Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2

[TransverseTight]

chris watton said:

Another thing - imagine if we were now living in this EV car utopia TT waxes lyrical about - If we're that close to an energy deficit now, surely if over 60 million EV's were to be plugged into the grid overnight, there would cause problems, wouldn't it? Imagine all of those diesel generator working overtime, to replenish the charge in the batteries!

Idiocracy personified.

You speak out of your ass much? Call me an idiot and I'll name call back. I much prefer people who debate by stating facts that are contrary to mine that I can go and investigate.

Read back about 3 or 4 pages. There's 20GW spare on the grid overnight. Enough to swap every single car for an EV and charge up everyones daily mileage. No new powerstations, cables, hydrogen tanks, etc etc.

You are making statements from inside your head without looking at the numbers first. Actually I think what you are doing is repeating fake meme spread by anti-science and technology blogs written by people who want to keep us buying their product as long as possible. IF you can't see that already ... there's not point me trying to point it out.

wc - nope not greenwashed - I take time to read up on stuff is all. Rather than being led by blogs and newspaper articles If I see something that doesn't add up - google is your friend. I'd call myself a technology optimist. I think new technology can solve old problems. I have some projects coming up I want to get pre/post grad students to work on. I'll pay for kit and they can do the maths and engineering. Nothing too clever as I'm not loaded, but am building some flats which I want to try an experiment for a heating system with. They will still have gas boilers as backup.

TB - just read your latest... CNW Marketing Research. Really - just go and look at the rebuttals. At the time they said "you can't assume a 100,000 life for the Prius". Which given we now have actual history is true. Taxi drivers are buying them in droves as they are cheap enough now. It was another paper written purely with an intent in mind, some clever stats manipulation which doesn't stand scrutiny. That was before people got on to the idea of reusing battery packs in stationary applications too. Or recycling them. Its how the denial industry works. It doesn't matter if its really true or stands scrutiny. Just cast FUD and get people talking about it in the pub, criticising gov and scientists and they have won a battle. The fact you just quoted it several years later show how much value there is in FUD tactics.

Someone else just pointed out you cant compare EVs to ICE by looking at the ICE from tank to wheel. You've got to go back and add in the well to refinery to tanker to petrol station energy use too. When you do that like the do in the JEC reports I posted earlier you see EVs are vastly undercutting ICE.

IF anyone thinks these are wrong - write to the study group and explain why you think your figures are better. As they are proper engineering based scientists not climate scientists, they would be happy to hear what you have to say.

http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about-jec/sites/iet.jr...

To save you time look at ICE on page 31 (acronyms on P17) and EV page 65. (Fuel mix codes on page 66)

ICE 150-250 MJ/km now, 100-180 by 2020.
EV powered by coal about 100MJ/km now, gas about 60-70 nukes or wind 60MJ/km.

So by the end of the decade - ICE energy efficiency will catch up with where EVs are now.

I prefer to measure energy consumption not emissions - as its indisputable energy has an economic benefit. IF we can do the same job using less energy then we can ignore CO2, which would be good for all of us as we can get on with working out if EVSE costs outweigh the benefits of owning an EV. And how best to generate electricity and where to use it. I suppose you can't really ignore CO2 - but lets do just that as the PH consensus if that it doesn't have an effect on climate.

EV Range... well, I wouldn't take an Telsa to the south of France this year, Or Scotland. But next year I would.,

http://www.teslamotors.com/en_GB/supercharger [edit link fixed] Click on Europe, then 2015. Call me lazy, but when I'm on holiday the idea of driving more than 200 miles in 1 stint isn't something I entertain. The only exception being the annual trip to Le Mans - where on the way back we sometimes come via the Chunnel. All done in 8 hours. But... the point is, this year nothing to do with EVs we have all said lets take it easy, and get the Monday might ferry back and have Tuesday off work too. So even that would be possible. I do journeys like that only about 5% of my trips. Or 10% of my annual mileage. I do a 150 mile commute on Sunday/Friday at the moment. Plenty for that. And wouldn't need to visit the petrol station ever again. I know from experience the average speed on the 150 mile journey is 50mph +/-10. That's despite being 140 miles of motorway and dual carriage way. It seems most drivers are reluctant to move out of the way once they have reached the national speed limit. I do have a theory the fastest commuter car would be a bright yellow Ferrari or Lambourghini with racing stripes, most people recognise the fact they can go faster than their own car and feel compelled to move out the way, Nissan Micras the exception as their mirrors don't work apparently. Porsches don't seem to do it any more judging by the number of times I've been sat behind one for 40 odd miles.

