Electric vehicles

[Sachakins]

Are you sure that that isn't just a feature of a gizmo in your home doing the clever bit ? Nothing at all to do with 'phoning home' to Octopus.

Yep, sure am.

 

[Spectric]

So stick it down a coalmine and concrete it over.

What about the groundwater, we don't want radioactive isotopes in our drinking water.

When there is no wind and no sun then where do we get our power from

Tidal is what is needed, or maybe we just plug in our EV !

 

[Sachakins]

What about the groundwater, we don't want radioactive isotopes in our drinking water.


Tidal is what is needed, or maybe we just plug in our EV !

Ev plug in is called V2G and V2H. And been successfully trialed. But the charger is a few grand and only limited vehicles work.

 

[John Brown]

Whatever happened to the idea for distributed small scale nuclear?

 

[Blackswanwood]

Are you sure that that isn't just a feature of a gizmo in your home doing the clever bit ? Nothing at all to do with 'phoning home' to Octopus.

Not sure why you’re keeping on digging with this one. Putting aside whether it’s a good idea your assertion that what Sachakins suggested “does not technologically work” is wrong.

Octopus can communicate with the car to switch charging on and off. They know how much electricity has been used per charge.

It’s okay to admit you were wrong.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Currently gas has to fill in the gaps in wind generation. Green energy will only be capable of 100% generation when storage is available sufficient to meet fluctuations in green output.

EVs could be part of the solution. That it is currently complex or costly is an immediate. not permanent, barrier. It becomes feasible as the population of EVs increases. Given EV sales plans this is likely 10-15 years away - plenty of time to make the technology work cost effectively.

Other options to balance variable green supply with demand may include other storage methods, hydrogen generation when there is surplus energy, selective demand management, etc. Nuclear is required to deliver a minimum base load.

This is not a "pie in the sky" fantasy - although there are risks. The transition to "net zero" is going to take 20+ years. Self evident points needed to be made:

• assuming that the next two decades will see material progress in cheaper, high capacity storage is reasonable.
• back up will still be required until a storage and demand management solution is proven.
• much current plant will be available until ~2050
• material gas investment will not be required - gas will fall as green energy increases.
• current gas plant should only be decommissioned at the end of its design life (25-40 years)

 

[johnb80]

Well, that charging history I can see must be my hallucination.
And is it pixie dust that they know when to start charge, when my car reaches the chargev% I want it at and then to stop it.
Oh and when they do it outside cheap rate, how can they only charge me night rate when the rest is day rate.

They can see some data but they cannot use it for invoicing, yes they can discount with it but they couldn't charge a premium for it. If for example the government changed the VAT rules for EV charging only this data could not be used for this purpose.

Sarcasm not needed really, people do mis understand the third party data collected.

 

[johnb80]

That has been discussed before as a disposal method but the other question is what happens if the rocket gets to say 40,000 ft and explodes due to some failure, it has happened and then you have radioactive fallout raining down.

When you build windturbines, solar farms or maybe a tidal plant you have low running cost which is essentially maintenance and repairs. With nuclear the cost is not only much higher but ongoing because you have 24 / 7 security delivered by the civil nuclear police, all people working at the plant have security clearance which is another ongoing cost, then you have a whole raft of site license conditions that must be fully met which covers things like maintenance, operations and the "safety case" which is also a massive ongoing cost. That document is classed as a live document and always has to reflect the current status of the plant and the process of keeping this document upto date is astronomical and will also be a major cost for Hinkley because it is used to prove to the regulators that the plant meets all safety guidelines in terms of operations, maintenance, testing, personel training and emergency measures.

As an idea of cost, if a plant used a component X when it was built in say 1980 and that component has a direct bearing on safety then if it becomes obsolete then the only way to use a different component is to update the safety case. You cannot replace it with something else even if it is functionally identical and often it is more cost effective to get the original component re-manufactured even though you know the newer component is not only functionaly identical but uses better and more reliable technology.


The issue is the potential hazzard to the people of the UK, destroy a pipe or cut some cable is not the same as showering the UK in radioactive dust.

Yep, all valid points and I agree.

On my doorstep the UK's first experimental Nuclear Fusion plant is being constructed. Fusion will be a good solution IF they can get it to work correctly, no radioactivity at all and loads of energy.

 

[johnb80]

Are you sure that that isn't just a feature of a gizmo in your home doing the clever bit ? Nothing at all to do with 'phoning home' to Octopus.

EVSE (wallboxes) and EV's that are approved for use with Intelligent Octopus GO have an API that can be accessed by Octopus. They can adjust mode of operation - charge, charge stop etc. They can see data from the box relating to voltage and charge current and thereby give you some data as a guestimate of energy put out to the car. If it's the EV data they can see % charge too. This data however is not calibrated with sufficient accuracy for billing purposes and is not approved as such.

 

[johnb80]

Not sure why you’re keeping on digging with this one. Putting aside whether it’s a good idea your assertion that what Sachakins suggested “does not technologically work” is wrong.

And thats not what was said.

Octopus can communicate with the car to switch charging on and off. They know how much electricity has been used per charge.

Octopus can communicate with SOME cars not all and can stop and start charging as required. They can also communicate with SOME wallboxes and control them in the same way. They do receive data but it cant be used for billing purposes because the devices measuring are not calibrated or approved.

