Electricity Supply

It's a problem they have hit in parts of the US but really only applies on those long journeys when you do need to refuel. Remember that at the moment folk can't fuel an ICE at home so in reality EV users shouldn't need quite the same facilities as one thinks of for ICE.
I have been close to a wait recently.. Telford has 8 superchargers and last time I dropped in there I got on the last free one but 15 min later i was the only car still there.

The US experience is amplified by the fact that early adopters were given free charging (as I have) so tend to top up fully rather than do so at home and pay on own bills. One way to reduce this US has been to institute a parking fee over 80% charge when the charge rate drops. Equally a lot of businesses have adopted charging points for customer convenience.. the slow ones are usually free (OK for a leaf or plug-in prius, little use for my guzzler) and pay points on faster chargers. I understand that Sainsbury in sutton surrey has 32x7KW charge points in their car park? Lidl claim to be putting charge points in slowly and all BP garages are supposed to be installing 150KW chargers from this year. It will be a slow process but then so was the building of petrol stations.

I completely agree with Dave. There are a lot of references in this thread to 'powers that be' etc and not planning for the future - that Britain started to die in the 1980s under 'there is no such thing as society' Thatcher . We have a government whose core (only) policy is to minimise all government planning, regulation, has privatised all public assets even if it makes no sense (like rail). That means there is no real planning for an electric car future from central government - it's all left to the private sector. The likely next PM will take us even further down that route. Leaving the EU will also take us away from the idea of centralised planning and regulation. So we can't blame central government for this - they are just doing what they said they would.

Having said that the EU is one of the major global forces driving EV and purely because the bulk of our cars are built in the EU the UK has no real alternative but to follow. Leaving the EU just means we have no say in the matter.

I do think there are great opportunities for British engineering firms in this area though.

A good few years back we designed a battery pack for a hybrid that utilised a lead acid battery with carbon in the cathode (I think) which essentially created a part battery part supercapacitor. See this research paper, the electronics and battery I designed are on the right in Figure 5:

**LINK**

Separate supercapacitors are currently very good at accepting and delivering charge but the problem is limited voltage. Stacking them in series quickly reduces the capacitance.

I've just thrown in my job so I'll be back down to less than 6000 miles a year driving. I cycle to work in the summer (5 miles each way). Over the years it's changed from a pleasant ride in the country to busy roads and now just plain bl**dy dangerous. Due to road "improvements" there are now long queues of cars in the other direction to me. Cars coming my way can't be bothered to wait so squeeze through leaving a few inches between them and me.

Can't say I've been very successful growing vegetables but I do grow a significant amount of fruit. Economically it's daft to grow, say, carrots when I can buy a large bag for less than a pound. But have you seen the price of rhubarb? Not to mention blueberries and raspberries! I'd rather grow my own along with gooseberries and currants whcih you never see in the shops.

Andrew

The greatest EV uptake in europe is in Norway... not a member of the EU. Globally the largest amount of EV's are US and soon China. That's not to detract from the EU intentions to move to EV but they aren't leading yet. And you donlt have to be in the EU to make the move to EV. Norways success has been down to the level of subsidy and (I think) free recharging en route. The limiting factor for EV production is battery manufacture and what technology method is used.

You are correct on the current, 100A is a 1 hour charge. I really must pay more attention.
There is no renewable or combination of renewables that can provide 24/7/365 supply without storage. Batteries (in "walls" or cars) are not a viable long term solution.
My car comparison was a personal situation, not generic. The diesel estate is still going strong over 4 years later. The cost of an electric would still be more than a diesel for me even for a new lease (at full price).

Robert G8RPI.

Veggie growing has been a nightmare for me too...just had all my brassicas and beans eaten by slugs and weather turned cold so the carrots and parsnip seeds failed. As you say its cheap to buy. I do way better in the greenhouse and half the year have surplusses of salad stuffs.
I still haven't finished eating last years blueberry crop (frozen) and have just finished the currants. I always have a goosegog surplus but sadly the rasps have been overtaken by weeds. Apples, pears, plums in excess but the darned birds get all my cherries and most of my grapes.

Still with cheap fuel for my car it's no sweat to drive 15 miles to Lidl's for the veg.

However you juggle the figures around, the UK apparently uses about 1 million tonnes of petroleum per week for all transport. plus almost another half million for other uses (according to Gov't figures)

Someone will no doubt be able to work out the electrical equivalent, but that sounds like a lot of gigawatts to me

Think I might start breeding horses

Norway is not a good example as most of their power generation is hydro and the cars there are imported, also they had massive incentives to change to EV no doubt funded by fossil fuel. The UK would be in a similar position as we have no large scale battery manufactures or EV car manufacturers.

Back to the electric / IC comparison. Quick wed search gives a Nissan leaf at £318 pm and a Fiat Panda 5 door at £155 PM (including inital payment) Plus £12 pm road tax for the IC car gives a difference of £151 pm. Assumng about 40 MPG thats 0.11 litres per mile at £1.5o per litre (inflation allowance) thats 17p per mile so the Panda can do 880 miles per month (10,000 per year) for "free". Even at a typical mileage payment of 37p is 400 free miles per month (4900 per year) even if the Leaf was charged for free.

