Would you wait 45 minutes when filling up to get it free?

[kambites]

SimonYorkshire said:

Very good for your country. You know we don't have many hydro stations in the UK, Why would EVs be a good idea in the UK then?

If you bother to go back and read this thread rather than discounting every post you don't like, you'd find out.

I do find it slightly ironic that I don't think anyone has ever done so much to convince me of the merits of EVs as you.

[SimonYorkshire]

RobDickinson said:

Yep its all stupid but thats simon for you.

Electricity is a solved problem with a national grid, in every home and also in every petrol station..

we're moving form a model of filling up off site (at petrol stations) all the time to filling up on rare occasions on long trips.

Who wouldnt want a full car every morning? who actually wants to stop for fuel?

For those mega road warriors EVs are currently not the best option, but in 5-10 years they will be fine, 200kWh and very fast charging ( 350kWh etc) will mean you can get about 500 miles range charged in 30min or so

Queue someone who drives 1000 miles a day without at breaks at all...

With just a bit of foresight you should have been able to predict my reply.

Why not wait 5 to 10 years before switching to an EV then? Why restrict yourself to long charge times and crap range if you even only occasionally do a trip longer than your EVs range (i.e. not just any decent length trip but any trip that is far enough away from home that you won't be charging at home)?

Yeh right. I'll bet you as much as you want that in 10 years you won't be driving an EV that has 1000 mile range that can refuel at most service stations in 10 minutes! But if you think they'll improve that much (and the grid will cope too), why not wait until then? What will your current EV be worth if such EVs are made anyway?

[RobDickinson]

SimonYorkshire said:

Very good for your country. You know we don't have many hydro stations in the UK, Why would EVs be a good idea in the UK then?

Right now your electricity is 21% renewable.

http://gridwatch.co.uk/

And thats increasing. Unlike petrol or lpg etc

[RobDickinson]

SimonYorkshire said:

With just a bit of foresight you should have been able to predict my reply.

Why not wait 5 to 10 years before switching to an EV then? Why restrict yourself to long charge times and crap range if you even only occasionally do a trip longer than your EVs range (i.e. not just any decent length trip but any trip that is far enough away from home that you won't be charging at home)?

Yeh right. I'll bet you as much as you want that in 10 years you won't be driving an EV that has 1000 mile range that can refuel at most service stations in 10 minutes! But if you think they'll improve that much (and the grid will cope too), why not wait until then? What will your current EV be worth if such EVs are made anyway?

predicted it was teh crazy , sure I can so that

why not wait? because current EVs meet most peoples transport requirements today. most people travel 20-40 miles a day and can happily recharge overnight or even just once a week. Theres several options of 200km+ range evs on the market today. Recharge times are pretty irrelevant for almost all usages.

In 10 years time yes there will be a 1000 mile range EV option, but it will be more expensive than other options so only a few people will bother. Because hardly anyone would ever need that. Tesla are launching the roadster in 2020 with a 600+ mile range and I can guess an updated model S with 200+ kwh battery will do similar or more.

So basically you are again full of st.

[feef]

SimonYorkshire said:

RobDickinson said:

SimonYorkshire said:

Good comeback JoBlack ;-). How much would it cost RobDickinson to store his own nuclear waste, and would he want to? If not, Rob, where and who do you suggest stores it. Come on Rob you only need to keep it safe for 100000 years.

But to answer Rob's question.. For an LPG tank at home maybe a £2000. Or for a CNG compressor at home (which incidentally would allow an ice car to be run at lower cost per mile than an EV and totally legally) maybe £5000. But the CNG route would take just as long to recharge the ice car at home as an EV takes to charge at home... At least the LPG route would take only minutes to refuel at home and also takes minutes to refuel on forecourts etc.

LPG why would I want that?

As for electricity, all mine is hydro, my country is 90% renewable, 100% nuclear free. So storing my radioactive waste is really really easy.

Very good for your country. You know we don't have many hydro stations in the UK, Why would EVs be a good idea in the UK then?

ITYM in England. Scotland has 145 hydroelectric schemes (including two pumped storage) which accounts for around 12% of Scotland's power, with the larger ones generating in excess of 100MW. Total hydro power in Scotland is around 1500MW

[SimonYorkshire]

RobDickinson said:

SimonYorkshire said:

With just a bit of foresight you should have been able to predict my reply.

Why not wait 5 to 10 years before switching to an EV then? Why restrict yourself to long charge times and crap range if you even only occasionally do a trip longer than your EVs range (i.e. not just any decent length trip but any trip that is far enough away from home that you won't be charging at home)?

