Electric vehicles

[Bodgers]

.... What they are planning is smart meters that measure and charge in half hour intervals throughout the 24 hours, linked to the price and availability of power. ....

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

For the most part, yes.

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

As general comment to some of the objects raised on this thread and on the "whataboutisms" that you see around the internet - you aren't the first one to think of these sorts of issues. Engineers around the world have been thinking and planning for a long time about things like vehicle to grid, infrastructure to vehicle, long term battery management, battery recycling, complete vehicle lifetime emissions, rapid charging infrastructure etc.

 

[Droogs]

In future, I would think you will have to register your specific home electric vehicle supply equipment ( EVSE) with your respective energy supplier as it will "talk" to them and they will then offer you the appropriate rate in your contract.

 

[Bodgers]

In future, I would think you will have to register your specific home electric vehicle supply equipment ( EVSE) with your respective energy supplier as it will "talk" to them and they will then offer you the appropriate rate in your contract.

Octopus just do the off peak metering via a smart meter at the moment.

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





Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Yet more numbers by someone who has looked into the power generation issue. He claims:

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

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

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

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

 

[Cheshirechappie]

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

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

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

 

[Trainee neophyte]

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

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

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

Greenhouses have CO2 levels boosted up to about 1,000ppm, and a good two hour meeting with Human Resources can see levels as high as 5,000 ppm. (Actually any room with a group of people trapped in it will do - it isn't only HR that blows lots of hot air).

Final thought for the day: the UK is looking to impoverish its people by an unspecified amount, by changing their energy source from concentrated, cheap and efficient fossil fuels to an expensive, hard to harvest, difficult to distribute energy source, all because of Climate Change™. India and China, on the other hand, are building coal powered generating stations hand over fist. The UK's contribution to CO2 is irrelevant compared to 2+ billion people going through their industrial revolution, so the only possible outcome is the same climate change regardless of UK behaviour, but UK citizens will be materially poorer.

Makes you think, doesn't it...

 

[Sheffield Tony]

We will have a long way to go to be materially poorer than most of those people in India and China though.

And remember that a lot of that pollution in India and China is created on our behalf in the process of making the tut we in the West buy. We have effectively subcontracted our pollution to them.

And yes, CO2 promotes plant growth. When we've released all that trapped in coal, we will have the climate of the Carboniferous era back. Tree ferns will do really well. Humans, maybe not so.

 

[RogerS]

Yet more numbers by someone who has looked into the power generation issue. He claims:

...

Absolute BS in his numbers. His average mileage per year is double what it actually is. I didn't bother looking at the rest.

 

[Bodgers]

Yet more numbers by someone who has looked into the power generation issue. He claims:

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

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

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

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

Who is “he”? They look like fossil fuel industry experts...
These are not the numbers that the National Grid are showing - and they are running the grid.

https://theenergyst.com/millions-electr ... onal-grid/

National Grid are actually encouraging the take up of EVs. If they had any private concerns, I doubt they’d be encouraging it,

 

[RogerS]

Yet more numbers by someone who has looked into the power generation issue. He claims:

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

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

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

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

Who is “he”? They look like fossil fuel industry experts...
These are not the numbers that the National Grid are showing - and they are running the grid.

https://theenergyst.com/millions-electr ... onal-grid/

National Grid are actually encouraging the take up of EVs. If they had any private concerns, I doubt they’d be encouraging it,

Maybe the geezer was confused using his Sinclair calculator with one needing RPN input ?

One thing is for sure. £100 BN on HS2 or £100 BN on a UK-wide charging network? I know which one benefits the UK as a whole by about a Google-percent.

 

[John Brown]

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

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

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

It's because radio waves don't propagate as well through CO2, so all the BBC would have to up their transmission power.
Obvious, I'd have thought.
Or maybe it's just total b*ll*cks, as it doesn't really matter how much faster plants grow, if most of the planet is under water.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Yet more numbers by someone who has looked into the power generation issue. He claims:

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

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

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

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

Who is “he”? They look like fossil fuel industry experts...
These are not the numbers that the National Grid are showing - and they are running the grid.

https://theenergyst.com/millions-electr ... onal-grid/

National Grid are actually encouraging the take up of EVs. If they had any private concerns, I doubt they’d be encouraging it,

Maybe the geezer was confused using his Sinclair calculator with one needing RPN input ?

One thing is for sure. £100 BN on HS2 or £100 BN on a UK-wide charging network? I know which one benefits the UK as a whole by about a Google-percent.