IF you really want to do 300 miles stints, stop for a fill up and a pee and then get off again, all the way to Italy or Cannes, I'll agree don't use an EV. But this is going to be less than 1% of peoples usage. Avis also rent cars if you cant afford to run a 2nd car, say a 10 year old load lugger like I have. Maybe even a nice DB9, paid for out of the fuel savings on your commuting. I certainly would be considering something along those lines in a few years. I'm toying with the idea of an XFR 4.2 at the mo given I won't be doing that many miles once I get the i3. Think it will be more fun that the 3.0D. The only thing putting me off is resale - how long it may take to sell on later. But £15k for a 3-4 year old 400hp car is a bargain. (see - you can't call me a leftie greenie now!)

Edited by TransverseTight on Thursday 30th October 14:51

Edited by TransverseTight on Thursday 30th October 16:40

[s2art]

TransverseTight said:

Someone else just pointed out you cant compare EVs to ICE by looking at the ICE from tank to wheel. You've got to go back and add in the well to refinery to tanker to petrol station energy use too. When you do that like the do in the JEC reports I posted earlier you see EVs are vastly undercutting ICE.

IF anyone thinks these are wrong - write to the study group and explain why you think your figures are better. As they are proper engineering based scientists not climate scientists, they would be happy to hear what you have to say.

http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about-jec/sites/iet.jr...

To save you time look at ICE on page 31 (acronyms on P17) and EV page 65. (Fuel mix codes on page 66)

ICE 150-250 MJ/km now, 100-180 by 2020.
EV powered by coal about 100MJ/km now, gas about 60-70 nukes or wind 60MJ/km.

So by the end of the decade - ICE energy efficiency will catch up with where EVs are now.

The problem with the paper you quote is that, for very understandable reasons, it has a very narrow focus. Unfortunately that causes any conclusions it reaches to be flawed. They admit that the numbers they generate are not based upon a Life Cycle Analysis, and do not seem to consider EROEI. Basically any figure they reach regarding EV is too optimistic as current battery technology requires lots of energy to be consumed during the battery's life cycle (including manufacture), and a lot of energy is consumed due to losses in charging and use. See the paper I linked to a few posts back.

[PRTVR]

TransverseTight said:

chris watton said:

Another thing - imagine if we were now living in this EV car utopia TT waxes lyrical about - If we're that close to an energy deficit now, surely if over 60 million EV's were to be plugged into the grid overnight, there would cause problems, wouldn't it? Imagine all of those diesel generator working overtime, to replenish the charge in the batteries!

Idiocracy personified.

You speak out of your ass much? Call me an idiot and I'll name call back. I much prefer people who debate by stating facts that are contrary to mine that I can go and investigate.

Read back about 3 or 4 pages. There's 20GW spare on the grid overnight. Enough to swap every single car for an EV and charge up everyones daily mileage. No new powerstations, cables, hydrogen tanks, etc etc.

You are making statements from inside your head without looking at the numbers first. Actually I think what you are doing is repeating fake meme spread by anti-science and technology blogs written by people who want to keep us buying their product as long as possible. IF you can't see that already ... there's not point me trying to point it out.

wc - nope not greenwashed - I take time to read up on stuff is all. Rather than being led by blogs and newspaper articles If I see something that doesn't add up - google is your friend. I'd call myself a technology optimist. I think new technology can solve old problems. I have some projects coming up I want to get pre/post grad students to work on. I'll pay for kit and they can do the maths and engineering. Nothing too clever as I'm not loaded, but am building some flats which I want to try an experiment for a heating system with. They will still have gas boilers as backup.

TB - just read your latest... CNW Marketing Research. Really - just go and look at the rebuttals. At the time they said "you can't assume a 100,000 life for the Prius". Which given we now have actual history is true. Taxi drivers are buying them in droves as they are cheap enough now. It was another paper written purely with an intent in mind, some clever stats manipulation which doesn't stand scrutiny. That was before people got on to the idea of reusing battery packs in stationary applications too. Or recycling them. Its how the denial industry works. It doesn't matter if its really true or stands scrutiny. Just cast FUD and get people talking about it in the pub, criticising gov and scientists and they have won a battle. The fact you just quoted it several years later show how much value there is in FUD tactics.

Someone else just pointed out you cant compare EVs to ICE by looking at the ICE from tank to wheel. You've got to go back and add in the well to refinery to tanker to petrol station energy use too. When you do that like the do in the JEC reports I posted earlier you see EVs are vastly undercutting ICE.

IF anyone thinks these are wrong - write to the study group and explain why you think your figures are better. As they are proper engineering based scientists not climate scientists, they would be happy to hear what you have to say.

http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about-jec/sites/iet.jr...

