Well written and makes absolute sense. Loads of reliable low cost charging would dull range anxiety and it makes absolute sense to be able to utilise the storage capacity in the nations EV’s to bolster our electricity grid.
We have plenty of potential wind and wave power but it’s hampered by our lack of storage. Every EV being plugged in while it’s stationary could serve as this storage. Being able to use our car to power our home during the day while electricity is expensive and charging it at night while it’s cheap makes much sense, as long as it has at least 80% capacity come 7am every morning for the daily transport needs. This is available now, but it’s costly and few homes have compatible chargers installed.
But in order to make EV’s appeal to the masses and the used trade manufacturers need to dramatically reduce the cost of repairing them. Until headlines like the one I linked above disappear Joe Public will continue to be hostile. If manufacturers won’t act then they’ll need to be forced to open up to outside competition to force repair prices down. They should be sat in front of our elected representatives being carpeted for their fantasy prices. Pricing a charger for a small French supermini at £6,500 is madness.
Edited by SLO76 on 13/03/2024 at 18:41
|
We have plenty of potential wind and wave power but it’s hampered by our lack of storage.
And the National Grid can't cope with the number of clean energy projects under way right now.
|
We have plenty of potential wind and wave power but it’s hampered by our lack of storage.
And the National Grid can't cope with the number of clean energy projects under way right now.
Which is why they are investing a lot of money into ensuring they can.
|
Being able to use our car to power our home during the day while electricity is expensive and charging it at night while it’s cheap makes much sense
Perhaps it does if the car is at home. If you have driven to work in it etc there is no way to use it to power the home.
Surely storage batteries would be better (and cheaper) than having a "spare" EV on the drive.
|
|
|
We have plenty of potential wind and wave power but it’s hampered by our lack of storage.
And the National Grid can't cope with the number of clean energy projects under way right now.
Which is why they are investing a lot of money into ensuring they can.
But are swamped by many unrealistic projects which are not yet funded. (being fixed but SLOWLY)
|
|
|
|
|
Being able to use our car to power our home during the day while electricity is expensive and charging it at night while it’s cheap makes much sense, as long as it has at least 80% capacity come 7am every morning for the daily transport needs.
I agree that the notion itself has much sense, but perhaps the implementation of it has rather less ?
|
|
The assumption that the EV needs to be parked at home to provide power to the house is flawed. It merely needs to be able to pass the power back to the grid and get a financial credit.
|
|
|
Being able to use our car to power our home during the day while electricity is expensive and charging it at night while it’s cheap makes much sense, as long as it has at least 80% capacity come 7am every morning for the daily transport needs.
I agree that the notion itself has much sense, but perhaps the implementation of it has rather less ?
Sorry Mr Jones but the power losses over the Grid are 20% so we are only to pay you for 80% of the power we took form your battery.. and it was in off peak hours so worth £0.001 per KWH:-)
Seriously, taking power from people's batteries is not a simple as it is presented.
|
Sorry Mr Jones but the power losses over the Grid are 20% so we are only to pay you for 80% of the power we took form your battery.. and it was in off peak hours so worth £0.001 per KWH:-)
Seriously, taking power from people's batteries is not a simple as it is presented.
Power losses seem to be closer to 8-10%, not 20% and arise for technical reasons in transformers and transmission/distribution. They are are anyway irrelevant to the concept of using EV batteries to feed energy back into the grid.
Buying surplus energy at (say)10p kwh when supply is high and demand low (overnight), and selling it back to the grid (daytime) at (say) 20p kwh makes economic sense irrespective of transmission losses.
I do agree that integrating battery power into the grid is not a trivial challenge - but neither is it insuperable.
|
|
"Buying surplus energy at (say)10p kwh when supply is high and demand low (overnight), and selling it back to the grid (daytime) at (say) 20p kwh makes economic sense irrespective of transmission losses."