Yeh right. I'll bet you as much as you want that in 10 years you won't be driving an EV that has 1000 mile range that can refuel at most service stations in 10 minutes! But if you think they'll improve that much (and the grid will cope too), why not wait until then? What will your current EV be worth if such EVs are made anyway?

predicted it was teh crazy , sure I can so that

why not wait? because current EVs meet most peoples transport requirements today. most people travel 20-40 miles a day and can happily recharge overnight or even just once a week. Theres several options of 200km+ range evs on the market today. Recharge times are pretty irrelevant for almost all usages.

In 10 years time yes there will be a 1000 mile range EV option, but it will be more expensive than other options so only a few people will bother. Because hardly anyone would ever need that. Tesla are launching the roadster in 2020 with a 600+ mile range and I can guess an updated model S with 200+ kwh battery will do similar or more.

So basically you are again full of st.

Why will the 1000 mile range option be much more expensive than lower range options? Is that because in 10 years time you see batteries still to be so expensive, i.e. battery tech not improved to the level you've previously implied will be the norm by then? Why put up with tiny range now if in a few years average range will be so much better, thereby devaluing an EV you might buy today, not forgetting depreciation and devaluation should be factored into cost of ownership?

feef said:

ITYM in England. Scotland has 145 hydroelectric schemes (including two pumped storage) which accounts for around 12% of Scotland's power, with the larger ones generating in excess of 100MW. Total hydro power in Scotland is around 1500MW

12% really? Not according to gridwatch. http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ Which shows that at the moment of my posting this hydro is making 0.39gw (0.81% of UK's demand) and pumped is making 0.3gw (0.63% of UKs demand). Then you can look at the historical info... Also don't forget pumped doesn't actually make any power, it is the only thing we've got that equates to grid storage, energy is used from the grid in times of low electricity prices to pump water uphill, the pumped storage sites then turn into hydro stations (labelled as pumped on gridwatch) to sell electricity back to the grid at times of high electricity prices which is how they make a profit... The pumped stations decide for themselves when they buy and sell so in a sense cannot be counted on to help the grid meet demand.

Edited by SimonYorkshire on Thursday 30th November 16:27

[pherlopolus]

The automotive industry is one where price points can be divorced from the actual cost to produce.

If they can easily produce variants that sell for 22k 24k 26k then they will, even if the cost to build is 15k, 15.2k, 15.4k. Due to the perceived higher value, they will make more margin.

People will decide if they need a higher range car the same way they decide which engine variant the buy today. 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 > > > > 5.7

[rscott]

SimonYorkshire said:

feef said:

ITYM in England. Scotland has 145 hydroelectric schemes (including two pumped storage) which accounts for around 12% of Scotland's power, with the larger ones generating in excess of 100MW. Total hydro power in Scotland is around 1500MW

12% really? Not according to gridwatch. http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ Which shows that at the moment of my posting this hydro is making 0.39gw (0.81% of UK's demand) and pumped is making 0.3gw (0.63% of UKs demand). Then you can look at the historical info... Also don't forget pumped doesn't actually make any power, it is the only thing we've got that equates to grid storage, energy is used from the grid in times of low electricity prices to pump water uphill, the pumped storage sites then turn into hydro stations (labelled as pumped on gridwatch) to sell electricity back to the grid at times of high electricity prices which is how they make a profit... The pumped stations decide for themselves when they buy and sell so in a sense cannot be counted on to help the grid meet demand.

You're comparing consumption across the whole of the UK with hydro production in Scotland.

Try http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Busin... - Figure 3.9. That confirms 11% of the power produced in Scotland is hydro (and another 4% is pumped) .

Figure 3.7 also confirms that over 40% of Scotland's power production is from renewable sources.

[SimonYorkshire]

pherlopolus said:

The automotive industry is one where price points can be divorced from the actual cost to produce.

If they can easily produce variants that sell for 22k 24k 26k then they will, even if the cost to build is 15k, 15.2k, 15.4k. Due to the perceived higher value, they will make more margin.

People will decide if they need a higher range car the same way they decide which engine variant the buy today. 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 > > > > 5.7

And yet you wouldn't want to say batteries will come down massively in price but price of EVs won't... Another interesting angle on what you've said is that people will generally pay more for the 1.6 than for the 1.0 even though (in the same model vehicle) the 1.0 is likely to have more range and cost less to run than the 1.6... but they probably wouldn't do that if range for the 1.6 was abysmal compared to the 1.0 or if the 1.6 took much longer to refuel than the 1.0.

