Electric cars/hybrids - a dead end?
Discussion
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
Just because someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't mean they're trolling.
I think people are being conned at the moment by the big EV promise - it's the current political darling in the industry, but there are some significant shortfalls to be overcome.
There are 15 manufacturers currently sticking money into fuel cell, as a range extending solution to the shortfalls of EV.
The future will be a mix of several technologies - but you EV evangelists are so blinkered, you cannot see that EV doesn't work for everyone all of the time, and may still fall from grace once the true environmental impact of Lithium batteries becomes apparent.
The only reason people are raving about EV right now is that they're heavily subsidised on a low tax energy source - take away the incentives and sales would significantly slow. If you look at the threads about handing back leased EVs elsewhere on PH, many people can't see the benefit unless the price is significantly subsidised and are not planning on replacing their EV with another one.
Some good stuff at the start of this thread and then a bit of an argument. I love Pistonheads. I will try and address a few points that have been made without going and quoting everything / everyone. Sorry if this is a bit of a stream of consciousness.
Regarding hydrogen fuel cells. It's been said, but lets reiterate. THEY ARE A STORE OF ENERGY. They're better than ICE in that there's no pollution at the point of delivery (like EVs) but they are a nightmare for efficiency. And that's before you start worrying about the fact that the tank will leak hydrogen *THROUGH THE METAL* as hydrogen molecules are so bloody small. I get why Toyota went this way, but battery tech is killing them and they will be out of this within 2 years. Indeed, they now have a plug-in Prius and it's not much of a leap to produce a full EV.
Regarding hybrids. I thought for a long time that this was the right idea. You get rid of range anxiety. But when I really look at how I use a vehicle, I don't need it with a 200 mile range. Yes - it would be "nice to have" but I have a car hire place in my town for when I need to do a long trip, and in due course, as battery prices fall, why do I want the running costs and installation costs of two power trains? And then lugging an ICE around that's not running for 95%+ of all trips. Maybe REx is the half-way house, but give it a couple of years and I'm pretty sure I'll be full EV ready. [I know not everyone will be]
Regarding taxation. This is a *HUGE* Government issue as any change produces winners and losers, and losers make a *LOT* of noise. But if they don't bite the bullet soon (maybe as soon as next Parliament) then there will be a giant (and forever growing) issue. Road pricing and massive VED increases are coming.
Of course, that may make car ownership uneconomic for people doing smaller mileages. Ride sharing. Car sharing. And with self-driving vehicles, you can have it delivered to your doorstep. This is further away, but by the middle of the next decade, I can see car ownership starting to decline rapidly.
Regarding electricity production, this was answered right at the start. Better metering (and some additional production) is coming. Add in local batteries and the whole cycle becomes so much less variable and efficient. And with the growth of renewables, the marginal kWh of electricity will become free. This poses a challenge for electricity companies, who will be paid for producing capacity and not for every kWh. If you're an investor, you want the distribution, not the production. Of course, as taxpayers, we're going to be paying China for our electricity unless EdF goes bust first (not inconceivable). I think massive new nuclear is wrong - we need more smaller ones and we should instead be investing some R&D into capturing solar better.
Regarding solar (I'm getting off topic) - we need tech developments to capture non-visible light energy. And to capture it everywhere. Not just in solar plants. Imagine roads being coated with something that captures sun energy? And then transmits it straight to the cars above by induction? Okay - I may be in 2050 now.
Regarding local charging, induction loops in roadways is not that far away. The the wires cease to be an issue. I have a drive, but if you don't then I can imagine issues if you can't find a space. This is solvable though, especially if cars can move themselves around while we sleep!
And finally, regarding peak oil. Peak oil is not a thing. We have access already to known exploitable reserves of about 1.25trn barrels. That gets us through 2050 at the rate of growth we're currently going through. The expectation is that we'll still have 1.25trn barrels left at that point due to technological advances. But the last view is that 1trn barrels might be all we ever need, as solar takes over as a renewable source. And in the meantime, if we stop using oil for transportation, we have enough gas to get us through most of this century (even producing electricity for the EVs) - I think it's 2080. The outlook for energy is as good now as it's been at any point since 1960. Coal is dead. Oil is dying.
And the fact that oil is dying is great. It means that we will be able to run our V12s on tax-free petrol in 20 years time. For pleasure.