ONLY if the Grid has storage - which it has not and no approved plans to do so.. Otherwise it makes no sense at all Power is needed in the day; EVs are unlikely to be connected in daytime. And if the Grid has storage, it can store surplus solar and wind power so vars are not needed.
It is an expensive and unthought through system..(Polite version)
Edited by madf on 14/03/2024 at 12:01
|
ONLY if the Grid has storage - which it has not and no approved plans to do so.. Otherwise it makes no sense at all Power is needed in the day; EVs are unlikely to be connected in daytime. And if the Grid has storage, it can store surplus solar and wind power so vars are not needed.
It is an expensive and unthought through system..(Polite version)
The grid does not need storage - that is the role of the EV which when connected supplies the high demand during the day.
The issue is that to deliver the stored energy the EV needs to be connected to the grid.
There is an investment choice - installing generating capacity to meet peak demand or rolling out very widespread connections to the grid at work, shopping centres, car parks etc.
|
ONLY if the Grid has storage - which it has not and no approved plans to do so.. Otherwise it makes no sense at all Power is needed in the day; EVs are unlikely to be connected in daytime. And if the Grid has storage, it can store surplus solar and wind power so vars are not needed.
It is an expensive and unthought through system..(Polite version)
The grid does not need storage - that is the role of the EV which when connected supplies the high demand during the day.
The issue is that to deliver the stored energy the EV needs to be connected to the grid.
There is an investment choice - installing generating capacity to meet peak demand or rolling out very widespread connections to the grid at work, shopping centres, car parks etc.
The Grid needs storage as of last year. Lots of electricity generated, not stored but generators paid for it. A TOTAL waste of energy and money..
|
|
|
|
Being able to use our car to power our home during the day while electricity is expensive and charging it at night while it’s cheap makes much sense, as long as it has at least 80% capacity come 7am every morning for the daily transport needs.
I agree that the notion itself has much sense, but perhaps the implementation of it has rather less ?
National Grid demand yesterday was ~38GW day, ~25GW night. Using stored EV energy during the day may reduce peak generating demand to ~32GW, a ~15% reduction
This is just a snapshot. Demonstrates the need for expensive generation and distribution infrastructure could be reduced by better balancing demand/supply and eliminating the demand peaks.
Typically EVs would charge overnight when demand is lower so in the morning they would be fully charged. Users could define the minimum level of charge required depending on planned journeys.
Flexible pricing - green generation is high + demand low = prices cheap. Conversely high demand + low generation = high price. Flexible pricing is already used by some companies for domestic supplies so completely feasible.
Leaving car at home during the day is unnecessary and pointless (most folk are at work) - most domestic power consumption is before 730am and after 5.00pm.
|
The assumption that the EV needs to be parked at home to provide power to the house is flawed. It merely needs to be able to pass the power back to the grid and get a financial credit.
Don't understand that at all.
Even if it could happen it would not work if you did not have access to a suitable point to plug into.
Total bull testicles.
|
|
|
|
Using batteries to prop-up unreliable wind and solar generation raises another problem that never seems to be discussed.
So the wind drops and the sky is cloudy, the fully charged batteries are connected and keep the grid alive.
Assuming that there is enough battery reserve to keep the grid alive (whether Tesla car batteries or battery banks) the wind starts up and the sun comes out, the batteries are no longer needed, so are disconnecteed.
Now the situation is, that whatever generation or power source is delivering power, that's coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, biomass,interconnectors, (wind & solar when it works) has to keep the normal load going - AND recharge the disconnected batteries in time to be on standby for the next "no wind- no solar" incident, so it's fingers crossed time!
In other words, what you took out of the batteries you now have to put back in - plus the inefficiences and losses - about 10%.
As Inspector Callahan said in Dirty Harry "Do you feel lucky?"
Batteries seem a wonderful idea, until you consider the above argument.
Substitute hydrogen for batteries in the argument and the result is the same, except there is a much lower efficiency - 60% of the energy employed is wasted so more energy needed to recharge the hydrogen "batteries"
There is no substitute for despatchable base load generation that works when you need it.
|
Using batteries to prop-up unreliable wind and solar generation raises another problem that never seems to be discussed.
