Moderators: Random Orbital Bob, nev, CHJ, Noel, Charley

 Reply
By AES
#1337908
@Bodgers: Re your "Err...I think you have completely reversed what I was saying...".

I did realise that you were replying to someone else's point (about not relying on electronic maps but paper maps instead - amongst other points in similar vein), but having re-read your post I really don't think that I misunderstood (or reversed) your point about MRI scanning.

BUT it's late at night and I'm tired, so if I did misunderstand you then I apologise and immediately retract the yellow card! No harm done I hope? :D

Whatever, this remains an interesting thread for me, even though at my age I doubt I shall be driving long enough into the future for it all to make much difference to me personally - in 2035 I shall be 90, and whatever "target date" today's Govt have put on a "definitive change" (ahem!) I doubt that much will come into effect to make a real difference to me. That's why I said above that I don't have a dog in this particular fight.
User avatar
By RogerS
#1338000
Rorschach wrote:As a related point, trains.

I was having a conversation recently about HS2.

I am totally against building HS2, not because I don't want better transport connections for the north and the south (though it will never help me living in the SW) but because it is a waste of money that will be all but useless when it is finished.

We are looking at 10 years before the first trains run and a projected build cost of up to 100billion.

......



Came across this chart. Similar amount of money. DITCH HS2. That's a no-brainer
ev cost.png
User avatar
By Trainee neophyte
#1338027
jeremyduncombe wrote:Doesn’t that just prove the 2012 Olympics were a terrible waste of money ?


Allegedly UK spends 5.5% of GDP on education. 2018 GDP was 2.11 trillion (again,allegedly according to the internet), and 5.5% of 2.11 trillion is 116 billion, possibly. 20 billion plus or minus - not really worth talking about. Small change down the back of the sofa

I'm sorry to keep harping on about the fact that there isn't the capacity to power all these cars. Again allegedly, according to the briefest of internet searches, it costs $7 billion and takes 12 years to build a nuclear power station, and we have already ascertained that we need 45+ new nuclear power station's to replace the oil used currently to power all the transport. You could use solar or wind power instead, but that is even more expensive than nuclear power. Allegedly. 45 X $7 billion is $315 billion, which makes a bit more of a dent than the 5% of GDP mentioned in the graphic.

France built 58 nuclear reactors over 15 years and has generated over 400 TWh with them. The inflation-adjusted price was $330 billion.

Germany spent $580 billion on solar and wind to get about 220 TWh. This was four times more expensive than France.

Global Solar and Wind has to increase by about five times to provide all of annual increase in electricity.

Solar and Wind need natural gas or some other power plant backup or massive battery farms that have not been built yet.


https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/05/n ... -wind.html
By Terry - Somerset
#1338040
I have also done a swift google. A lot of sites are selective with figures to reach the conclusion wanted - thus the situation gets more confusing:

It seems that around 6 Hinckley point nuclear reactors would be required to power all EVs. This is much less than above - possibly because Hinkley point is new, being constructed, and possibly designed to be higher output.

It also seems that the additional capacity required to accomodate all EVs depends on the charging regime. Spare capacity at night would/could be sold at much lower prices than daytime charging. So the additional capacity required could be a factor of 2 or 3 time different under different pricing and charging regimes.

There is also some debate whether battery storage could be used to supplement the grid at peak demand times by feeding power back into the grid. This would impact on additional capacity requirements but there are some technical issues to be sorted

The final point is that the transition is not going to happen this year or next year - it will happen progressively over the next 15-20 years. The general proposition is that the number of cars sold pa will remain at around 2-2.5m pa. Given a national fleet of 32m private vehicles it would take around 13 years to replace them if ALL new vehicle sales were electric. This is unlikely to be the case as many will replace current ICE with ICE for several years to come.

In conclusion:

(a) future plans need to assume a significant increase in generating capacity
(b) plans should include upgrades to distribution networks
(c) it is reasonable to assume a median case not worst case in terms of capacity needed
(d) as the changes will happen over 15-20 years we do not need to be in panic mode
(e) if properly managed some costs may be offset by savings in not upgrading conventional fuel supply chains.
By MusicMan
#1338041
Rather than doing simplistic calculations claiming to show that vast new numbers of power stations will be required, why not look at National Grid's own forecasts?

https://www.nationalgrid.com/group/case ... future-evs

They point out that it is not at all sensible or realistic to assume, as T_N did above, that the large predicted numbers of EVs will all try to charge at once at peak times. That indeed would need an impractical number of power stations. What they are planning is smart meters that measure and charge in half hour intervals throughout the 24 hours, linked to the price and availability of power. They don't seem to be concerned about coping, as long as the 'smart grid' is brought in nationally, plus maybe a 10-15% growth in generation power,

It does not take all night to charge a BEV. The 40 KW Leaf takes about 5-6 hours for a full charge, and most days many drivers will only need a popup charge. It is already possible to use an app to control when this is done so as to get the cheapest power.