It’s okay to admit you were wrong.

Agreed, go ahead, admit it!

 

[johnb80]

Currently gas has to fill in the gaps in wind generation. Green energy will only be capable of 100% generation when storage is available sufficient to meet fluctuations in green output.

Very true, we have a massive solar farm being constructed here in Lincolnshire and they have now included a massive battery system too. A great project which I did support during meetings which lots of locals objected to.

Other options to balance variable green supply with demand may include other storage methods, hydrogen generation when there is surplus energy,

The problem with Hydrogen is it's only 30% efficient, you only get 30% of power out that you put in to harvest the Hydrogen to start with.

This is not a "pie in the sky" fantasy - although there are risks. The transition to "net zero" is going to take 20+ years. Self evident points needed to be made:

• assuming that the next two decades will see material progress in cheaper, high capacity storage is reasonable.
• back up will still be required until a storage and demand management solution is proven.
• much current plant will be available until ~2050
• material gas investment will not be required - gas will fall as green energy increases.
• current gas plant should only be decommissioned at the end of its design life (25-40 years)

Yep, totally agree.

 

[Chris Puttick]

If I understood your point, it's that charging an EV and your home battery dominates your draw from the grid, and that they represent a shift in consumption times (presumably to off-peak time). Isn't that shift a good thing for grid management? Right now there's usually a surplus at night, but in future it might occur on sunny days, or during North Sea storms, or big tides, or periods of heavy rain. Having some storage in the grid, and some flexible draw (you need lights when you need 'em, but you're fine with charging your batteries whenever it's cheap) surely means those peaks and troughs can be flattened a bit?

It's a good thing for us now, because we get cheaper electricity. But as more people get EVs, and more people get storage, and more people get heat pumps, off peak will stop being off peak so our costs will rise. Battery users can shift recharge to other times, EV users (the ones who need to use a vehicle) probably can't. Surplus grid power will disappear, except during sunny days or other exceptional events, so reduced cost power will be rarer, mostly not as cheap and only available to people with "smart" (power supplier controlled) charging on their storage.

Recommendation: get a lot more storage and if you have the capacity, more PV. And only run one EV. And laugh at large scale solar farms in the meantime.

 

[Spectric]

the UK's first experimental Nuclear Fusion plant

They have been researching nuclear fusion for more than seventy years, spliting an atom is much easier than trying to catch one and join it to another.

 

[selectortone]

Whatever happened to the idea for distributed small scale nuclear?

Currently not economically viable, but Rolls-Royce and others are working on that. If the technology can power a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier safely to more than 30 knots there must be something to it.

 

[John Brown]

They have been researching nuclear fusion for more than seventy years, spliting an atom is much easier than trying to catch one and join it to another.

Joining two atoms together is fairly easy, as I recall.

 

[selectortone]

Remind me, please, Spectric. When there is no wind and no sun then where do we get our power from ?

Yes, it's a shame nobody's working on that. (/sarcasm)

 

[johnb80]

They have been researching nuclear fusion for more than seventy years, spliting an atom is much easier than trying to catch one and join it to another.

They have indeed and until early 2023 it was unsustainable reaction and needed more energy in than came out. That has all changed now, reactions of several seconds are sustainable and more energy comes out than goes in to the process. I have to take my hat off to the scientists that develop these things, it's absolutely amazing in my book.

 

[johnb80]

Currently not economically viable, but Rolls-Royce and others are working on that. If the technology can power a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier safely to more than 30 knots there must be something to it.

Theres a video on Youtube somewhere of an American modular power station that could be transported by half a dozen lorries or so and provided a substantial amount of power from it's nuclear reactor, this was all back in 1962, surely we can do better by now?

 

[Blackswanwood]

And thats not what was said.


Octopus can communicate with SOME cars not all and can stop and start charging as required. They can also communicate with SOME wallboxes and control them in the same way. They do receive data but it cant be used for billing purposes because the devices measuring are not calibrated or approved.

Agreed, go ahead, admit it!

What was said is

Technologically impossible

You’ve confirmed in your explanation that the technology does exist to arrive at how much electricity is being used. It’s a separate point as to how current regulations say it can be used.

It’s clearly not technologically impossible - such a statement implies technology will not advance - but as I eluded to in my post that may not mean it’s viable or the best solution.

 

[jetsetwilly]

I

It's a good thing for us now, because we get cheaper electricity. But as more people get EVs, and more people get storage, and more people get heat pumps, off peak will stop being off peak so our costs will rise. Battery users can shift recharge to other times, EV users (the ones who need to use a vehicle) probably can't. Surplus grid power will disappear, except during sunny days or other exceptional events, so reduced cost power will be rarer, mostly not as cheap and only available to people with "smart" (power supplier controlled) charging on their storage.

Recommendation: get a lot more storage and if you have the capacity, more PV. And only run one EV. And laugh at large scale solar farms in the meantime.

guess I wasn’t really thinking in terms of winners and losers, more in terms of reliable cost effective energy production. Off-peak tariffs are a tool to flatten the distribution of load. If the load distribution flattens by other means then yes, cheaper off-peak tariffs will disappear because there will be no peak to be off