So the wind drops and the sky is cloudy, the fully charged batteries are connected and keep the grid alive.
Assuming that there is enough battery reserve to keep the grid alive (whether Tesla car batteries or battery banks) the wind starts up and the sun comes out, the batteries are no longer needed, so are disconnecteed.
Now the situation is, that whatever generation or power source is delivering power, that's coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, biomass,interconnectors, (wind & solar when it works) has to keep the normal load going - AND recharge the disconnected batteries in time to be on standby for the next "no wind- no solar" incident, so it's fingers crossed time!
In other words, what you took out of the batteries you now have to put back in - plus the inefficiences and losses - about 10%.
As Inspector Callahan said in Dirty Harry "Do you feel lucky?"
Batteries seem a wonderful idea, until you consider the above argument.
Substitute hydrogen for batteries in the argument and the result is the same, except there is a much lower efficiency - 60% of the energy employed is wasted so more energy needed to recharge the hydrogen "batteries"
There is no substitute for despatchable base load generation that works when you need it.
We trade energy with other countries. When there is insufficient energy being generated by our infrastructure, we purchase more. When we have an excess, we sell it. We would only need a perfectly balanced load of we became totally insular.
|
|
Non-carbon energy is entirely capable of providing 100% of UK demand - energy generated by wind, solar and biomass - last day 45%, last week 47%, last year 41%.
This is increased from ~13% just 10 years ago. A report on the levelized cost of production puts onshore wind as the cheapest generation method, although this relies upon some complex long term assumptions.
The problem is variable wind - back up capacity could use fossil fuels, EV batteries or central storage. The average EV with a 50kwh battery will provide power for domestic consumption for 3-5 days.
Wind speed and geographic variability should establish whether this could fill the gaps, or whether nuclear should provide a greater share of baseload (IMHO it should).
Continuing to burn fossil fuels as the principle energy source is a complete dead end - it will become more expensive as reserves diminish and leave the UK completely vulnerable to global markets and conflict.
This is not head in the sand bull balls. It is a transition from dinosaur thinking to a sustainable future. It may not be immediately feasible, but delivered over the next 20 years.
Edited by Terry W on 15/03/2024 at 01:35
|
|
And now the prospect of electric ambulances looms with the greening of the NHS in full swing
With a claimed range of 100 miles but a real life range of 70 patients may have a long wait as they take an average of four hours to charge.
But I imagine a diesel powered fleet will have to be on hand to deal with rural areas such as Nortfolk.
At £150 k a time I would have thought that the money could be better spent on patient services .
Look forward to the prospect of your 999;call handler telling you that an ambulance will be on its way once it’s been charged !
|
|
There will be plenty of time for them to charge in the queue at A&E
|
There will be plenty of time for them to charge in the queue at A&E
Chargers are not planned to be at hospitals, only at ambulance stations, so waiting at A and E they will use up battery keeping patients warm.
Do you think this or other issues have a) been thought of by the 6-figure-plus salaried green fanatics at the top or b) have been thought of but regarded as insignificant, as they themselves won't be affected by such problems.
Option b seems to be the default mind set of almost all politicians and civil servants, paid by the taxpayer and with gold plated pensions to look forward to.
|
There will be plenty of time for them to charge in the queue at A&E
Chargers are not planned to be at hospitals, only at ambulance stations, so waiting at A and E they will use up battery keeping patients warm.
Do you think this or other issues have a) been thought of by the 6-figure-plus salaried green fanatics at the top or b) have been thought of but regarded as insignificant, as they themselves won't be affected by such problems.
Option b seems to be the default mind set of almost all politicians and civil servants, paid by the taxpayer and with gold plated pensions to look forward to.