And this is not futuristic hopefulness. I have just ordered a smart meter from Octopus and a charger from EO that will do this already, and also take account of when solar power is available from my roof panels. The Octopus Agile tariff charges in half-hour intervals. Most of the day it is around 5 - 6p a unit, in the small hours it is 3 - 4p but between 4 and 7 pm it is about 24p. It doesn't need legislation or enforcement to persuade people to charge when the power is cheap. This compares to roughly 15p a unit charged by the big power utilities and even Economy 7 is 8p.

And in those peak hours, it is already possible in some areas to sell your surplus stored battery power back to the grid (Ovo and Octopus have extensive trials working now). The combined storage power of, say, a million BEVs that have 80% charge left at 4 pm is in the region of tens of GW - that's roughly five major power stations or Dinorwig hydro storage installations, which will make a huge contribution to the grid. And there is plenty of time after 7 pm to charge your car ready for the morning.

BEVs are not the complete answer nor the answer for everyone. Hydrogen or (perhaps better and safer) ammonia fuel cells may be the best for heavy transport, though they are still a long way off making a major contribution. They will not alone fix the CO2/greenhouse problem in time. They will make a serious contribution to reducing CO2 (yes even when you take manufacturing costs into account) and a massive contribution to cleaning up air pollution in cities. Of course many other changes will be needed, especially in agriculture and diet and in consumption generally.
User avatar
By Trainee neophyte
#1338051
MusicMan wrote:Rather than doing simplistic calculations claiming to show that vast new numbers of power stations will be required, why not look at National Grid's own forecasts?

https://www.nationalgrid.com/group/case ... future-evs

They point out that it is not at all sensible or realistic to assume, as T_N did above, that the large predicted numbers of EVs will all try to charge at once at peak times. That indeed would need an impractical number of power stations. What they are planning is smart meters that measure and charge in half hour intervals throughout the 24 hours, linked to the price and availability of power. They don't seem to be concerned about coping, as long as the 'smart grid' is brought in nationally, plus maybe a 10-15% growth in generation power,

It does not take all night to charge a BEV. The 40 KW Leaf takes about 5-6 hours for a full charge, and most days many drivers will only need a popup charge. It is already possible to use an app to control when this is done so as to get the cheapest power.

And this is not futuristic hopefulness. I have just ordered a smart meter from Octopus and a charger from EO that will do this already, and also take account of when solar power is available from my roof panels. The Octopus Agile tariff charges in half-hour intervals. Most of the day it is around 5 - 6p a unit, in the small hours it is 3 - 4p but between 4 and 7 pm it is about 24p. It doesn't need legislation or enforcement to persuade people to charge when the power is cheap. This compares to roughly 15p a unit charged by the big power utilities and even Economy 7 is 8p.

And in those peak hours, it is already possible in some areas to sell your surplus stored battery power back to the grid (Ovo and Octopus have extensive trials working now). The combined storage power of, say, a million BEVs that have 80% charge left at 4 pm is in the region of tens of GW - that's roughly five major power stations or Dinorwig hydro storage installations, which will make a huge contribution to the grid. And there is plenty of time after 7 pm to charge your car ready for the morning.

BEVs are not the complete answer nor the answer for everyone. Hydrogen or (perhaps better and safer) ammonia fuel cells may be the best for heavy transport, though they are still a long way off making a major contribution. They will not alone fix the CO2/greenhouse problem in time. They will make a serious contribution to reducing CO2 (yes even when you take manufacturing costs into account) and a massive contribution to cleaning up air pollution in cities. Of course many other changes will be needed, especially in agriculture and diet and in consumption generally.


I freely admit to not having the expertise or time to look into this properly, but I started out by converting the annual amount of oil used in the UK to electrical energy as an equivalent amount of energy. I then divided that by 365 to give an amount per day, as an average. I'm not looking at peak energy requirement, just the amount of energy needed in a year, as provided by either oil, of nuclear power stations as an equivalent. My number came up with an outrageous 1,000 power stations required, just based on the energy used annually. However, I have since been put right and downgraded to 45 new power stations required. It is very easy to lose track of zeros when dealing with TerraWatt hours, and different people have differing numbers as to what constitutes "one nuclear power station equivalent". I was only out by a factor of 20 :-)

If the UK is already producing sufficient electricity to completely replace all fossil fuels, but are currently throwing it away through inefficient use of electrify, that is a) brilliant news, and b) ever-so-slightly unbelievable. I wait to be convinced.
User avatar
By RogerS
#1338060
Terry - Somerset wrote:.....
It also seems that the additional capacity required to accomodate all EVs depends on the charging regime. Spare capacity at night would/could be sold at much lower prices than daytime charging. So the additional capacity required could be a factor of 2 or 3 time different under different pricing and charging regimes.