Let's say someone is thinking about spending in the region of £20k on an EV. If they could have one with a battery capable of 300 miles range for £19.5k or one with a battery capable of 1000 mile range for £20.5k, if either battery took the same say 5 hours to charge per 100 miles, which battery do you think they would likely choose and why? I would say the £20.5k model... because although the buyer probably won''t do many 300 mile trips, if/when he does the charge time after 300 miles would be a royal pita, and also because the 1000 mile range model is likely to hold it's value better.

[mat205125]

Yes I would, however my reasons for not driving a Tesla are more fundamental.

1.) I can't afford one new to buy or lease
2.) They're reputed to be feckin expensive to insure
3.) I'm a bit of a luddite that is sceptical of being on the crest of the wave for new technology
4.) I don't believe that the whole lifecycle of an electric car is a sound environmental decision
5.) I wouldn't entertain a used example as they're also very expensive, and I'd be fearful of prohibitively expensive bills down the line.

[SimonYorkshire]

rscott said:

SimonYorkshire said:

feef said:

ITYM in England. Scotland has 145 hydroelectric schemes (including two pumped storage) which accounts for around 12% of Scotland's power, with the larger ones generating in excess of 100MW. Total hydro power in Scotland is around 1500MW

12% really? Not according to gridwatch. http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ Which shows that at the moment of my posting this hydro is making 0.39gw (0.81% of UK's demand) and pumped is making 0.3gw (0.63% of UKs demand). Then you can look at the historical info... Also don't forget pumped doesn't actually make any power, it is the only thing we've got that equates to grid storage, energy is used from the grid in times of low electricity prices to pump water uphill, the pumped storage sites then turn into hydro stations (labelled as pumped on gridwatch) to sell electricity back to the grid at times of high electricity prices which is how they make a profit... The pumped stations decide for themselves when they buy and sell so in a sense cannot be counted on to help the grid meet demand.

You're comparing consumption across the whole of the UK with hydro production in Scotland.

Try http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Busin... - Figure 3.9. That confirms 11% of the power produced in Scotland is hydro (and another 4% is pumped) .

Figure 3.7 also confirms that over 40% of Scotland's power production is from renewable sources.

Where are you looking? I downloaded the spreadsheet, figures prefixed 3.x end at figure 3.34.

But so what if 10% of Scotlands electric does come from hydro? I mean you could narrow your criteria a bit further and say that at the hydro station someone charges some batteries over the wet winter and uses those batteries for lighting and charging phones during the dry summer when there is little hydro power, and then you could claim that somewhere in Scotland there is a place where 100% of electricity comes from hydro power.... but it wouldn't really be saying much would it? Looking at the graphs on Gridwatch, the average amount of electrical power in the UK made from hydro power is about 0.6gw, which is about 1.7%. There's little chance of increasing that really is there (what.. build new self filling reservoirs high in the mountains)? And the percentage is likely to go down if demand increases, like if more people start charging EVs from the grid eh?

But maybe you're saying it is far greener for someone to run an EV in Scotland than in the rest of the UK? That would be true, but then we could say it is far greener to run an EV in Scotland in January or March than during the rest of the year. It is far greener for you to run an EV in New Zealand than it is for someone to run an EV in Scotland or anywhere else in the UK isn't it? Perhaps after Brexit governments will come to some arrangement where UK pays NZ to take some of our nuclear waste. You wouldn't have any problem with that considering how much you seam to like the idea of people in the UK having EVs would you Rrscott? Never mind though, as pro EVers keep saying electricity production is set to get greener.. Yes it is, partly because nuclear fission power stations are considered greener than most other means we have of generating electricity and we are building more nuclear power stations to meet that demand. If wind farms, solar, tidal, hydro could meet that demand it kind of begs the question why we are spending so many £billions building new nuke power stations really doesn't it? Don't you think the answer to that will be because 'renewables' could not meet that demand?

Edited by SimonYorkshire on Thursday 30th November 17:42

[rscott]

SimonYorkshire said:

rscott said:

SimonYorkshire said:

feef said:

ITYM in England. Scotland has 145 hydroelectric schemes (including two pumped storage) which accounts for around 12% of Scotland's power, with the larger ones generating in excess of 100MW. Total hydro power in Scotland is around 1500MW

12% really? Not according to gridwatch. http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ Which shows that at the moment of my posting this hydro is making 0.39gw (0.81% of UK's demand) and pumped is making 0.3gw (0.63% of UKs demand). Then you can look at the historical info... Also don't forget pumped doesn't actually make any power, it is the only thing we've got that equates to grid storage, energy is used from the grid in times of low electricity prices to pump water uphill, the pumped storage sites then turn into hydro stations (labelled as pumped on gridwatch) to sell electricity back to the grid at times of high electricity prices which is how they make a profit... The pumped stations decide for themselves when they buy and sell so in a sense cannot be counted on to help the grid meet demand.