Jez
Regarding hydrogen fuel cells. It's been said, but lets reiterate. THEY ARE A STORE OF ENERGY. They're better than ICE in that there's no pollution at the point of delivery (like EVs) but they are a nightmare for efficiency. And that's before you start worrying about the fact that the tank will leak hydrogen *THROUGH THE METAL* as hydrogen molecules are so bloody small. I get why Toyota went this way, but battery tech is killing them and they will be out of this within 2 years. Indeed, they now have a plug-in Prius and it's not much of a leap to produce a full EV.
Regarding hybrids. I thought for a long time that this was the right idea. You get rid of range anxiety. But when I really look at how I use a vehicle, I don't need it with a 200 mile range. Yes - it would be "nice to have" but I have a car hire place in my town for when I need to do a long trip, and in due course, as battery prices fall, why do I want the running costs and installation costs of two power trains? And then lugging an ICE around that's not running for 95%+ of all trips. Maybe REx is the half-way house, but give it a couple of years and I'm pretty sure I'll be full EV ready. [I know not everyone will be]
Regarding taxation. This is a *HUGE* Government issue as any change produces winners and losers, and losers make a *LOT* of noise. But if they don't bite the bullet soon (maybe as soon as next Parliament) then there will be a giant (and forever growing) issue. Road pricing and massive VED increases are coming.
Of course, that may make car ownership uneconomic for people doing smaller mileages. Ride sharing. Car sharing. And with self-driving vehicles, you can have it delivered to your doorstep. This is further away, but by the middle of the next decade, I can see car ownership starting to decline rapidly.
Regarding electricity production, this was answered right at the start. Better metering (and some additional production) is coming. Add in local batteries and the whole cycle becomes so much less variable and efficient. And with the growth of renewables, the marginal kWh of electricity will become free. This poses a challenge for electricity companies, who will be paid for producing capacity and not for every kWh. If you're an investor, you want the distribution, not the production. Of course, as taxpayers, we're going to be paying China for our electricity unless EdF goes bust first (not inconceivable). I think massive new nuclear is wrong - we need more smaller ones and we should instead be investing some R&D into capturing solar better.
Regarding solar (I'm getting off topic) - we need tech developments to capture non-visible light energy. And to capture it everywhere. Not just in solar plants. Imagine roads being coated with something that captures sun energy? And then transmits it straight to the cars above by induction? Okay - I may be in 2050 now.
Regarding local charging, induction loops in roadways is not that far away. The the wires cease to be an issue. I have a drive, but if you don't then I can imagine issues if you can't find a space. This is solvable though, especially if cars can move themselves around while we sleep!
And finally, regarding peak oil. Peak oil is not a thing. We have access already to known exploitable reserves of about 1.25trn barrels. That gets us through 2050 at the rate of growth we're currently going through. The expectation is that we'll still have 1.25trn barrels left at that point due to technological advances. But the last view is that 1trn barrels might be all we ever need, as solar takes over as a renewable source. And in the meantime, if we stop using oil for transportation, we have enough gas to get us through most of this century (even producing electricity for the EVs) - I think it's 2080. The outlook for energy is as good now as it's been at any point since 1960. Coal is dead. Oil is dying.
And the fact that oil is dying is great. It means that we will be able to run our V12s on tax-free petrol in 20 years time. For pleasure.
Jez
Mostly agree with this ^^^^ but I think EV's will take off rapidly when the fast-charging issue is solved.
I think that as soon as you can recharge an EV as quickly and conveniently as you can fill a petrol tank, that that will be the tipping point for public take up and it will be a adoption landslide. EV's will replace IC engines as quickly as IC engined cars replaced the horse and buggy (and that took about 10 years). Economics will drive this. It's going to cost way less to mass produce EVs because they are massively more simple mechanically, and they are far easier to package.
I hope we'll be able to continue to drive and enjoy our IC engined museum pieces. But in 20 years time (maybe even sooner) you are going to struggle to be able to buy a new one.
I think that as soon as you can recharge an EV as quickly and conveniently as you can fill a petrol tank, that that will be the tipping point for public take up and it will be a adoption landslide. EV's will replace IC engines as quickly as IC engined cars replaced the horse and buggy (and that took about 10 years). Economics will drive this. It's going to cost way less to mass produce EVs because they are massively more simple mechanically, and they are far easier to package.
