of their house, oh yes they will have to have be hooligan and tamper proof.

The petrol engine will be around for a few years yet.

[NemesisUK]

7 minutes ago, Bluesman said:

The petrol engine will be around for a few years yet.

You're correct, a few years ..

There will be some, perhaps as yet unknown technology, that will suddenly make it all possible and desirable. 

Until EVs can be driven and refuelled as we are accustomed to with fossil fuels, it'll be a tough sell

That said that Fisker Emotion is one beautiful car..

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, Bluesman said:

Until they do something about the charging time it's a non-starter.

Then once they have done that they need to guarantee at least 450 miles per 1 min charge.

That is key... I wound even say charge time is more important then the range. If there is reasonable recharge network, I guess even 200miles can suffice for the begging before we get to higher capacity, but anything longer then 1-2, maybe 5 minutes max to recharge is deal breaker.

Second thing is degradation of batteries e.g. Tesla supercharger which is still relatively slow in comparison with pumping dinosaur juice into the tank... actually damages the batteries. You get more range and better lifetime, by not using supercharging. In petrol tank... doesn't matter, tank capacity doesn't change every time you refill.

Finally, there are a lot of bogus science on environmental benefit - tail-pipe emission is 0, correct! But energy doesn't make itself... if we assume maybe 100k electric cars whizzing around London (big cities is where they are most beneficial) and they all charge from otherwise wasted energy at night - then yes there is benefit. But if we thinking to eventually replace all the car with electric ones, electricity production will simply going to increase and the pollution going to form power plants instead of the cars on the roads - no long term benefit there... 

[ColinBarber]

15 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Finally, there are a lot of bogus science on environmental benefit - tail-pipe emission is 0, correct! But energy doesn't make itself... if we assume maybe 100k electric cars whizzing around London (big cities is where they are most beneficial) and they all charge from otherwise wasted energy at night - then yes there is benefit. But if we thinking to eventually replace all the car with electric ones, electricity production will simply going to increase and the pollution going to form power plants instead of the cars on the roads - no long term benefit there... 

It depends on what you goal is. Electric vehicles are much more efficient than IC engines and generating electricity in a few power stations makes it much easier to control and contain pollution than from millions for vehicles all over the country. 

[Linas.P]

Here you make several assumptions:

• 100% power generation efficiency
• 100% energy logistics effciency
• 0% loses in power distribution
• JIT demand

And those are all incorrect, we do not have 100% efficient way to produce the energy, we waste 47-58% of produced energy in networking, delivery and uneven demand. Say "clean" nuclear power stations have to consistently produce power during the night, solar panels only produce power during the day, wind power is inconsistent and the only power stations you can turn on and off at your will are the ones powered by hydrocarbons.

Electric vehicles might indeed be much more efficient, but by the time they are charged, there are massive inefficiencies in power transfer lanes, charging equipment etc. This might not be accurate numbers but lets say in ICE with 30% efficiency 1l of fuel generates 100kw at the wheels, 1l of fuel produces 150Kw of electric energy at the station, but 10% is lost in "step-up" transformation, 5% is lost over the lines another 15% is lost on "step-down", 10% is lost in charging process (AC/DC conversion), 8% are lost in Battery storage, 4% are lost power delivery between batteries and engines and 2% in engines themselves and we might get even less actual energy produced from same amount of fuel ~91Kw(150-15-7-19-9-4-2-1=91)... and all that assuming JIT demand which it isn't. Now again these are not necessary real numbers (real loses can be easily found on the internet), I might have overstated/understated loses in certain steps - it is just an example.

My point - with centralised electricity production as we have now it might not be even nearly as beneficial to switch to electric vehicles, that is even before we take in consideration lifetime carbon emissions from manufacturing.

So to really get advantages of electric vehicles we either need to significantly improve centralised network or we need to decentralise the electricity production (something like small thermal-energy reactor in every home)... and we are very very far from this.

The original Fisker Karma actually nailed it with on board generator (decentralised energy production), on board generator was nowhere near as green or efficient as large power plant, but the nature of "on-demand", on board generation without delivery loses made a lot of sense. 

So being environmentally friendly it is not as simple as switching to electric vehicles... 

[Guest]

Until they solve aeroplanes and ships may as well forget about cars. Hydrogen is only solution for those. Then that tech can be used in cars as well. And that's why I think ultimately hydrogen will win out.



Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

[Linas.P]

I would like to think, especially because ICEs can be converted to run on hydrogen, meaning we can reuse existing cars without needing to scrap them (which is carbon inefficient). Secondly, for me as car lover that is hope to keep some vintage, exotic, rare cars relevant.... However, hydrogen production, storage, logistics etc. are very inefficient and expensive ... sot it is compromise as anything else.