You're comparing consumption across the whole of the UK with hydro production in Scotland.

Try http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Busin... - Figure 3.9. That confirms 11% of the power produced in Scotland is hydro (and another 4% is pumped) .

Figure 3.7 also confirms that over 40% of Scotland's power production is from renewable sources.

Where are you looking? I downloaded the spreadsheet, figures prefixed 3.x end at figure 3.34.

But so what if 10% of Scotlands electric does come from hydro? I mean you could narrow your criteria a bit further and say that at the hydro station someone charges some batteries over the wet winter and uses those batteries for lighting and charging phones during the dry summer when there is little hydro power, and then you could claim that somewhere in Scotland there is a place where 100% of electricity comes from hydro power.... but it wouldn't really be saying much would it? Looking at the graphs on Gridwatch, the average amount of electrical power in the UK made from hydro power is about 0.6gw, which is about 1.7%. There's little chance of increasing that really is there (what.. build new self filling reservoirs high in the mountains)? And the percentage is likely to go down if demand increases, like if more people start charging EVs from the grid eh?

But maybe you're saying it is far greener for someone to run an EV in Scotland than in the rest of the UK? That would be true, but then we could say it is far greener to run an EV in Scotland in January or March than during the rest of the year. It is far greener for you to run an EV in New Zealand than it is for someone to run an EV in Scotland or anywhere else in the UK isn't it? Perhaps after Brexit governments will come to some arrangement where UK pays NZ to take some of our nuclear waste. You wouldn't have any problem with that considering how much you seam to like the idea of people in the UK having EVs would you Rrscott? Never mind though, as pro EVers keep saying electricity production is set to get greener.. Yes it is, partly because nuclear fission power stations are considered greener than most other means we have of generating electricity and we are building more nuclear power stations to meet that demand. If wind farms, solar, tidal, hydro could meet that demand it kind of begs the question why we are spending so many £billions building new nuke power stations really doesn't it? Don't you think the answer to that will be because 'renewables' could not meet that demand?

Edited by SimonYorkshire on Thursday 30th November 17:42

I'm simply pointing out that, as per usual, you're talking complete bks. In this case when you disputed the other poster's statement about the source of much of Scotland's power.

[RobDickinson]

SimonYorkshire said:

And yet you wouldn't want to say batteries will come down massively in price but price of EVs won't... Another interesting angle on what you've said is that people will generally pay more for the 1.6 than for the 1.0 even though (in the same model vehicle) the 1.0 is likely to have more range and cost less to run than the 1.6... but they probably wouldn't do that if range for the 1.6 was abysmal compared to the 1.0 or if the 1.6 took much longer to refuel than the 1.0.

Let's say someone is thinking about spending in the region of £20k on an EV. If they could have one with a battery capable of 300 miles range for £19.5k or one with a battery capable of 1000 mile range for £20.5k, if either battery took the same say 5 hours to charge per 100 miles, which battery do you think they would likely choose and why? I would say the £20.5k model... because although the buyer probably won''t do many 300 mile trips, if/when he does the charge time after 300 miles would be a royal pita, and also because the 1000 mile range model is likely to hold it's value better.

I have literally no idea what point you are trying to make.

[feef]

rscott said:

I'm simply pointing out that, as per usual, you're talking complete bks. In this case when you disputed the other poster's statement about the source of much of Scotland's power.

Also, worth noting that my post was in response to the statement that there aren't many hydroelectric schemes in Britain.

I think 145 in Scotland alone is more than "not many", but that seems to have been ignored by the gasbag (pun intended)

[Ares]

SimonYorkshire said:

In equivalent terms, there are no medium sized EV charging stations... they're all tiny. If a petrol pump can refuel a car for say 400 miles range in 5 minutes, if a medium sized station has only 10 pumps that are all capable of doing that (and they all be of course) then the petrol station can refuel 120 cars an hour for combined range of 48000 miles in an hour. How much would an EV forecourt that could do the equivalent cost? lol. Since an EV with 400 mile range would have a decent sized battery, say 100kwh, to charge up one EV in 5 minutes would need a 1.2megawatt supply to each 'pump', and you'd need 10 pumps, so the site would need a 12megawatt supply. How much would that cost before you even spent a penny building the EV charging station itself?

Edited by SimonYorkshire on Tuesday 28th November 20:29

It's a largely irrelevant comparison though. Plug in and leave your car charging is different from standing next to your car as you refuel it.

With ranges getting ever larger, the number of drivers that will need to recharge mid journey will be minuscule. Those that do will be doing such large distances that they will need/want/bloody should be taking a 30min rest to eat, drink, piss and rest anyway.

[Ares]

SimonYorkshire said:

With just a bit of foresight you should have been able to predict my reply.

Why not wait 5 to 10 years before switching to an EV then? Why restrict yourself to long charge times and crap range if you even only occasionally do a trip longer than your EVs range (i.e. not just any decent length trip but any trip that is far enough away from home that you won't be charging at home)?

Yeh right. I'll bet you as much as you want that in 10 years you won't be driving an EV that has 1000 mile range that can refuel at most service stations in 10 minutes! But if you think they'll improve that much (and the grid will cope too), why not wait until then? What will your current EV be worth if such EVs are made anyway?

Most people will wait 5yrs, how long did it take for man to dump the horse and carriage and move to a car?

But a 300mile range isn't crap. My ICE car seldom does 300miles before a £70 refuel (that I have to find a V-Power station and stand in the freezing cold to refuel)

[feef]

Ares said:

SimonYorkshire said:

In equivalent terms, there are no medium sized EV charging stations... they're all tiny. If a petrol pump can refuel a car for say 400 miles range in 5 minutes, if a medium sized station has only 10 pumps that are all capable of doing that (and they all be of course) then the petrol station can refuel 120 cars an hour for combined range of 48000 miles in an hour. How much would an EV forecourt that could do the equivalent cost? lol. Since an EV with 400 mile range would have a decent sized battery, say 100kwh, to charge up one EV in 5 minutes would need a 1.2megawatt supply to each 'pump', and you'd need 10 pumps, so the site would need a 12megawatt supply. How much would that cost before you even spent a penny building the EV charging station itself?

Edited by SimonYorkshire on Tuesday 28th November 20:29

It's a largely irrelevant comparison though. Plug in and leave your car charging is different from standing next to your car as you refuel it.

With ranges getting ever larger, the number of drivers that will need to recharge mid journey will be minuscule. Those that do will be doing such large distances that they will need/want/bloody should be taking a 30min rest to eat, drink, piss and rest anyway.

I don’t say it’s already getting to that point. The vast majority of my journeys are around town where I live, and into Cambridge or Milton Keynes once a week or so.

The few longer journeys I do would be from here in Cambs up to visit my folks in Scotland, down to the Charente in France in the summer, or out to the Alps in winter. All of those trips can be done with the existing 300mile range from Teslas, and don’t take any longer as I’d be stopping to refuel/recharge, pee, grab a coffee and whatnot anyway.

The only change it would make to my itinerary is that my overnight stop between Reims and Dijon would likely be a hotel with a charger.

[Ares]

feef said:

Ares said:

SimonYorkshire said:

In equivalent terms, there are no medium sized EV charging stations... they're all tiny. If a petrol pump can refuel a car for say 400 miles range in 5 minutes, if a medium sized station has only 10 pumps that are all capable of doing that (and they all be of course) then the petrol station can refuel 120 cars an hour for combined range of 48000 miles in an hour. How much would an EV forecourt that could do the equivalent cost? lol. Since an EV with 400 mile range would have a decent sized battery, say 100kwh, to charge up one EV in 5 minutes would need a 1.2megawatt supply to each 'pump', and you'd need 10 pumps, so the site would need a 12megawatt supply. How much would that cost before you even spent a penny building the EV charging station itself?

Edited by SimonYorkshire on Tuesday 28th November 20:29

It's a largely irrelevant comparison though. Plug in and leave your car charging is different from standing next to your car as you refuel it.

With ranges getting ever larger, the number of drivers that will need to recharge mid journey will be minuscule. Those that do will be doing such large distances that they will need/want/bloody should be taking a 30min rest to eat, drink, piss and rest anyway.

I don’t say it’s already getting to that point. The vast majority of my journeys are around town where I live, and into Cambridge or Milton Keynes once a week or so.

The few longer journeys I do would be from here in Cambs up to visit my folks in Scotland, down to the Charente in France in the summer, or out to the Alps in winter. All of those trips can be done with the existing 300mile range from Teslas, and don’t take any longer as I’d be stopping to refuel/recharge, pee, grab a coffee and whatnot anyway.

The only change it would make to my itinerary is that my overnight stop between Reims and Dijon would likely be a hotel with a charger.

And more and more hotels now have charging facilities, many of them free. And as each year goes by, it will become the norm.

I don't think I know anyone for whom a 300mile EV wouldn't be perfectly fit for purpose.... The desire for one is the real issue!