There is an Option C whereby somebody who actually knows about it has worked out all of the implications and come up with an approach whereby it's not an issue. It does happen occasionally.
|
|
<< Option b seems to be the default mind set of almost all politicians and civil servants, paid by the taxpayer and with gold plated pensions to look forward to. >>
If you want to moan about the financial comfort of politicians and civil servants I think you might include board members of big companies, and quite a few public entertainers, some of whom trouser much larger pay - some of them admittedly with different pension arrangements.
If you are actually grumbling about the quality of the 'work' they do, fine - but tell us how you might achieve better results. Satisfying an electorate is a bit like herding cats I should think.
|
|
An MP earns ~£86k. By most standards comfortable - it puts them in the top 5% of earners.
Until you actually look at the figures and realise that there are approximately 1.5m people who earn more Some a huge amount more - the average premier league footballer make £3m pa.
Personally - I would not do an MPs job for the pay - where every action or comment is fertile ground for public criticism, and personal privacy an illusion.
Civil servants arey more anonymous and earn 25-50% of their private sector equivalents (staff, budgets etc). Those doing well are those in nationalised industries - eg: Network Rail, Channel 4, BBC etc where private sector comparators are more obvious.
|
|
|
Due to wind / solar intermittency you need a 100% backup, so it's effectively twice the cost. Ergo there's no point in building any of it. If you want no CO2 generation the only current solution is nuclear - so divert all the money from 'renewables' into nuclear and get building.
|
Due to wind / solar intermittency you need a 100% backup, so it's effectively twice the cost. Ergo there's no point in building any of it. If you want no CO2 generation the only current solution is nuclear - so divert all the money from 'renewables' into nuclear and get building.
Nuclear is currently so expensive it would be better to retain gas as a back up to wind. It is speculation whether if 20 or 30 nuclear power stations were built, the price per MWH would become competitive.
The best strategy is to have a range of technologies, not become reliant on just one. Ukraine showed how vulnerable gas supplies are to international events (also oil in the 1970s). Chernobyl and Fukushima demonstrate the risks associated with nuclear.
For the UK wind power has limited externalities and environmental risks - just the problem of how to manage wind variability. Finding a solution is a better strategy than denial that any exists.
|
|
Exactly so network resilience, which is why Rooftop Solar PV ought to be mandated , if you can't have it for some reason. Eg unsuitable roof say Thatched etc.Then you'd have to apply for an exemption.
I'd also give householders a grant for a generous percentage of any other renewable power generation and home battery storage they may install. Might be people interested in a water turbine for the stream flowing through their property or a mini wind turbine on the roof.
Edited by Ethan Edwards on 16/03/2024 at 17:50
|
Exactly so network resilience, which is why Rooftop Solar PV ought to be mandated , if you can't have it for some reason. Eg unsuitable roof say Thatched etc.Then you'd have to apply for an exemption.
I'd also give householders a grant for a generous percentage of any other renewable power generation and home battery storage they may install. Might be people interested in a water turbine for the stream flowing through their property or a mini wind turbine on the roof.
They could also have it on office buildings in the form of awnings over the windows. Some of those big tower blocks could generate quite a lot of solar energy. Another benefit of that would be that the power would be generated where it is used.
|
|
Non-carbon energy is entirely capable of providing 100% of UK demand - energy generated by wind, solar and biomass - last day 45%, last week 47%, last year 41%.
I for one would prefer not to live in a country with double the amount of solar farms and wind farms as now - especially as we all realise that both types of generation are only intermittent. We should do more carbon capture by growing crops we could eat, instead of hoping to import even more (often exotic) food than we do already.
|
|
Not sure if this covered in this thread before, but Apple has abandoned their EV venture, after spending $10 billion.
|
Not sure if this covered in this thread before, but Apple has abandoned their EV venture, after spending $10 billion.
Apple seem to have missed the boat and realise that by the time they launch there will be several other very large capable companies already well established in the EV market.
The market is evidently becoming seriously price competitive as take up of EVs is currently constrained by their high price relative to ICE. Despite having a brand associated with high levels of functionality and quality, they do not do cheap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