I hope we'll be able to continue to drive and enjoy our IC engined museum pieces. But in 20 years time (maybe even sooner) you are going to struggle to be able to buy a new one.
Edited by RBH58 on Tuesday 14th February 03:53
RBH58 said:
I think that as soon as you can recharge an EV as quickly and conveniently as you can fill a petrol tank, that that will be the tipping point for public take up and it will be a adoption landslide. EV's will replace IC engines as quickly as IC engined cars replaced the horse and buggy (and that took about 10 years). Economics will drive this. It's going to cost way less to mass produce EVs because they are massively more simple mechanically, and they are far easier to package.
I basically agree, but I think it will be price at the point of purchase rather than speed of charging. Granted, speed of charging will help defeat those refuseniks, but I don't drive enough miles on any given (ordinary) day to need to charge anywhere other than at home. So EV is going to save me time as plugging in and then going inside is much quicker than filling up. But we haven't got to price equivalency yet. If the same car is no more expensive for 200 miles (and indeed cheaper if it is only 100 miles range) then I can see the flood starting. Especially 2 (or more) car families who have an ICE car for emergencies.
Jez
Z3MCJez said:
RBH58 said:
I think that as soon as you can recharge an EV as quickly and conveniently as you can fill a petrol tank, that that will be the tipping point for public take up and it will be a adoption landslide. EV's will replace IC engines as quickly as IC engined cars replaced the horse and buggy (and that took about 10 years). Economics will drive this. It's going to cost way less to mass produce EVs because they are massively more simple mechanically, and they are far easier to package.
I basically agree, but I think it will be price at the point of purchase rather than speed of charging. Granted, speed of charging will help defeat those refuseniks, but I don't drive enough miles on any given (ordinary) day to need to charge anywhere other than at home. So EV is going to save me time as plugging in and then going inside is much quicker than filling up. But we haven't got to price equivalency yet. If the same car is no more expensive for 200 miles (and indeed cheaper if it is only 100 miles range) then I can see the flood starting. Especially 2 (or more) car families who have an ICE car for emergencies.
Jez
As for the 800 mile a day road warriors it's just a matter of time before some tuners turn their energy's to extreme range as opposed to extreme performance, Model X with 2 100D battery packs anyone
While I do think Trabi601 comes across as trolling, remember we are preaching to the converted here.
I did some other basic arithmetic based on this thread.
Driven aggressively in cold weather etc. etc. and being pessimistic (to make the sums easier) a Tesla S75 will run its 75kWh battery down in 150 miles - 2 miles per kWh. At 75 mph, that's two hours driving. So it's using an average of 37.5kW (for the people struggling with units, i.e. the Times journalist, note the lack of a "h" - kW is a measure of power, kWh is a measure of energy. 1kW for 1 hour = 1kWh, 2kW for 1 hour = 2kWh, 1 kW for 2 hours = 2kWh, etc.)
37.5kW is not a lot - 50hp. The only reason we have 500hp monsters is to get acceleration and impossible to achieve top speeds.
A quick google found me these: http://www.skydrive.co.uk/products.asp?cat=403
31kg and 0.6L displacement for a 55hp engine - granted you would not run at 100% for long but equally you can do the maths that running at 75% for the first two hours of the drive would add another 112 miles back into the battery and then of course during that 112 miles it would add another 75 miles ... extending the Tesla's endurance from 150 miles/2 hours to about 350 miles/4.5 hours, long enough for any normal human to need to stop and far enough to go from the Scottish Highlands to the Midlands.
Allowing for exhaust, fuel tank and "stuff", that might add up to what, 50kg? Another 50kg for some fancy-pants generator to charge the Tesla's battery and you have achieved unlimited range using existing infrastructure. With an engine which will probably never be fired up - only when someone needs to do a pants-on-fire 150 mile run followed immediately by another 150 miles racing Lewis Hamilton through a blizzard without pausing at a single services for food or human exhaust.
All without any technological breakthroughs or exotic engineering.
Driven aggressively in cold weather etc. etc. and being pessimistic (to make the sums easier) a Tesla S75 will run its 75kWh battery down in 150 miles - 2 miles per kWh. At 75 mph, that's two hours driving. So it's using an average of 37.5kW (for the people struggling with units, i.e. the Times journalist, note the lack of a "h" - kW is a measure of power, kWh is a measure of energy. 1kW for 1 hour = 1kWh, 2kW for 1 hour = 2kWh, 1 kW for 2 hours = 2kWh, etc.)