To save you time look at ICE on page 31 (acronyms on P17) and EV page 65. (Fuel mix codes on page 66)

ICE 150-250 MJ/km now, 100-180 by 2020.
EV powered by coal about 100MJ/km now, gas about 60-70 nukes or wind 60MJ/km.

So by the end of the decade - ICE energy efficiency will catch up with where EVs are now.

I prefer to measure energy consumption not emissions - as its indisputable energy has an economic benefit. IF we can do the same job using less energy then we can ignore CO2, which would be good for all of us as we can get on with working out if EVSE costs outweigh the benefits of owning an EV. And how best to generate electricity and where to use it. I suppose you can't really ignore CO2 - but lets do just that as the PH consensus if that it doesn't have an effect on climate.

EV Range... well, I wouldn't take an Telsa to the south of France this year, Or Scotland. But next year I would.,

http://www.teslamotors.com/en_GB/supercharger. Click on Europe, then 2015. Call me lazy, but when I'm on holiday the idea of driving more than 200 miles in 1 stint isn't something I entertain. The only exception being the annual trip to Le Mans - where on the way back we sometimes come via the Chunnel. All done in 8 hours. But... the point is, this year nothing to do with EVs we have all said lets take it easy, and get the Monday might ferry back and have Tuesday off work too. So even that would be possible. I do journeys like that only about 5% of my trips. Or 10% of my annual mileage. I do a 150 mile commute on Sunday/Friday at the moment. Plenty for that. And wouldn't need to visit the petrol station ever again. I know from experience the average speed on the 150 mile journey is 50mph +/-10. That's despite being 140 miles of motorway and dual carriage way. It seems most drivers are reluctant to move out of the way once they have reached the national speed limit. I do have a theory the fastest commuter car would be a bright yellow Ferrari or Lambourghini with racing stripes, most people recognise the fact they can go faster than their own car and feel compelled to move out the way, Nissan Micras the exception as their mirrors don't work apparently. Porsches don't seem to do it any more judging by the number of times I've been sat behind one for 40 odd miles.

IF you really want to do 300 miles stints, stop for a fill up and a pee and then get off again, all the way to Italy or Cannes, I'll agree don't use an EV. But this is going to be less than 1% of peoples usage. Avis also rent cars if you cant afford to run a 2nd car, say a 10 year old load lugger like I have. Maybe even a nice DB9, paid for out of the fuel savings on your commuting. I certainly would be considering something along those lines in a few years. I'm toying with the idea of an XFR 4.2 at the mo given I won't be doing that many miles once I get the i3. Think it will be more fun that the 3.0D. The only thing putting me off is resale - how long it may take to sell on later. But £15k for a 3-4 year old 400hp car is a bargain. (see - you can't call me a leftie greenie now!)

Edited by TransverseTight on Thursday 30th October 14:51

TT you appear to be selective with your answers, what about the reduction in tax with EV, the cost of the batteries, the availability of materials for the batteries on a large scale. Thanks

[s2art]

turbobloke said:

PRTVR said:

Along with no answer to the massive amount of tax that is presently collected from that nasty petrol and diesel, that would be lost if we all went EV.

Good point. Is it not already the case that all sorts of exemptions are being wound back, e.g. the tax disc we no longer need and the con(gestion) charge trick, just like subsidies from solar etc? Think so but as I have no wish to own an electric or hybrid vehicle nor to pay the London socialist tax on private transport, it's not my everyday topic of conversation.

This was on file, from a post I offered in one the previous animated discussions on PH concerning electric cars, this time in 2011.

The average coupled steam turbines fed by burning fossil fuel in a power station have an efficiency of just over 40%. Transmission losses in the grid due to resistance and other losses are about 10% so say 90% efficient, and then there are step-up-step-down transformers each about 95% efficient. End-user charging on top has an efficiency of about 95%. Take electric car efficiency as about 85%, the electric motor itself can be 90% efficient at peak but falls to 70% or below at low speed and there are other losses. This puts the overall effiency from power station fuel burning to end user electric car operation as

40% x 90% x 95% x 95% x 95% x 85% ~ 25%

Numbers vary from source to source but the overall postition won't be too different from this, which represents an overall efficiecy of about 25% - using the very best modern 'H-System' power generators with 60% efficiency not that this applies widely takes the final figure up to just below 40% which is less than the best oil burners. A modern efficient petrol engined car can achieve 30% (more typically 25%) and the best diesels about 42% efficiency. Diesel wins and it's a tie with petrol.

If there's an "energetic" person on PH who can update these figures, that would be nice, it may have improved slightly in three years, but the tax gas basis was and still is completely non-existent.