From the nice people at the RAC, total petrol sales for the year 2018 was 47.1 billion litres. Diesel 30.5 billion litres. Now, the bit that may have tripped me up previously was the assumption that however many kilowatt-hours in that fuel would be needed to be generated for the electric cars, but ICE cars throw away about 70% of the energy as heat and cooling the system, whereas electric cars are 90% efficient. Here's a fun quote com Elon Musk:

Elon: “Exactly. Chris has a nice way of saying it which is, you have enough electricity to power all the cars in the country if you stop refining gasoline. You take an average of 5 kilowatt hours to refine gasoline, something like the Model S can go 20 miles on 5 kilowatt hours. You basically have the energy needed to power electric vehicles if you stop refining.”

Panic over guys! We can all buy electric cars and save the world, and still have change left over to buy lunch! Who said TANSTAAFL?

For my next trick, I'm going to convert my aged pickup truck. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Geoff_S]

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

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

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

It's because radio waves don't propagate as well through CO2, so all the BBC would have to up their transmission power.
Obvious, I'd have thought.
Or maybe it's just total b*ll*cks, as it doesn't really matter how much faster plants grow, if most of the planet is under water.

But we won't be under water because all of the plants will suck it up!

 

[RogerS]

I've been laid up in bed with food poisoning.....well, the bedroom is closer to the khazi and so I might as well be comfortable. Been looking at house batteries...just can't see the economics. Prices are insane. And that's without the cost of solar panels. Selling it back to the grid at night ? How much are they going to get paid for it then ? They're already discounting the electricity price that they're charging customers.

Then there was a throwaway comment about repeatedly recharging back up to 100% from 80% would radically shorten the life of the battery. That battery life was, at best 8-10 years. So the value of the secondhand market looks like zilch if you buy one then.

All sounds to me a bit like a gigantic con/Ponzi scheme/Emperor's New Clothes/all three.

 

[jeremyduncombe]

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

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

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

That is partly true. Increased CO2 concentrations will give an initial boost to plant growth, and so do increasing temperatures. However, when average temperatures pass a certain point, a plant’s ability to absorb and use carbon dioxide reduces. If we all accept that increasing atmospheric CO2 ( whether manmade or not ) eventually leads to global warming, we will sooner or later reach a point when plant growth slows sharply and CO2 levels therefore increase ever faster. I don’t know when or whether we will get to that point - but maybe it would be better not to find out the hard way.

 

[jeremyduncombe]

Yet more numbers by someone who has looked into the power generation issue. He claims:

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

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

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

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

The latest statistics show annual car mileage in the UK is around 7,600 miles, that is a little over half the figures quoted on that chart. That would give us additional infrastructure costs in the UK of say 80 billion US dollars or thereabouts. That is rather less than HS2 is likely to cost, and surely an investment worth making. My concern is not whether it is worth doing, more that on past experience predicted costs of 80 billion are likely to balloon to 300 billion before we are finished.

 

[RogerS]

Why do I picture two images...??

Private Fraser "We're doomed....we're doomed"

Corporal Jones "Don't panic....don't panic"

 

[jeremyduncombe]

I am continuing to enjoy this thread and the wide variety of opinions people have expressed. The arguments have tended to focus on whether an individual will be financially better of by buying an EV, whether the UK can develop the necessary infrastructure quickly enough, and whether it is worth bothering when other countries are continuing to increase their CO2 emissions.
All other things being equal, EVs have one big point in their favour - there are no emissions at the point of use. I drive a diesel car so I am as guilty as everyone else, but I am sick of breathing filthy exhaust fumes in every town and village. No good of course if we just shift the air pollution elsewhere, but surely a factor if we really can build an adequate electricity generating system based on renewables. I was pretty cynical about renewable power when it all started a few years ago. I am getting close to having to eat my words.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

That is partly true. Increased CO2 concentrations will give an initial boost to plant growth, and so do increasing temperatures. However, when average temperatures pass a certain point, a plant’s ability to absorb and use carbon dioxide reduces. If we all accept that increasing atmospheric CO2 ( whether manmade or not ) eventually leads to global warming, we will sooner or later reach a point when plant growth slows sharply and CO2 levels therefore increase ever faster. I don’t know when or whether we will get to that point - but maybe it would be better not to find out the hard way.

That's interesting. Would you be kind enough to provide a link or two, or indicate at what temperature a plant's ability to absorb carbon dioxide reduces, and by how much it's ability to absorb reduces? Does this happen at one or two degrees centigrade above current temperatures (which seems rather improbable, given that most plants grow better in summer conditions than winter ones), or at tens of degrees centigrade above (which even the most alarmist forecasts of global warming fall short of)?

 

[Trevanion]

Anyone see Top Gear tonight?

Jesus that Volkswagen IDR could shift! Seriously impressive stuff.

[youtube]dgwml_jW5LQ[/youtube]