37.5kW is not a lot - 50hp. The only reason we have 500hp monsters is to get acceleration and impossible to achieve top speeds.
A quick google found me these: http://www.skydrive.co.uk/products.asp?cat=403
31kg and 0.6L displacement for a 55hp engine - granted you would not run at 100% for long but equally you can do the maths that running at 75% for the first two hours of the drive would add another 112 miles back into the battery and then of course during that 112 miles it would add another 75 miles ... extending the Tesla's endurance from 150 miles/2 hours to about 350 miles/4.5 hours, long enough for any normal human to need to stop and far enough to go from the Scottish Highlands to the Midlands.
Allowing for exhaust, fuel tank and "stuff", that might add up to what, 50kg? Another 50kg for some fancy-pants generator to charge the Tesla's battery and you have achieved unlimited range using existing infrastructure. With an engine which will probably never be fired up - only when someone needs to do a pants-on-fire 150 mile run followed immediately by another 150 miles racing Lewis Hamilton through a blizzard without pausing at a single services for food or human exhaust.
All without any technological breakthroughs or exotic engineering.
Trabi601 said:
The future will be a mix of several technologies - but you EV evangelists are so blinkered, you cannot see that EV doesn't work for everyone all of the time....
I read most EV threads, and I don't think I've ever seen one where someone says BEV works for everyone. Quite the opposite in fact. Someone will normally pop up and say they live on the 20th floor of a block of flats and do 600 miles per day therefore BEV's are useless, someone else will then point out that they are not for everybody, but would be fine for the majority of people.You are raising an issue that doesn't exist, then arguing against it.
The fundamental issue behind Hydrogen are basic physics, that's not going to change.
Flooble said:
37.5kW is not a lot - 50hp. The only reason we have 500hp monsters is to get acceleration and impossible to achieve top speeds.
A quick google found me these: http://www.skydrive.co.uk/products.asp?cat=403
31kg and 0.6L displacement for a 55hp engine - granted you would not run at 100% for long but equally you can do the maths that running at 75% for the first two hours of the drive would add another 112 miles back into the battery and then of course during that 112 miles it would add another 75 miles ... extending the Tesla's endurance from 150 miles/2 hours to about 350 miles/4.5 hours, long enough for any normal human to need to stop and far enough to go from the Scottish Highlands to the Midlands.
Allowing for exhaust, fuel tank and "stuff", that might add up to what, 50kg? Another 50kg for some fancy-pants generator to charge the Tesla's battery and you have achieved unlimited range using existing infrastructure. With an engine which will probably never be fired up - only when someone needs to do a pants-on-fire 150 mile run followed immediately by another 150 miles racing Lewis Hamilton through a blizzard without pausing at a single services for food or human exhaust.
All without any technological breakthroughs or exotic engineering.
What you're describing is basically a Range Extender but with a bigger charging capacity. It's not nearly as efficient as putting that 50hp straight onto the drivetrain though, but I don't think that really matters if you're lugging it around in the expectation of not using it. However, you will not get 55bhp of electric power as there will be conversion losses in putting it into electricity. The question really becomes whether there is value in lugging around all of this weight the rest of the time and whether you might be better having a connectable direct drive system instead of using it as a generator. That's all adding to complexity though. A quick google found me these: http://www.skydrive.co.uk/products.asp?cat=403
31kg and 0.6L displacement for a 55hp engine - granted you would not run at 100% for long but equally you can do the maths that running at 75% for the first two hours of the drive would add another 112 miles back into the battery and then of course during that 112 miles it would add another 75 miles ... extending the Tesla's endurance from 150 miles/2 hours to about 350 miles/4.5 hours, long enough for any normal human to need to stop and far enough to go from the Scottish Highlands to the Midlands.
Allowing for exhaust, fuel tank and "stuff", that might add up to what, 50kg? Another 50kg for some fancy-pants generator to charge the Tesla's battery and you have achieved unlimited range using existing infrastructure. With an engine which will probably never be fired up - only when someone needs to do a pants-on-fire 150 mile run followed immediately by another 150 miles racing Lewis Hamilton through a blizzard without pausing at a single services for food or human exhaust.