Its possible that its worse now than it was a few years ago. The bigger the share of variable wind and solar, the less efficient the fossil power stations can operate. Its debatable which factor 'wins out' when it comes to CO2 savings.

[s2art]

TT you claim that the 20GW 'reserve' overnight could charge a national fleet, if they were EVs. 20GW seems very low to me. Can you put some numbers to it?

[TransverseTight]

Actually - just been looking at the supercharger map again. It seems by Spring next year it would be possible to do Le Mans via the Chunnel. Stop off before getting to the port on the way down. OR at Calais when you get off. Then somewhere near Rouen. Maybe one of those dots is even Le Mans itself. If not - there's plenty of untapped electric ports on the camp ground we stay at. A trip to Le Roy Merlin if one of the adaptors is wrong and you have a free 13A Charge. Might take a day or 2 to top back up, but we get there on Wednesday.

Thing is I'll have an i3 not a Telsa. And I won't be taking that as it won't fit a full size fridge freezer in the back + cooking and camping gear and food for 8 blokes. Moral of the story is buy vehicles that suit your intended usage profile. I only have 2 at the moment but want to add 2 more. I have the "intercity commuter" (Juke being replaced with i3) and "load lugger" (X-Trail), yet to add "sportyish family car" (XF-S or XFR later a Telsa) and "Sensible Superbike" (Triumph Street Triple).

[hidetheelephants]

TransverseTight said:

LongQ said:

Have they modelled the revised demand patterns that demand managed electricity generation would work to?

More to the point, have they guessed it right?

On top of that have they worked out where the energy based taxation will be distributed when taxes from the fossil product side fade away?

I wouldn't rely too much on your predicted super cheap to fuel and super fast electric car TT. Restricting the power in favour of range or to reduce size and weight will be part of the mainstream movement should the political will and enormous tax driven subsidies pay off. And a few million cars (or properties with storage facilities) being charged every night will soon eliminate the low demand period overnight prices. Moreover there will still be huge investment required for new or replacement plant of one sort or another. Someone will have to fund it once "carbon" based theft tax has been mainly eradicated.

Politics, of course, not science will be the greater influence.

Erm, if they shift the daytime demand so theres no off peak left (which is about 30% of the daytime load that needs to be moved) then the new off peak price would be more than current E7 but less than current peak and the overall price should come down due to better efficiency of plants. My rates are currently 8p off peak/17p peak at home. So it goes up from 1p/mile to 2p/mile compared to tax free unleaded/diesel at 4-5p. Still less than half. And I don't think we'll ever see tax free diesel and unleaded so real rate is 10p+ depending on what size engine you run.

I think this completely misses the fact that electricity generation is for profit in the UK; without wholesale re-regulation or renationalisation by the government the utilities would just start charging a flat rate. No peak, no variation of rate, no incentive to flog (nonexistent)offpeak power cheap.

chris watton said:

Another thing - imagine if we were now living in this EV car utopia TT waxes lyrical about - If we're that close to an energy deficit now, surely if over 60 million EV's were to be plugged into the grid overnight, there would cause problems, wouldn't it? Imagine all of those dirty diesel generators working overtime, to replenish the charge in the batteries!

Idiocracy personified.

The sensible answer would be to start putting much more money into research to improve fission reactors, as the solid fuel and water cooling paradigm(UK gas cooled plants aside) is stuck where it was 40 years ago, and building many of them quickly is not an option due to supply bottlenecks. Bill Gates has expressed support for fast reactor research, but that seems to be as much of a dead end as it was in the 60s/70s/80s; molten salt cooling or molten salt fueled reactors present real potential to reduce costs, increase safety and offer large amounts of high grade process heat with which to synthesise liquid fuels once it's too expensive to make them out of refined dinosaur residue, or desalinate water for the hotter parts of the world.

[don4l]

s2art said:

TT you claim that the 20GW 'reserve' overnight could charge a national fleet, if they were EVs. 20GW seems very low to me. Can you put some numbers to it?

I've just done some very rough figures based on a RAV4 EV.

Assuming an annual distance of 12,000 miles and 1m vehicles, I estimate 125Gw.

If I am anywhere close to beingg correct, then someone hasn't thought this out properly.

[s2art]

don4l said:

s2art said:

TT you claim that the 20GW 'reserve' overnight could charge a national fleet, if they were EVs. 20GW seems very low to me. Can you put some numbers to it?

I've just done some very rough figures based on a RAV4 EV.

Assuming an annual distance of 12,000 miles and 1m vehicles, I estimate 125Gw.

If I am anywhere close to beingg correct, then someone hasn't thought this out properly.

That seems bit high for 1 million vehicles. I guess we are talking about closer to 10 million vehicles though.

What figure did you use for KWh per mile?

[TransverseTight]

PRTVR said:

TT you appear to be selective with your answers, what about the reduction in tax with EV, the cost of the batteries, the availability of materials for the batteries on a large scale. Thanks

LOL. I am supposed to be working. I'm not the UN/EU representative for the Commission on Alternative Vehicles. Though some of my posts might make you think that

Personally I can't see a way for them to tax EVs. Well there is one, you could use the metering info off the EVSE wall box (it's not actually a charger just a fancy plug, the charger is in the car). But if they started taxing the EV use - you'd just plug it into a standard 13Amp. It will still be full by morning. The 32A EVSE I'm getting is just so some days I might get back from work and want to go out again.

What I see as more likely to happen is road usage pricing. IF you get to the point where cars aren't causing pollution, (no not CO2 - particulates and NOx that directly affects humans) but they are adding to congestion, then you need to tax the congestion. I worked at HMRC back in 2005 and they were trialling road usage pricing, but the media got wind of it and it got scrapped as a political hot potato. Too early to implement. I think they are looking at it again but not at pilot stage.

Battery costs I dealt with a few pages back. They are coming down 7% per year. Which put another way means they halve every 10 years. Energy density which affects the weight is increseing 8% a year. Or doubles every 8 years.

All this debate about EVs is based on the fact right now, no they aren't suitable for a lot of people. But no one is forcing you to buy one now. Only the people who are confident they can fit into their lifestyle - and budget, are buying them.

10 years from now the number of people who can afford one won't just double, because battery costs halves, it will be a 100x increase, because they will be at the Ford Focus price point not the S Class price point. In 5 years time 10-20x more people will afford them as the Gen III Telsa and competitors, will be out, in the "compact executive" price point. There's not shortage of people who can afford that looking around on the roads.

Materials for batteries don't appear to have a supply constraint. If you watch the presentation from JD Struble I posted - he covers this, and says lithium supply isn't a limiting factor. Its been production capacity. Thats why they are building the Gigafactoy. Just their 1 factory output in 2020 will be the same as the total from all manufacturers across the world today.

I did fag packet maths and if all cars were to use Telsa batteries they'd need 200 Gigafactories!

I actually think using a small efficient range extender is a good idea. Otherwise everyone will want 100kWh+ pack for the odd trip they do. Better to design something light that you can chuck some burnable fuel into once in a while. Ideally removable. Lotus' omnivore engine looked a nice idea, but I think you can go lighter by sticking to a single fuel type.

For me personally the i3 is the car I've waited well over a decade to become available - as series hybrid. Its the first car that is pure EV drive with a petrol generator. EV benefits with sort of unlimted range with the REX. The Volt was close but they use gears and pulley to power the wheel in low battery and/or high power situations and it coul donly do 40 mile on EV mode. The Prius drove like a blancmange, but the i3, becuase of the carbon fibre is a bit of a hoot. And the regen braking makes it a piece of pie to drive. I'm not that impressed with the looks (going to get the black bits resprayed in body colour) or the REX only mpg (about 40), but right now I think its the best mix of price and performance for an EV on the market. IF you spec up a 120d to the same as a i3, there's £3,000 difference (in favour of the 120d). As a company director it works out much cheaper for me to own the i3, due to corporation tax write down allowances, lower BiK and of course the "fuel" costs. It still has 170hp, but, erm top speed of 93. [holds head in shame]. Still that's fast enough to worry Nissan Micras. At least I won't be losing my license on the M40. The other "faults" I spotted were very sensitve steering at motorway speed (maybe adjustable), and a floaty feeling when cresting a rise in the road. That will be the battery momentum. But cornering, accelerating and regular going over potholes was fine. A Big myth about the skinny wheels having no grip. Their contact patch is the same size as medium low profile 17" rims. They are big wheels just the rubber is along the road rather than across it. To reduce drag.

[TransverseTight]

s2art said:

TT you claim that the 20GW 'reserve' overnight could charge a national fleet, if they were EVs. 20GW seems very low to me. Can you put some numbers to it?

Yeah bear with me. I'm, at work still. I've got a spreadsheet somewhere on my PC at home. Ah I can't help myself I love playing with numbers...

From memory average commute miles is less than 40 miles per day. EVs do about 0.25 - 0.33 kWh / mile.
Note the 40 is actually higher than the average actual 12,000 / 365 as you assume more daily miles will be needed Mon - Fri.
So you need 10 - 13.2 kWh per car per day (on average). Lets assume more people will drive i3s and Leafs than Telsas so 0.25.

And 10 kWh makes the maths easier.

10kWh x 20,000,000 cars = 200,000,000kWh or 200,000MWh or 200GWh.

Ok - I'm out using my memory. You'd need that spare capacity for 10 hours not 7. (200GWh/20GW = 10h)

I think it's because the daily usage isn't actually 40 miles that's average commute, not average daily use (which includes housewives and grandparents).

The other thing looking back at http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ the swing is a bit more than 20GW.

Still that's close enough to what I had at home based on some proper usage numbers (I'm not even sure if there's 20 or 30 million cars now). But thats still nearly EVERY car on EV. I think we'll never get that. ICE will be here for much longer than it would take to add some new Nukes to power the increasing EV Fleet. It's not like everyone on PH is going to go and tell everyone to buy an EV tomorrow, because what TT said makes so much sense.

The advantage of nukes of course is they run flat out 24x7, so you can charge day or night but night will still be cheaper till they sort demand shaving / energy storage. It was the advent of Nukes that first saw the introduction of night time tariffs as they cant turn them down a bit like coal. (Look at the Gridwatch graphs).

Fuel Cells also might (a big might) get in on the act, and maybe, coz it will take 20-30 years to replace all cars on the road, we'll even have cars with onboard fusion reactors with lifetime fuel on board. Not sure how they'd get the power into the wheels though.. they'd need a mini steam turbine to go with it. So ignore that. Silly talk. That 20 or 30 years is also based on an assumption EVs become so compelling all new cars feature some kind of EV tech. When in reality its currently less than 5%. (Inc hybrids). So it's going to take more like 50 years.

I've just dug up an XLS off my dropbox that shows if a theoretical battery costs £10,000 now, in 2020 its £6,470, 2030 £3,131 and 2040 £1,516. I think the i3 battery costs about £12k. So you can see how over time the market will shift. Probably not in any serious market share with years that start 201x. Its between 2020 and 2030 where market transformation will start to kick in. I think beyond 2040 you'll have to have a niche usage profile to need an ICE. I can't really think of any if the battery can do 300+ miles and recharged in less than 10 minutes or be swapped in 60 seconds.

[s2art]

TransverseTight said:

s2art said:

TT you claim that the 20GW 'reserve' overnight could charge a national fleet, if they were EVs. 20GW seems very low to me. Can you put some numbers to it?

Yeah bear with me. I'm, at work still. I've got a spreadsheet somewhere on my PC at home. Ah I can't help myself I love playing with numbers...

From memory average commute miles is less than 40 miles per day. EVs do about 0.25 - 0.33 kWh / mile.
Note the 40 is actually higher than the average actual 12,000 / 365 as you assume more daily miles will be needed Mon - Fri.
So you need 10 - 13.2 kWh per car per day (on average). Lets assume more people will drive i3s and Leafs than Telsas so 0.25.

And 10 kWh makes the maths easier.

10kWh x 20,000,000 cars = 200,000,000kWh or 200,000MWh or 200GWh.

Ok - I'm out using my memory. You'd need that spare capacity for 10 hours not 7. (200GWh/20GW = 10h)

I think it's because the daily usage isn't actually 40 miles that's average commute, not average daily use (which includes housewives and grandparents).

The other thing looking back at http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ the swing is a bit more than 20GW.

Still that's close enough to what I had at home based on some proper usage numbers (I'm not even sure if there's 20 or 30 million cars now). But thats still nearly EVERY car on EV. I think we'll never get that. ICE will be here for much longer than it would take to add some new Nukes to power the increasing EV Fleet. It's not like everyone on PH is going to go and tell everyone to buy an EV tomorrow, because what TT said makes so much sense.

The advantage of nukes of course is they run flat out 24x7, so you can charge day or night but night will still be cheaper till they sort demand shaving / energy storage. It was the advent of Nukes that first saw the introduction of night time tariffs as they cant turn them down a bit like coal. (Look at the Gridwatch graphs).

Fuel Cells also might (a big might) get in on the act, and maybe, coz it will take 20-30 years to replace all cars on the road, we'll even have cars with onboard fusion reactors with lifetime fuel on board. Not sure how they'd get the power into the wheels though.. they'd need a mini steam turbine to go with it. So ignore that. Silly talk. That 20 or 30 years is also based on an assumption EVs become so compelling all new cars feature some kind of EV tech. When in reality its currently less than 5%. (Inc hybrids). So it's going to take more like 50 years.

I've just dug up an XLS off my dropbox that shows if a theoretical battery costs £10,000 now, in 2020 its £6,470, 2030 £3,131 and 2040 £1,516. I think the i3 battery costs about £12k. So you can see how over time the market will shift. Probably not in any serious market share with years that start 201x. Its between 2020 and 2030 where market transformation will start to kick in. I think beyond 2040 you'll have to have a niche usage profile to need an ICE. I can't really think of any if the battery can do 300+ miles and recharged in less than 10 minutes or be swapped in 60 seconds.

OK, but you made some optimistic assumptions there. Mainly that everyone drives a small (fairly light) EV. Most people need something a bit bigger, or would need multiple vehicles which is expensive and awkward to juggle when you need which one. Also your assumption of .25KWh per mile is very low, an i3 might manage it if driven like aunt Mabel, and during the summer in the light. In winter, in the dark you would be lucky to get .4 KWh per mile (even driving like aunt Mabel).
I wouldnt assume anything less than .5 for most people in the real world, with many/most having vehicles at least one size up from an i3. And it could work out more than that, as most people will not drive like aunt Mabel.

[richie99]

The roll out of smart meters would help the thieving so and sos to charge a different tax rate according to what you were using the power for. Charging your evil personal transport - pay extra to replace the lost fuel duty.

[turbobloke]

TransverseTight said:

Its between 2020 and 2030 where market transformation will start to kick in. I think beyond 2040 you'll have to have a niche usage profile to need an ICE. I can't really think of any if the battery can do 300+ miles and recharged in less than 10 minutes or be swapped in 60 seconds.

What's the point of electric cars? The answer to that question has to date revolved around the nonentity of manmade climate change and reduced emissions with windpower and renerqables growing like topsy to allow recharging without fossil fuel burning. Or something like that. As we're now at peak renewables not peak oil or peak car that whole scenario is dreamworld.

On the timescale you speak of, the tax gas myth will be dead and the IPCC long dissolved. The first stab at greenhouse junkscience was from Arrhenius at the turn of the 19th to 20th century, part of the reason there was no traction is that the climate promptly cooled. Arrhenius was a brilliant scientist but quantum molecular spectroscopy wasn't around when his key paper was published in 1896. Callendar had another go and tried to revive the carbon dioxide disaster theme in the late 1930s and again failed to get traction not least because the climate promptly cooled again. Now with solar forcing from both irradiance and eruptivity forcings having peaked in the 1990s, the latest attempt from the IPCC and its disciples is heading the same way after gaining the most traction to date by way of ignorant and gullible politicians and a coincidence of vested interests.

Corporate attention spans are narrow and short-lived, they may not last that long either i.e. through to the 2030s, when subsidies are already drying up in the 2010s. Several electric car companies Obama subsidised with taxpayer funds have sunk. USA electric battery maker A123 Systems received a $249 million taxpayer-funded government loan then announced last year its decision to sell a controlling stake to Wanxiang (Chinese company) for $450 million. Nice bail. Also, lithium-ion battery manufacturer Ener1 Inc received a $119 million taxpayer-funded grant then filed for bankruptcy. Another dead duck is Aptera Motors which has already folded.

Father of the Prius Takeshi Uchiyamada said:

The electric car, after more than 100 years of development and several brief revivals, still is not ready for prime time - and may never be.

White elephant windymills are headed for extinction and will drag the rest down. Nature doesn't read the IPCC's political advocacy reports, and neither do the public even when freezing in homes too expensive to heat. If available in hard copy, they may burn well and generate a bit of heat and certainly more light than hitherto.

[TransverseTight]

wc98 said:

one question,do you work for tesla ?

No but rather than posting about some future nearly here technology I prefer to stick using examples based on what you can go out and buy now.

As far as I am aware Tesla are the only company that make a pure BEV that could be considered as an only car. Not for 100% of people, and becuase of the cost, less than 10%. But over time that figure improves. For a daily driver it works.

Quoting examples about overheating on race tracks doen't help. Would you really go and take a 530d to a track day? With a boot full of sand? At over 2 tonnes the Telsa is the wrong type of car for that use. I'd argue an Aston MArtin / Merc SL isn't even a good car for that. You want a Caterham, X-Bow or Atom type car. None of which are much use at taking the family on a camping trip to the beach.

As well as not being good at track days, equally invalid comparisons would be:
It doesn't have dual pedals.
It doesn't have a front winching point or a locking diff.
It deosn't have room for a bed or fridge.
It can't fit a Rugby Team / School choir in.
It can't deliver 4 tonnes of ready mixed concrete.

[wc98]

TransverseTight said:

No but rather than posting about some future nearly here technology I prefer to stick using examples based on what you can go out and buy now.

As far as I am aware Tesla are the only company that make a pure BEV that could be considered as an only car. Not for 100% of people, and becuase of the cost, less than 10%. But over time that figure improves. For a daily driver it works.

Quoting examples about overheating on race tracks doen't help. Would you really go and take a 530d to a track day? With a boot full of sand? At over 2 tonnes the Telsa is the wrong type of car for that use. I'd argue an Aston MArtin / Merc SL isn't even a good car for that. You want a Caterham, X-Bow or Atom type car. None of which are much use at taking the family on a camping trip to the beach.

As well as not being good at track days, equally invalid comparisons would be:
It doesn't have dual pedals.
It doesn't have a front winching point or a locking diff.
It deosn't have room for a bed or fridge.
It can't fit a Rugby Team / School choir in.
It can't deliver 4 tonnes of ready mixed concrete.

ok,now that is cleared up,why the insistence on ev ? modern hybrid technology appears to be coming on leaps and bounds ,why involve charging from the grid at all ?

[chris watton]

TransverseTight said:

chris watton said:

Another thing - imagine if we were now living in this EV car utopia TT waxes lyrical about - If we're that close to an energy deficit now, surely if over 60 million EV's were to be plugged into the grid overnight, there would cause problems, wouldn't it? Imagine all of those diesel generator working overtime, to replenish the charge in the batteries!

Idiocracy personified.

You speak out of your ass much? ..And another load of waffle....

I think, judging by the length of your posts, you are more than a little obsessed with EV's and your obvious love for them is clouding your judgement. You love them, and that is lovely for you, I am sure. You have to face the facts that many don't, and many can see the flaws - not least what would happen, tax-wise (as with diesel) if they ever became popular. The fact that many company's need state investment (tax payer's money) to make them work speaks volumes - and as TB has mentioned, how many company's have already received millions of $/£, only to go under soon afterwards?

I think the best thing you can do is to drive your EV's, I am guessing with a pretend sense of higher morality than those of us who have no real desire to own one, and face the fact that not all of us share your enthusiasm for such machines.

[Jacobyte]

turbobloke said:

What's the point of electric cars?

To erradicate air pollution from towns and cities. For those that spend most of their time driving around such places it makes complete sense and would be the obvious choice.

But... and it's a big but...

The problem that I have is that in order for people to afford them, massive subsidies and tax breaks are required. In short: I am (and most of you lot are) personally subsidising those people sucking up freebies, with all that cash coming in from levies which are all based on the MMGW lie.

Can I spec a BMW 3 series with an Electric motor? No.
Can I spec a BMW i8 with a 3.0 diesel or 4.0 petrol? No.

If EVs were a viable solution that had to stand on their own two feet commercially, then the answers to these questions would be "Yes". How long will it be before the global manufacturers with hundreds of millions of R&D budget can make the numbers work in the commercial world?

Until that time comes, I would feel like a proper sponge if I were to buy an EV.

[turbobloke]

Jacobyte said:

turbobloke said:

What's the point of electric cars?

To erradicate air pollution from towns and cities. For those that spend most of their time driving around such places it makes complete sense and would be the obvious choice.

Agreed, towns and cities are indeed polluted, by diesel buses. The focus on cars as polluters is misplaced, emissions are almost all water and carbon dioxide, both harmless naturally occurring compounds. We now have Porsche and Saab cars emitting cleaner air than they take in during city driving. Electric buses anyone?

Concern with relatively clean outdoor air is fashionable but indoor air is far worse. Dr Jeff Llewellyn at the gov't Buildings Research Establishment has shown that the air in UK buildings is on average 10 times more polluted than city smog. Amazingly there's no rush to sort this 'problem'.

Jacobyte said:

The problem that I have is that in order for people to afford them, massive subsidies and tax breaks are required. In short: I am (and most of you lot are) personally subsidising those people sucking up freebies, with all that cash coming in from levies which are all based on the MMGW lie.

That we are

Jacobyte said:

If EVs were a viable solution that had to stand on their own two feet commercially, then the answers to these questions would be "Yes". How long will it be before the global manufacturers with hundreds of millions of R&D budget can make the numbers work in the commercial world?

Until that time comes, I would feel like a proper sponge if I were to buy an EV.

Understandable.

Before that time comes the world will move on from the current Age Of Stupid as another PHer aptly coined the present era of madness.

[turbobloke]

US Midterm Elections - Shale Revolution May Sink Obama’s Green Party

The Obama administration and congressional Democrats have struggled to identify themselves with the success of the shale revolution, given the party’s reputation as anti-fossil fuels. If the Democratic Party loses its control of the U.S. Senate following the mid-term elections, a small but significant part of the reason will be because it has found itself on the wrong side of the energy revolution.

John Kemp, Reuters, 27 October 2014

Footnote: the USA Green Blob is spending many tens of millions of dollars to avoid their pointless party being pooped.