Electric vehicles

[jetsetwilly]

Not about total consumption, it's about peak loads and the huge shifts in consumption patterns. Having a small EV as a second car and an interest in data, the car's consumption is off the charts compared to all else, despite working from home, a large garden office/gym and an increasing predilection for large woodworking machinery. The only thing that uses nearly as much power as charging the car is charging the storage - which is another shift in consumption times.

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?

 

[Sachakins]

Technologically impossible.....

Well octopus are already able to distinguish what goes into my car, so not impossible at all.

 

[Sachakins]

Um no...basic economics. If the demand for your product reduces you don't put the price up.

Also altering the price of charging for EVs is simply a few keystrokes.

Erm no, if you sell less, but your manufacturing set costs remain the same, then your nett profit drops rapidly.
Basically the profit on ICE fuel is borne out of mass volume, that profit drops exponentially when you reduce that volume. It quickly becomes non-viable to produce and only way to recoup that loss when volume is falling is to raise prices or cut costs. Cost cutting is unsustainable as already cut so much, so price rise inevitable.
You only have to look what happens when OPEC reduces production, the barrel price of crude rockets.

 

[sploo]

Erm no, if you sell less, but your manufacturing set costs remain the same, then your nett profit drops rapidly.
Basically the profit on ICE fuel is borne out of mass volume, that profit drops exponentially when you reduce that volume. It quickly becomes non-viable to produce and only way to recoup that loss when volume is falling is to raise prices or cut costs. Cost cutting is unsustainable as already cut so much, so price rise inevitable.
You only have to look what happens when OPEC reduces production, the barrel price of crude rockets.

Yep - definitely. If chemical fuels become the oddity then they'll definitely rise in price as a result of (the lack of) economies of scale. Unless that is the various talked about biofuels roll out quickly enough, are sufficiently compatible with current petrol/diesel transportation vehicles and pumps, and whatever required legislation/rules pass to allow them to be used.

I'm broadly "pro" EV, but I do wonder what would happen (from an ecological argument point of view) if carbon neutral biofuels were able to be rolled out in scale within a few years. I suppose they'd have to be massively better than petrol/diesel (in terms of all emissions) to delay/cancel the banning of ICE cars.

 

[Delaney]

You could also use the corollary, that as EV use rises and ICE declines the price of petrol and diesel will rise!

In a fair market, lower demand means lower prices.
Of course the government will instead tax it like smoking so it becomes unaffordable.
You will have to pay for the extraordinary cost of electricity instead.

There is no way that the consumer will get cheaper means. That is not how government works. Of course they wilk tell you it will be cheaper to convince you to do what they want but when you are trapped, they will turn the screw.

The argument regarding costs rising is not born out if the importation if oil is from countries that see no drop in demandand, or if they do, it’s likely they can lower prices as they the have the infrastructure to supply greater amounts than required.
Oil companies do not produce on demand.
Remember when in covid they were paying people to buy fuel? You know why?
Because no one was using it.
Also the technology for oil production is already in use and well understood so cost of production is not bogged down with tge expense in bleeding edge technology like batteries.

It’s not to say I’m right but these factors are worth baring in mind for a counter argument re price.
If oil producers are going to have to compete, putting their prices up whilst loosing market share does not make sense. Usually economy of scale involves the purchasing or raw materials that cannot be bought cheaply due to purchasing power. If you’re standing on the raw material and it’s essentially free, that kinda helps.

 

[Delaney]

I doubt that and there’s a stat in a post earlier that shows how the UK’s electricity consumption has fallen. Are you basing your theory on any hard facts?

You do seem to have a pessimistic outlook on everything.

Perhaps cynical.

I’ve been dreaming about electric cars since I was a child in middle school.
Now the reality is here, I’m not convinced by the acolytes that it makes as much sense as they claim.
Uk emission have gone down but world wide they have gone up.
People who are too optimistic, fail to see obvious problems or choose to overlook them.
I’m happy to point out the problems and hope for the best but I know what the best is a mix of energy systems and some better regulation on combustion engines.
I also know that in times of change, the poor are usually hit the hardest and as we see in London, this is already true.
I don’t want working class women scared to do a night shift for having to take a late night buss home.
And not a single green energy zealot, cares about them.

 

[Spectric]

We need more nuclear power

Look at the Hinkley build, both years behind schedule and billions overspend and still without a license to run. Nuclear can never be classed as green either, the toxic waste fuel cannot be reprocessed in the Uk and eventually you have to babysit it for thousands of years as it decays. Also in the current unstable world they are a very high risk because in effect they are a dirty bomb waiting to happen if someone decides we need a slap.

What we do need to be investing in is tidal, that is ok as long as the moon orbits earth so reliable at present.

 

[Spectric]

It quickly becomes non-viable to produce and only way to recoup that loss when volume is falling is to raise prices or cut costs.

Don't forget the petrochemical products that it also produces, ie asphalt for our roads and chemicals for our tyres.

 

[johnb80]

Well octopus are already able to distinguish what goes into my car, so not impossible at all.

No they dont, they can see 'some' data but it's not reliable, calibrated or can be used.

 

[woodieallen]

Look at the Hinkley build, both years behind schedule and billions overspend and still without a license to run. Nuclear can never be classed as green either, the toxic waste fuel cannot be reprocessed in the Uk and eventually you have to babysit it for thousands of years as it decays. Also in the current unstable world they are a very high risk because in effect they are a dirty bomb waiting to happen if someone decides we need a slap.

What we do need to be investing in is tidal, that is ok as long as the moon orbits earth so reliable at present.

Tidal is fine as a steady background supplyof electricity. Where nuclear beats it hands down is the instant ramp up when a surge of power is needed. We need both.

 

[johnb80]

Look at the Hinkley build, both years behind schedule and billions overspend and still without a license to run. Nuclear can never be classed as green either, the toxic waste fuel cannot be reprocessed in the Uk and eventually you have to babysit it for thousands of years as it decays.

I used to have that kind of belief too. I spent some time working with an old guy in his 80's, 'George'. We were having a brew and a bacon buttie whilst at a model flying event and the subject got round to power generation. I made a similar statement to what you've just said and I couldn't believe Georges response. He was on his feet in an instant and gave me one hell of a lecture about nuclear power. I enquired how he new so much it turned out in his working life he was one of the top Nuclear Physicist in the UK. The salient point was about high level waste, the stuff that take a 1000 years to get to half life, he asked me how of this type waste I thought a nuclear power station generated. I said tons and tons of it. He informed me that a nuclear power station big enough to run the whole of the UK for a year the amount of high level nuclear waste created would fit in a suitcase. His disposal method was fly it towards the sunj where it would eventually vaporise or whatever happens to this stuff at vey high temperatures.

Also in the current unstable world they are a very high risk because in effect they are a dirty bomb waiting to happen if someone decides we need a slap.

So we shouldnt have undersea pipelines, cables and comms either because of potential terrorism? It just needs a secure location until it's departure to the sun.

What we do need to be investing in is tidal, that is ok as long as the moon orbits earth so reliable at present.

Great potential that we never seem to harness.

 

[John Brown]

Tidal is fine as a steady background supplyof electricity. Where nuclear beats it hands down is the instant ramp up when a surge of power is needed. We need both.

I was under the impression that nuclear, in the UK, was run pretty much flat out all the time, and the gas fired generators were ramped up and down to match demand.
I could be wrong - I'm sure someone will come along and tell me so...

 

[brocher]

This is a useful website which I look at from time to time. It shows the current power generation, and as JohnBrown says, it shows that Nuclear is a constant busload, and gas is the fallback for when solar is generating (at night of course and on cloudy bad days!) and also when wind isn't (on windless days of course!). But what it does show is that over the past year some 37% of our electricity has come from renewables. That is a huge energy security PLUS in my view! And should be lauded more than it is! https://grid.iamkate.com/

 

[Sachakins]

No they dont, they can see 'some' data but it's not reliable, calibrated or can be used.

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.

 

[Sachakins]

Don't forget the petrochemical products that it also produces, ie asphalt for our roads and chemicals for our tyres.

Good point, suppose the prices for those items will go up too

 

[Spectric]

His disposal method was fly it towards the sunj where it would eventually vaporise or whatever happens to this stuff at vey high temperatures.

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.

So we shouldnt have undersea pipelines, cables and comms either because of potential terrorism

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.

 

[woodieallen]

I was under the impression that nuclear, in the UK, was run pretty much flat out all the time, and the gas fired generators were ramped up and down to match demand.
I could be wrong - I'm sure someone will come along and tell me so...

Thanks John..you're spot on.

So once we get rid of the gas fired generators as Moron Moribund would have us do, it is night and so no sun, there is no wind.....so how are people going to charge their EV's ?

We need more nuclear. And ramp up gas-fired capability.

 

[woodieallen]

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.

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.

 

[woodieallen]

....


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.

So stick it down a coalmine and concrete it over.

 

[woodieallen]

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.

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