All without any technological breakthroughs or exotic engineering.
I think that REx, like PHEV, is a transitional technology which will not be available on new vehicles by 2025.
Jez
Flooble said:
I did some other basic arithmetic based on this thread.
Driven aggressively in cold weather etc. etc. and being pessimistic (to make the sums easier) a Tesla S75 will run its 75kWh battery down in 150 miles - 2 miles per kWh. At 75 mph, that's two hours driving. So it's using an average of 37.5kW (for the people struggling with units, i.e. the Times journalist, note the lack of a "h" - kW is a measure of power, kWh is a measure of energy. 1kW for 1 hour = 1kWh, 2kW for 1 hour = 2kWh, 1 kW for 2 hours = 2kWh, etc.)
37.5kW is not a lot - 50hp. The only reason we have 500hp monsters is to get acceleration and impossible to achieve top speeds.
A quick google found me these: http://www.skydrive.co.uk/products.asp?cat=403
31kg and 0.6L displacement for a 55hp engine - granted you would not run at 100% for long but equally you can do the maths that running at 75% for the first two hours of the drive would add another 112 miles back into the battery and then of course during that 112 miles it would add another 75 miles ... extending the Tesla's endurance from 150 miles/2 hours to about 350 miles/4.5 hours, long enough for any normal human to need to stop and far enough to go from the Scottish Highlands to the Midlands.
Allowing for exhaust, fuel tank and "stuff", that might add up to what, 50kg? Another 50kg for some fancy-pants generator to charge the Tesla's battery and you have achieved unlimited range using existing infrastructure. With an engine which will probably never be fired up - only when someone needs to do a pants-on-fire 150 mile run followed immediately by another 150 miles racing Lewis Hamilton through a blizzard without pausing at a single services for food or human exhaust.
All without any technological breakthroughs or exotic engineering.
Which is why you can already buy range extended EVs..........Driven aggressively in cold weather etc. etc. and being pessimistic (to make the sums easier) a Tesla S75 will run its 75kWh battery down in 150 miles - 2 miles per kWh. At 75 mph, that's two hours driving. So it's using an average of 37.5kW (for the people struggling with units, i.e. the Times journalist, note the lack of a "h" - kW is a measure of power, kWh is a measure of energy. 1kW for 1 hour = 1kWh, 2kW for 1 hour = 2kWh, 1 kW for 2 hours = 2kWh, etc.)
37.5kW is not a lot - 50hp. The only reason we have 500hp monsters is to get acceleration and impossible to achieve top speeds.
A quick google found me these: http://www.skydrive.co.uk/products.asp?cat=403
31kg and 0.6L displacement for a 55hp engine - granted you would not run at 100% for long but equally you can do the maths that running at 75% for the first two hours of the drive would add another 112 miles back into the battery and then of course during that 112 miles it would add another 75 miles ... extending the Tesla's endurance from 150 miles/2 hours to about 350 miles/4.5 hours, long enough for any normal human to need to stop and far enough to go from the Scottish Highlands to the Midlands.
Allowing for exhaust, fuel tank and "stuff", that might add up to what, 50kg? Another 50kg for some fancy-pants generator to charge the Tesla's battery and you have achieved unlimited range using existing infrastructure. With an engine which will probably never be fired up - only when someone needs to do a pants-on-fire 150 mile run followed immediately by another 150 miles racing Lewis Hamilton through a blizzard without pausing at a single services for food or human exhaust.
All without any technological breakthroughs or exotic engineering.
Z3MCJez said:
What you're describing is basically a Range Extender but with a bigger charging capacity. It's not nearly as efficient as putting that 50hp straight onto the drivetrain though, but I don't think that really matters if you're lugging it around in the expectation of not using it. However, you will not get 55bhp of electric power as there will be conversion losses in putting it into electricity. The question really becomes whether there is value in lugging around all of this weight the rest of the time and whether you might be better having a connectable direct drive system instead of using it as a generator. That's all adding to complexity though.
I think that REx, like PHEV, is a transitional technology which will not be available on new vehicles by 2025.
Jez
Point taken - however as fuel cell cars cannot drive the wheels directly I was comparing like-for-like and trying to show you don't need much in the way of ICE to achieve a car which can be refuelled en-route just as easily as Hydrogen (well, easier, by several orders of magnitude, but you see what I mean). I think that REx, like PHEV, is a transitional technology which will not be available on new vehicles by 2025.
