Electricity Supply

David's missed that chargers can be smart and able to communicate. Chargers needn't be dumb devices that ignorantly pull power without permission and blow fuses.

Rather simple to implement the following:

• User connects car to charger.
• Charger texts local substation; can I have 32A?
• Substation replies 'Yes', but the answer might be qualified: take a controlled amount between zero and 32A until I tell you different. (The substation controls the load, not car owners.)
• Substations can be connected in the same way, asking permission before allowing power to be drawn from the network and able to respond to 'reduce load' commands.

The same system can be used to control customer behaviour by communicating tariff changes. The consumer could plug his car in and select 'Pay top rate for guaranteed high-speed charging', or 'Only charge when electricity is cheap', ie when the network is lightly loaded.

Also quite easy for the charger to bill to whoever owns the car, not necessarily the householder, so that any car can be plugged into any charger.

The technology needed to do all this is straightforward. Compared with the complexity of the Internet it's a doddle.

Of course there will be changes to the network as well, but pylons, digging trenches, laying wires, installing meters and switchgear etc is hardly rocket-science.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 11/06/2019 09:31:32

Hi David Bingham . At last some one gets the point I was trying to get across. Regarding smart meters, one can imagine the following, "Can't get to work today boss because they disconnected me and the car isn't charged."

Edited By Anthony Knights on 11/06/2019 09:42:24

It has already been announced that EV charging points installed using the Government grant will have to be “smart” from July (U.K.).

link.

Charging points

That excuse very likely, true or not.

But OK, if Electricity isn't the answer, what are the other alternatives. Remember we are talking about a world in which oil and diesel are far more expensive than they are today because demand has outstripped supply. Continuing as we are today isn't an option in the long-run.

How about horses?

One or two disadvantages. Ideally to own a horse, you need a few acres of grazing land and a stable able to hold several tons of forage. They drink water by the gallon and poo where they like. They get ill and some of them are bonkers. Easy to steal. Most of us don't have horsey skills. Horses are too expensive for most people to own privately and flat dwellers can forget it. My modest semi-detached could accommodate a couple of electric cars, but not a horse, let alone two. To feed the horses large quantities of agricultural land will have to be taken out of food production - meat, milk grain etc. Nonetheless horses are a well-tried system, used practically since the dawn of time.

People who couldn't afford horses went for these, also very practical and still popular:

Despite their disadvantages, electric vehicles look best bet to me. If you don't like electric what do you suggest instead?

Dave

It is so easy to say we need this that or the other but who pays for all these changes …………...the consumer one way or the other.

Yes, but....

Your fear of this happening is just that - your fear.

It is not going to happen. There will not be 30 million fully electric cars on the roads for years to come - if ever.

If there are, there will be safeguards for the supply system. Let reality kick in, rather than burying your head in the sand, worrying about things that are not going to happen. The time of BEVs with too small range has already passed. No more excuse - apart from those that can’t organise themselves , or want an excuse to have a day off - than there is nowadays.

Your arguments are unfounded and inaccurate at the very least. Right from your first post.

It doesn’t take 30 years to change transformers in sub-stations. Yes, it would cost a lot. But it can be done.

If you have an engineering problem you haven't got a problem. If the physics doesn't forbid it you can solve it. You invariably find the barrier to the solution is political or financial not engineering.

regards Martin

This talk of "smart chargers" reminds me of the 13 x 9 Wind Tunnel at Brooklands. The operator had to phone the electricity co. for permission to start. The speed meter on the console was overlayed with masking tape segments showing how fast it could be wound up depending on the time of the year. Same issue different scale. That was a 2200HP motor with a 11kV feed into a Ward Leonard speed control system.

It seems the consensus is that electric cars will replace ice vehicles eventually but will take some time to complete, I believe that the total number of vehicles will end up being considerably smaller for reasons already argued, this will impact on a sector of the population who will by circumstance and finance be excluded from EV ownership, this will accentuate social division and we just need to look at our society to see that real poverty is increasing and importantly not being tackled. I think our future society will not be as harmonious as we would wish it to be.

Dave W

Or maybe more harmonious if many of us travel together by public transport. ?

regards Martin

.

My experience of regular commuting on public transport is limited to 2004-5, when I was contracting at Longbenton and using the Tyne & Wear Metro

It was an horrific experience: The 'Metrocars' were dirty and overcrowded with the most foul-mouthed schoolkids that I have ever heard.

MichaelG.

.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyne_and_Wear_Metro

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 11/06/2019 15:22:46

I don't doubt it was Michael, but there is no law that says it must be.

regards Martin

We live in hope, Martin ... but the schoolkids mentioned in my edit are the generation that will be running the country.

MichaelG.

Yes, well someone has to be optimistic.

:0)

Isn't the real source of the problem leading to global warming not the source of the energy used by each person, but the rapid growth in world population since the beginning of the 20th century?

Russell

Social division due to not having an EV? Actually 30% of English households do not have a car and it's not the end of the world for them. Also 30% have 2 so if they cut to one the actual numbers of cars necessary is much lower than some of the scare mongering assumes.
We could just change our lifestyle a bit to what it was in our youth. My parents selected the house I am writing from in a village with only a school bus service. Few villagers had cars and the farm next door no tractor just a horse but that meant the village could support a shop and post office. My father worked abroad but my mother coped without car until I was 5 years old. It was normal.

The much bigger problem is central heating which uses about 30% of all energy in the uk with people unnecessarily heating too much of their house.

Russell is correct however, the real problem that the politicians don't want to mention is the massive overpopulation. Any one who has more than 2 children is voting for global destruction and should be heavily penalised. 2 children is only stabilising the disaster so still needs penalties. I child is helping to improve things and we need some replacements so should be break even and no children should be rewarded.

It is indeed,Russell, but it is perhaps the hardest problem to crack, both socially and politically.

Not only that, but we cannot possibly blame all those many millions living in what we could regard as very poor conditions, for all wanting even some of what we take for granted.

'

Much of this thread has concentrated, understandable, on the engineering to solve the looming difficulties; but we also need political and social will; with real thought of all the implications, not just pleasing campaigners or election success; AND all of that to be backed not by semi-literate slogans but by genuine scientific and engineering understanding, even if a fairly basic, lay level.

The "school-kids" Michael says will be running the country, will hopefully have grown out of choosing to be no more than foul-mouthed brats; but more to the point will they actually have had any technical education worth the name?

Sadly not even that is true. Longevity means 2 kids is really 3 kids and even then it's not simply population numbers, it's the rampant consumerism and throw-away society and air-travel etc. You'ld probably do better on saving energy by vanishing the populations of europe and N america (less then 1 billion total) than getting rid of all those in China and the Indian subcontinent (3.5+ billion)...

We risk making this thread political but it's all the fault of take-away coffee shops.

The way to ensure action is taken to have enough generating capacity is to fit Westminster and Whitehall with smart meters, then if the grid is running short we switch them off first. They generate enough hot air to keep themselves warm, perhaps a low deltaT Stirling engine could actually extract some power.

Bazyle, I shall go and sit on the naughty step, I have three daughters.

Dave W