• hydrocarbons - cheap, easy to produce (although limited), easy distribution, storage and high power density, but dirty.
• electrical power - clean, cheap, but expensive and difficult to store and to distribute, but very efficient to use when done right.
• hydrogen - difficult to produce and not very clean, expensive , difficult to store and distribute, but has good power density if done right.

As you said hydrogen makes sense in ships and planes e.g. the larger is the vehicle the easier it is to convert it.

[Guest]

It has to succeed or its back to the middle ages.

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

[Linas.P]

Could well be back to middle ages, but it is not all doom and gloom - we still have fuel reserves for 50-100 years. As for climate change transportation contributes only 10% of pollution, so there are certainly other ways to reduce waste e.g. reduce consumerism - fast fashion, poor quality disposable goods etc. The reason we wage war against cars is because it is mutually beneficial for car manufacturers and politicians - it is easier to find buggy men and blame it for all faults then to actually fix real problems e.g. educating people against using poor quality goods, taxing them are both expensive and not economically viable. Less crap goods = less manufacturing, shrinking economy, global deflation and recession. More good quality goods with longer life = reduced consumer spending, reduced production and employment. To really understand whats what we need to look to global leverages like financial markets etc, which all works based on debt economy, inflation and synthetic economic growth. 

[Guest]

Climate change has driven mass extinctions more than once. Releasing all that carbon back into the atmosphere is probably a bad idea. 5000gigatons I think it's estimated at. Bearing in mind we release about 40 per year now. Feel free to check as just from memory.

It's not a new thing either. See pic.



Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

[Linas.P]

Not sure what you mean - I am not denying climate change, I am just saying that transportation (which includes ships, planes, trains, cars, trucks etc.) is just 10% of the pollution, the private cars are probably more like 1%... and we sitting here s****g bricks about 1% and doing nothing about remaining 99%. Any reasonable person would start from the biggest impact - manufacturing, then electricity generation, then farming, then heating/air conditioning and only last would look in transportation.

What I am saying - our priorities are wrong! And they are wrong for a reason, this agenda is suitable for multiple interests, whereas actually making the impact would hurt these "interests". 

[Guest]

Oh yeah I agree totally. See what car I'm in?

But the stuff won't come out the ground for just transport either. Need to almost do it all at once which makes it so much more difficult.

Even if they did just use it for transport, costs would no longer be cheap, going back to your earlier breakdown.

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

[ColinBarber]

On 8/19/2018 at 1:38 PM, Linas.P said:

Here you make several assumptions:

• 100% power generation efficiency
• 100% energy logistics effciency
• 0% loses in power distribution
• JIT demand

I don't think anybody made those assumptions.

You also conveniently don't take into account the amount of energy required to extract, refine, distribute, and sell petrol.

[Linas.P]

@ColinBarber - neither I included amount of energy needed to extract, refine, distribute and dispose of nuclear fuels, build the stations themselves, building wind turbines, dams, solar panels etc. Or as I am sure you will add, building offshore oil platforms and refineries themselves... by the way large % of energy in UK is still made by using very same hydrocarbons, so fuel refinement, distribution etc. are the same.

We can go in as much details as we like, but my point was simple (and you added to it) - there is much more to the pollution then simply burning fuel or charging electric car... and in the whole system realistic difference of pollution between ICE and EV vehicles are nowhere as high as electric car manufacturers would like to claim.

[NemesisUK]

The pollution created by the power stations etc is very localised and can be more strictly controlled and cleaned up.

The pollution created by vehicles is much more widespread, in closer proximity to the general public and infinitely more difficult to control, especially where we have motorists deleting emission controls from their engines (cats and EGR valves?)

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, NemesisUK said:

The pollution created by the power stations etc is very localised and can be more strictly controlled and cleaned up.

The pollution created by vehicles is much more widespread, in closer proximity to the general public and infinitely more difficult to control, especially where we have motorists deleting emission controls from their engines (cats and EGR valves?)

You just adding more twists on the story... to make it confusing cloud again...

I general I agree, it is easier to control the pollution form single big source, then it is from multiple vehicles.... Motorists deleting emission "control" should be punishable offence and enforced - I agree, but that is not part of the ICE problem, it is problem with lack of hands on enforcement and control. MOT centers must be accountable for it and if car is found having passed MOT without DPF then the engineer should be jailed and the owner of garage severely fined (or whatever other form of punishment which is considered appropriate).

Now whereas pollution in power stations is actually controlled is another question and from multiple breaches known to public (how many are not known) I would have very little confidence it is controlled properly. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "localised pollution" especially when we are talking about air pollution - yes it might not be on the doorstep of population centers, but eventually it will reach that population in one form or another. From global warming perspective it makes no difference where pollution is generated and as I said before private vehicles are accountable for maybe 1% of pollution.

Fighting small issue just because it is more visible is common lazy approach, much more impart is to fight large issue which might not be so visible.

[Guest]

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

http://bio1520.biology.gatech.edu/biodiversity/mass-extinctions-and-climate-variability/