Jez
What are the conversion losses for a generator itself - once you have the electricity the electric motors themselves are 90% efficient (ish?) so not having gearbox/differential/complicated planetary system to combine electric and petrol outputs would likely give an overall system efficiency about the same? Vauxhall did direct-drive with the Ampera didn't they?
http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/99302/Efficiency-...
This guy says the alternator itself is 90-95% efficient, so presuming that the 55hp figure for the engines is the shaft power (i.e. what you get at the wheels, so allowing for fuel combustion, thermal dynamic and mechanical losses already) it doesn't seem so bad.
Max_Torque said:
Which is why you can already buy range extended EVs..........
Yes, my point exactly. But Trabi keeps falling back on pushing Hydrogen as a range-extender when the calcs highlight that using it as primary drive is hopeless. So I'm calculating just how big an issue the range-extension is. Which turns out to be not very ... Plug Life said:
Trabi601 said:
EV evangelists
Hallelujah!Edited by Flooble on Tuesday 14th February 17:20
Flooble said:
Point taken - however as fuel cell cars cannot drive the wheels directly I was comparing like-for-like and trying to show you don't need much in the way of ICE to achieve a car which can be refuelled en-route just as easily as Hydrogen (well, easier, by several orders of magnitude, but you see what I mean).
What are the conversion losses for a generator itself - once you have the electricity the electric motors themselves are 90% efficient (ish?) so not having gearbox/differential/complicated planetary system to combine electric and petrol outputs would likely give an overall system efficiency about the same? Vauxhall did direct-drive with the Ampera didn't they?
http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/99302/Efficiency-...
This guy says the alternator itself is 90-95% efficient, so presuming that the 55hp figure for the engines is the shaft power (i.e. what you get at the wheels, so allowing for fuel combustion, thermal dynamic and mechanical losses already) it doesn't seem so bad.
If you assume that there's a spinning output shaft, that can be connected to the wheels without further losses (we don't need a transmission, as the connection is only going to kick in to maintain speed, not to provide the power to get up to speed) then the losses for converting to battery and then putting through the electric motor is going to be something like 10% alternator loss (your figure), 5% charging loss, and 10% motor loss. So call it 25%. It's not critical, certainly, but it will lower your ranges (or you need a bigger REx engine). What are the conversion losses for a generator itself - once you have the electricity the electric motors themselves are 90% efficient (ish?) so not having gearbox/differential/complicated planetary system to combine electric and petrol outputs would likely give an overall system efficiency about the same? Vauxhall did direct-drive with the Ampera didn't they?
http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/99302/Efficiency-...
This guy says the alternator itself is 90-95% efficient, so presuming that the 55hp figure for the engines is the shaft power (i.e. what you get at the wheels, so allowing for fuel combustion, thermal dynamic and mechanical losses already) it doesn't seem so bad.
As to the comparison to hydrogen - I've already said that's dead! And I never even had to go to the capacitor management issues you need to get decent acceleration (as a fuel cell won't provide enough electricity from hydrogen to accelerate you quickly enough to make it viable).
However, the "right" solution for long-run efficiency (as opposed to emergency) is probably a small ICE, with a battery / capacitor system to provide you with acceleration (and to capture your braking energy). Or you could just get an ICE car and save the capital cost on doubling up on technology. ICE will be around for ages for those that need it.
My next car will be a BEV though, almost for certain.
Flooble said:
If you read the article again there are some basic flaws in the arithmetic. It's basically utter rubbish and hasn't even been proof read.
"At the maximum level of uptake in the city green cars would demand between seven and eight gigawatt-hours per year" and "Experts said this was equivalent to the output of more than two nuclear power stations similar to that being built at Hinkley Point in Somerset".
Hinkley C will have an output of 3.2 gigawatts, meaning that in one hour, two such power stations would produce 6.4 gigawatt-hours. Clearly 8 gigawatt-hours in a year is not going to be much of an issue, unless they plan on leaving the power station turned off for 364 days of the year.
Most electric cars do 4 miles per kilowatt-hour. Average annual mileage is only 8000 miles per year so that means 2,000 kWh (2 megawatt-hours) per car per year. Thus the 8 gigawatt-hours equates to only 4,000 cars' worth of electricity in a year. Basic arithmetic again.