That's a specious argument by those propounding it. If everyone charges their car at night then there won't be 'spare capacity'.

Terry - Somerset wrote:.
There is also some debate whether battery storage could be used to supplement the grid at peak demand times by feeding power back into the grid. This would impact on additional capacity requirements but there are some technical issues to be sorted


Sheer lunacy and dreamt up while in a drug-induced euphoria. "Oh, sorry dear, we can't go shopping, I've just emptied the car into the grid". Leaving aside the technology, the cost.


In conclusion:

(a) future plans need to assume a significant increase in generating capacity They do....refer to the National Electricity documents
(b) plans should include upgrades to distribution networks They already do....refer to the Western Power Distribution document I linked to
(c) it is reasonable to assume a median case not worst case in terms of capacity needed But if we assume that 'worst case' is all EV cars then surely that is the worst case and MUST be planned for.
(d) as the changes will happen over 15-20 years we do not need to be in panic mode
(e) if properly managed some costs may be offset by savings in not upgrading conventional fuel supply chains.[/quote] Any more information on this ?
User avatar
By RogerS
#1338061
Just a thought. Where is the night time generation going to come from ? Certainly not solar. Wind is not consistent. If the frequency starts to drop then automatic power-shedding occurs as happened in August last year.
User avatar
By RogerS
#1338064
MusicMan wrote:.... What they are planning is smart meters that measure and charge in half hour intervals throughout the 24 hours, linked to the price and availability of power. ....


If they bring in charging by the half-hour and hike the price up between, say, 4 and 7pm then can the differentiate between those houses with a charging point and those houses without ? Seems a tad unfair if they can't.
By Bodgers
#1338066
RogerS wrote:
MusicMan wrote:.... What they are planning is smart meters that measure and charge in half hour intervals throughout the 24 hours, linked to the price and availability of power. ....


If they bring in charging by the half-hour and hike the price up between, say, 4 and 7pm then can the differentiate between those houses with a charging point and those houses without ? Seems a tad unfair if they can't.
For the most part, yes.

For a charger to qualify for the UK gov grant it must include the hardware to do grid comms, similar to a smart meter. This kind of dynamic balancing has been thought about.

As general comment to some of the objects raised on this thread and on the "whataboutisms" that you see around the internet - you aren't the first one to think of these sorts of issues. Engineers around the world have been thinking and planning for a long time about things like vehicle to grid, infrastructure to vehicle, long term battery management, battery recycling, complete vehicle lifetime emissions, rapid charging infrastructure etc.
Last edited by Bodgers on 23 Feb 2020, 09:52, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Droogs
#1338067
In future, I would think you will have to register your specific home electric vehicle supply equipment ( EVSE) with your respective energy supplier as it will "talk" to them and they will then offer you the appropriate rate in your contract.
By Bodgers
#1338068
Droogs wrote:In future, I would think you will have to register your specific home electric vehicle supply equipment ( EVSE) with your respective energy supplier as it will "talk" to them and they will then offer you the appropriate rate in your contract.
Octopus just do the off peak metering via a smart meter at the moment.

The hardware in the charger that can do grid comms, is used purely by the national grid for balancing I believe and does that without any sign up to anything.





Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk
User avatar
By Trainee neophyte
#1338078
Yet more numbers by someone who has looked into the power generation issue. He claims:

The UK: A 36% increase in generation and a 49% increase in installed capacity, costing $140 billion.
Image

The numbers for Europe are more exciting. The entire article is here: http://euanmearns.com/how-much-more-ele ... -vehicles/

Once the infrastructure is paid for, it may well be a better way organising travel, especially if cars drive themselves (although a car doesn't need to be electric to drive itself). However, $140 billion is still quite a bit lump of cash, and will naturally increase substantially before the rollout is complete, because that's how government works. It's double the HS2 budget, but everyone benefits, rather than just people in the Midlands.

Final thought: what if carbon isn't the evil monster purported to be? What if the catastrophic climate change message turns out to be exagereration rather than fact? If everyone stops using oil, it's price wil plummet, and it will be even more cost-effective to use oil rather than electricity. I do hope no one has made a mistake, because we are all going to be poorer paying for all of this new technology.
By Cheshirechappie
#1338081
Trainee neophyte wrote:Final thought: what if carbon isn't the evil monster purported to be? What if the catastrophic climate change message turns out to be exagereration rather than fact? If everyone stops using oil, it's price wil plummet, and it will be even more cost-effective to use oil rather than electricity. I do hope no one has made a mistake, because we are all going to be poorer paying for all of this new technology.


Fun scientific fact for the day; carbon dioxide is plant food. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration gives faster plant growth, so more food for humans, more fodder for grazing animals, quicker tree growth.

You never hear much about that on the BBC. Can't think why.