Robert G8RPI.

Another issue that will be significant if and when the transport system goes all electric will be how will these vehicles be taxed, currently a colleague of mine who has just bought a new Range Rover, pays £1200 a year road tax whereas a significant number of similarly ice powered vehicles pay £140 per year. One would expect the taxation levels to be equalised which means that we should expect to pay similar amounts, the current system charges the owner according to how polluting their vehicle is, all electric will have to have a differently based taxation scheme. I think we can expect the levels of taxation to go only one way, that is up. Taxation could therefore be used as means of regulating who has access to transport, that would be a form of social regulation because those at the lower end of the social scale would struggle to afford access to vehicles. It will be interesting to see how those in charge “sell” their ideas to us the consumers.

Dave W

The cost figures are unarguable. But...cost per KW battery has dropped from nearly 300US towards100US over the last few years with lighter packs and greater energy density. Doubtless there will be further improvements. Tesla claims (obviously exaggerated and unsubstantiated) that their latest creation is designed for 1,000,000 miles on powertrain and battery pack is rebuildable. Servicing is now claimed not to be at any given interval but only 'when you think something needs doing'. Brake wear is so low that the biggest issue is lack of use of the calipers.

Granted model3 costs 3x a cheap IC to buy and even gets into luxury car tax brackets on road fund licence. My only real joy with my even more outrageously priced one is that now I've got the thing i happily use it for the most unnecessary journeys on free power ( as in drive an extra 10 miles to save £1 on cost of milk) - doubtless it's costing on tyre wear. It is a joy to drive though with the instant power and torque.

I offered before for anyone who wants to come out here to the sticks to play with it .. they really are that good to drive.

Nobody has out together the requirement for adequate electricity generation (by any means) to power all these future EVs and trucks. Please do not just say renewables, frankly the grid will not cope in its present state.

Oh I forgot, our brilliant MPs (of all parties) think smart meters are the answer, best used to determine who to switch off.

Edited By KWIL on 09/06/2019 12:44:20

So here am I with my year 15 Passat with a class 6 engine and only pay £20 tax a year, the carbon output is low and I get maybe in town about 32 mpg.

Needless to say i will not be giving up my diesel very soon. The car is comfortable and the engine has 190 bhp and I have had it upto 124 mph for a few moments.

Furthermore, the possible crash of the electricity supply just as coronation street starts will soon raise a few outcries.

The carriage of heavy goods is going to be a problem, will they have half way battery replacement to get anywhere?

All this without any further development is all pie in the sky and it will come home to roost with quite a bang, I see the deadline for carbon fuel vehicles being pushed back many years. there is no alternative.

One thing is that they say diesel gives micronic particles that are breathed in, ok, the cleaner manufacturer/develeper came up with a cyclone exhaust attachmnet that caught the particles, did it catch, did it hell! Maybe now is the time to come back with it.

The other thing is you cannot price out the pollution, having to pay higher price to enter London only means it goes somewhere else.

Anyone who is interested in the facts around energy production and use and their effects on the climate should read the ebook by Sir David MacKay FRS, former professor in the engineering department at Cambridge University.

**LINK**

Unfortunately the author has died and the book is a little out of date now but the science still works.

Russell

Two entirely separate problems to be solved: Pollution, and energy shortages because fossil fuels are approaching exhaustion.

Even if it were proved conclusively that burning fossil fuels isn't causing climate change, that would alter nothing because carrying on filling up at the pump isn't sustainable. It's a bust. Mankind has to find alternatives.

We've been fortunate to live at a time when coal, oil and natural gas were plentiful and dirt cheap. Maybe that's lulled folk into a false sense it will last forever. Unfortunately fossil fuels are a limited natural resource and demand for them is rising rapidly across the globe when it's improbable that new sources will be found. They aren't renewable - when they're gone they're gone.

Prices are going to rise, and rise, and rise. Who will be driving a petrol car when fuel costs £30 per litre? Difficult to predict when petrol and diesel are going to come unstuck, 15 to 20 years is my guess. In 1990 running out of fossil fuels was at least 50 years off, no problem. Now it's 2019 and the shadow is much, much closer.

Dave

A really good book on energy is "A cubic mile of oil"

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cubic-Mile-Oil-Realities-Averting/dp/0195325540

Not cheap though

There is some free info here http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195325546/

The short term future for cars is clearly hybrids. My peronal vuew of the ideal is an electric drive train with a high efficiency IC engine running at it's peak efficiency load point driving generator. Maybe a tiny gas turbine runnnng on LP or even better hydrogen. Generator only needs to be big enough to give range extension, around te average power used by the car.

Robert G8RPI.

I notice how everyone talks of "fossil fuels".

Crude oil, and to a lesser extent, coal, are not fossil "fuels" per se although you can burn both as they are. They are indeed fossil materials, but are resources for many chemicals as well as fuels. Unfortunately the politicians, Press and campaigners either forget, ignore or frankly, do not know this. Or do know but want us to ignore it.

No-one stops to think, what would really happen when the oil, the greater resource for these, runs out.

Yes, we might have cracked the problem of generating gigantic quantities of electricity, of producing and using hydrogen in a non-polluting way*, etc.

We might have solved or accepted the huge social upsets brought about by it all....

But we have NOT solved the problem of replacing sensibly, the chemical feed-stock from petroleum necessary for a vast array of materials we take for granted, and on which all these absurdly-called "renewable energy" systems rely. And once used, unlike metals, most of these materials cannot be salvaged for re-use. Coal might supply some of these, but not all, but that will run out too, eventually.

Wind turbines? You could use vegetable oil derivatives for their lubrication and hydraulic controls, but what of the synthetic resins used in making their blades, the marine-grade paint protecting their steel columns, insulating the cables, cooling the transformers?

Solar panels? From what are the panels actually made, as well as the opto-sensitive ones?

Electrical distribution; and electrical equipment in homes, businesses, transport, public-services, etc ? Does the world have enough rubber and gutta percha for insulation, and lead for cable-sheathing?

Building? No lead for flashing because that's all gone to make cable sheathing. No PVC window-frames, fascias, rainwater goods, plumbing....

We'd still have metals, which are recoverable... Yes, but these take enormous amounts of heat energy, usually at very high temperatures to process from ore or from scrap; ores are usually nowhere near end-use so need transporting... etc.

And concrete. Oh, another non-recoverable use of enormous amounts of clay, limestone and fuel; and their transport. The most you can do with used concrete is crush it to aggregate and hard-core.

'

Ah yes but it's offset by more local working, working at home thanks to the Internet, etc. Really? THINK! Only a fraction of the whole spread of employment can be carried out by home-based loners for a start. Sitting in your lounge, tapping a keyboard, won't make others' food or your clothes, build their homes, make them better when ill or injured, etc. The most you might do is provide them with passive entertainment while you buy and sell their money for you.

Further, the vast amount of electricity being taken by the increasing rise in modern telecomms - yes including social fora- is itself now being seen as much a problem as the obvious areas like transport and heating buildings. It comes in both diffuse consumption (the home PC, the so-called "mobile" phone) and the prodigious concentrated use by the huge Internet servers.

So we still need transport then. Yes - even if becomes a rare luxury for most people - but see above.

Right, so more isolated communities, less transport. More local manufacturing and food production? Yes, if we still have anyone with the skills to make objects and grow foodstuffs 'cos as we all know, we are officially a so-called "service economy" in which we need plumbers and hairdressers, but no-one actually to make the pipe-fittings and hair-scissors.... Pipe-fittings, err. See above.

'

Also see above re exhaustion of the non-re-useable raw materials for the equipment itself, especially in profligate societies that encourage the "ever-new, always-latest, never-repair" mentality.

'

Pretty bleak outlook then? YES! Whatever people like that naive Swedish girl tell equally naive politicians who can't see what's wrong in catch-phrases like "zero carbon", "renewable energy" and "saving the planet"; bleak indeed because such naivety shows THEY DO NOT THINK.

The foremost problem at present IS of pollution and waste, but that is NOT the only one at all.

All right, do I have the answers? I can suggest only partial solutions at best, partly implicit in some of my remarks above, but many of those paid to understand it seem not to do even that. They ignore the scientists and engineers who do think, when it's easier to hide behind comfortable catch-phrases, pat answers and quick results.

'

* Burning hydrogen in air as some suggest doing, produces no CO2, but still produced nitrous oxides.

Farmboy,

You could easily do the sums from internet facts! Petroleum transport will be virtually all car usage. Petrol car engines are not much better than 25% efficiency - the very rough rule of thumb for any engine is 1/3 out the exhaust, 1/3 through the radiator and 1/3 useful mechanical energy. Diesel is more thermodynamically efficient than petrol fuel (simply higher compression ratio, for a start).

Now look at electrical generation. Coal - a bit over 40%? Natural gas combined cycle - about 60%. Renewable energy - no fuel cost for the generated power (ignore those that want to include manufacturing costs as they are just a red herring tactic!)

Anyone should be able to clearly understand that the electric battery vehicle (even with charge/discharge efficiency losses) is streets ahead of any liquid fuel car as regards efficiency of the energy source.

That simply means that 1 million tonnes of petroleum fuel could be replaced with 660 thousand tonnes (or likely far less) if used efficiently. The only advantage of a liquid fuel is portability, as I see it.

That equates to about an extra 20% electricity generation. Easily accommodated for most of the year with extra night-time generation. This is not considering commercial vehicles, of course, but you should be able to understand the simple facts.

People worry about too many non-issues. Another ten years will see much of these ‘potential issues’ addressed and confined to the non-event box. Those that will want to charge their vehicles at peak demand periods will be lining the pockets of the more savvy vehicle-to-grid BEV owners who supply these people with really high unit costs, then recharge their own batteries at off-peak rates.

They also only have a population of 5.2 million in an area 3 times as large as England, which makes a big difference. London is about 8.2million

The ultimate answer is that clearly we will need a Planet B, and Mars at the moment doesn't quite look like it; so we'll need FTL travel at some point even to begin exploring.