Demand on the National Grid varies from around 30 gigawatts at night to 50 gigawatts peak during winter, less during summer. With the average annual mileage of commuter cars etc. of 22 miles per day that's 6 kilowatt-hours per car, per day. Charging overnight at home would require a massive 1 kilowatt (or about 4 amps, about the same as a chunky computer and big TV). So without lifting a finger, during the Economy 7 night period, 20 million cars can recharge before electricity demand reaches the same as the daytime peak - i.e. more efficient use of resources as no need to idle power stations. If all 31 million cars in the UK were electric, peak overnight demand (including all the non-car use we currently have) would be approximately 62 gigawatts - the National Grid currently has a total generating capacity of 75 gigawatts and a further 3 gigawatts of foreign inter-connects.
So ... no new capacity is needed to replace every single car with an electric one.
Which we clearly wouldn't do anyway since the high-mileage users (trucks, sales reps, George111 and his 60,000 miles per year mates
) will all be on diesel for the foreseeable future.
We could all go with Hydrogen of course - and then we really would need 20 new power stations to provided all the extra electricity needed to to make the Hydrogen in the first place (what, you thought we pumped it out the ground like oil?), compress and chill it, transport it, decompress and pump it into filling stations, recompress and rechill, pump it into cars and then inefficiently "burn" it in fuel cells (about 50% efficient if you're lucky, versus 90% efficient converting battery to motor to movement).
Hydrogen is the real dead end. I'll repeat - we don't need any extra generation capacity to make every car electric, but we definitely do if you want to make Hydrogen.
This is he best reply to this argument I've ever read. EV's are simply the solution and it's clear all the automotive manufacturers are seeing this. Fool-cells have their place but not for average Joe Public going back and forth to work and to goto the shops on the weekend. "At the maximum level of uptake in the city green cars would demand between seven and eight gigawatt-hours per year" and "Experts said this was equivalent to the output of more than two nuclear power stations similar to that being built at Hinkley Point in Somerset".
Hinkley C will have an output of 3.2 gigawatts, meaning that in one hour, two such power stations would produce 6.4 gigawatt-hours. Clearly 8 gigawatt-hours in a year is not going to be much of an issue, unless they plan on leaving the power station turned off for 364 days of the year.
Most electric cars do 4 miles per kilowatt-hour. Average annual mileage is only 8000 miles per year so that means 2,000 kWh (2 megawatt-hours) per car per year. Thus the 8 gigawatt-hours equates to only 4,000 cars' worth of electricity in a year. Basic arithmetic again.
Demand on the National Grid varies from around 30 gigawatts at night to 50 gigawatts peak during winter, less during summer. With the average annual mileage of commuter cars etc. of 22 miles per day that's 6 kilowatt-hours per car, per day. Charging overnight at home would require a massive 1 kilowatt (or about 4 amps, about the same as a chunky computer and big TV). So without lifting a finger, during the Economy 7 night period, 20 million cars can recharge before electricity demand reaches the same as the daytime peak - i.e. more efficient use of resources as no need to idle power stations. If all 31 million cars in the UK were electric, peak overnight demand (including all the non-car use we currently have) would be approximately 62 gigawatts - the National Grid currently has a total generating capacity of 75 gigawatts and a further 3 gigawatts of foreign inter-connects.
So ... no new capacity is needed to replace every single car with an electric one.
Which we clearly wouldn't do anyway since the high-mileage users (trucks, sales reps, George111 and his 60,000 miles per year mates
) will all be on diesel for the foreseeable future.We could all go with Hydrogen of course - and then we really would need 20 new power stations to provided all the extra electricity needed to to make the Hydrogen in the first place (what, you thought we pumped it out the ground like oil?), compress and chill it, transport it, decompress and pump it into filling stations, recompress and rechill, pump it into cars and then inefficiently "burn" it in fuel cells (about 50% efficient if you're lucky, versus 90% efficient converting battery to motor to movement).
Hydrogen is the real dead end. I'll repeat - we don't need any extra generation capacity to make every car electric, but we definitely do if you want to make Hydrogen.
dpeilow said:
The Times admits it was wrong, but still doesn't publish the correct number.
The correct number is difficult to determine and is still the subject of loads of research. Frankly its a good thing they took back the 20 hinkley statement. Shame they did it very late and on a letters page....Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff