End of EV Subsidies?

[DA? + 301]

36 minutes ago, jaycee said:

The moon is not made of green cheese is an arguement that can be proven big difference.

DA's reponses are based on wishes and miss out vital facts that people point out but are dismissed as not relevant just like my disussion with you on taxes. Suggesting the best case scenario with a large engineering project will happen every time is totally against all my experiences in my life as an engineer and many others here. You have to look for the unexpected and then assume there will be other unexpected consequences you will never think off and leave money to cover those. I am adding reality from experience and giving examples of such in the wider world not trying to say things are impossible.

Not wishes but data, trends and science. Oh mistakes are made budgets blown but the reality of renewables are they are kicking the arse of fossil fuels andthey are getting better.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

24 minutes ago, DA? said:

Oh the cherry pickers are out in force. Yes it's a work in progress and progressing it is. The latest software update is great and getting better very fast. With a billion miles of data to use, so far. Give them a couple more years. Try better with your arguments because it shows you don't look for data just opinions.

Auto driving will be responsible for some accidents, of that there is no doubt.  But far, far fewer than human drivers are responsible for.

[jaycee + 348]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

Still if we didn't strive to change then we would still be travelling the country looking at the arsehole of horse. 

As I said not saying things are impossible however a clear view of the problems ahead prevents issues like France where the natives like the idea of change but dislike the cost. 

1 hour ago, DA? said:

Well have you seen the crash tests of the Model 3, safest car out there. But you can't separate EV and self driving as they will go together, treating anything like this in isolation is a fools game. No I said they cancelled planned builds, which they have. Please try to read what I say and not what you expect me to say, it's rather tedious.  

Its getting boring you using the same words as me try using your own it is a feature of our discussions for some reason. 

So in reply to your safer EV reply I claim that is fake news read on....

https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/blog/model-3-lowest-probability-injury-any-vehicle-ever-tested-nhtsa

So one very expensive car is safer than others the words from Tesla are 'we engineered Model 3 to be the safest car ever built.' I post a section of the safety features here...

'In frontal crashes, Model 3’s efficient front crumple zone carefully controls the deceleration of occupants, while its advanced restraint system complements this with pre-tensioners and load-limiters that keep occupants safely in place. Specially designed passenger airbags are shaped to protect an occupant’s head in angled or offset crashes, and active vents dynamically adjust the internal pressure of the frontal airbags to optimize protection based on the unique characteristics of the crash. Front and knee airbags and a collapsible steering column work to further reduce injury, all contributing to Model 3’s 5-star rating in frontal impact.'

The safety features, apart  from moving the battery a bit can be repeated on any ICE car if someone was willing to throw money at safety or just copy the stuff on Tesla's. The fact its an EV does not make it safer, the battery makes very little difference apart from being a little moveable. I suggest Tesla spent a load on safety to make drivers forget about the danger of lithium ion batteries catching fire in accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicle_fire_incidents

Regards not separating self driving from EVs why not? Are all Tesla's cars right now self driving? Don't think so. Why can't ICE cars be self driving?

As I said why are EVs safer than ICE cars? You have not proven it just given me irrelevant facts to muddy the waters.

2 hours ago, DA? said:

No I said they cancelled planned builds, which they have.

You did say they cancelled builds in Germany after I had said they were still building coal plants there and I proved my point with this article from Acid News, a very Green publication.

"Germany still constructing new coal power stations

Several countries in Europe, among them Germany, have recently built or are planning to build new coal power stations. Some examples of such plants are presented here….."

http://www.airclim.org/acidnews/germany-still-constructing-new-coal-power-stations

2 hours ago, DA? said:

Please try to read what I say and not what you expect me to say, it's rather tedious.  

I do read what you say DA but its painful having to remind you of what I said as you clearly don't read my words. Round, and round we go where we stop nobody knows. Keep repeating stuff DA somebody will believe you but I don't.

[DA? + 301]

2 hours ago, DA? said:

The moon is not made of green cheese is an arguement that can be proven big difference.

DA's reponses are based on wishes and miss out vital facts that people point out but are dismissed as not relevant just like my disussion with you on taxes. Suggesting the best case scenario with a large engineering project will happen every time is totally against all my experiences in my life as an engineer and many others here. You have to look for the unexpected and then assume there will be other unexpected consequences you will never think off and leave money to cover those. I am adding reality from experience and giving examples of such in the wider world not trying to say things are impossible.

I'll answer this again as I rushed out to football practice. No my response are not made on wishes but actually looking at whats happening. I dismiss many points as they are pointless. I tried to explain that the taxes that will go with ICE will be offset by the savings made from improved health due to less pollution. Also I included self driving as this will happen as well, the savings made by the massive reduction in accidents and when no person is driving the savings on say policing is massive. I do think the cars on the road will be taxed.

Having worked in the nuclear field I do realise projects have budgets that over run, only defence may beat nuclear in this. But that goes for everything.

I suggest you go and look at whats happening in the industry at the moment, see how far things have come in such a short time. I find it funny when people say it can't happen that quote something from years ago as if it was the same today or will be the same tomorrow.

If you want a rather basic but fun look at it I'd try Now You Know on youtube, or try watching Tony Seba or others like him that actually have a amazingly good track record of predicting future trends. The future of transport is very different to the model we have now and will have far reaching effects in society and economics.

[NickW + 2,714]

7 minutes ago, jaycee said:

from being a little moveable. I suggest Tesla spent a load on safety to make drivers forget about the danger of lithium ion batteries catching fire in accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicle_fire_incidents

It is a relief to know that fires never arise from gasoline fuelled cars - gasoline  being non flammable..............

[jaycee + 348]

Just now, NickW said:

It is a relief to know that fires never arise from gasoline fuelled cars - gasoline  being non flammable..............

Never said they dont however as DA is claiming EVs are the safest vehicles in the world the flaws should be pointed out. Can you prove EVs are inherently safer than ICE cars?

[DA? + 301]

3 hours ago, jaycee said:

Refineries are all going to the Middles East and closing down in the UK, have been for years pretty soon we will be down to 2 at most and those will be to support petrochem plants to make plastices to build EVs.
What about the transmission losses for electricity?
As above
Yup but that is not a massive cost saving and if you spend as much money as you want to spend on upgrading the National Grid on stopping smoking and the effects will be much more cost effective.
Straw grasping there. It will not eliminate noise either as you need EVs to make a noise otherwise people get knocked down.

Plastics are really just hydrogen and carbon plenty of that around that's not dinosaur juice.

Transmission losses, DC grids help there and Carnot still means it's more efficient.

Money will be spent on the grid as money will be made on it, it's called investing.

Low speed traffic does have considerable noise loss with EV's especially with larger vehicles. Can you point out were any research shows EV's knock down more people? Even if a few accidents occur due to this the over all level of harm is far less.  And of course with self driving they will be much safer.

[jaycee + 348]

5 minutes ago, DA? said:

I'll answer this again as I rushed out to football practice. No my response are not made on wishes but actually looking at whats happening. I dismiss many points as they are pointless. I tried to explain that the taxes that will go with ICE will be offset by the savings made from improved health due to less pollution. Also I included self driving as this will happen as well, the savings made by the massive reduction in accidents and when no person is driving the savings on say policing is massive. I do think the cars on the road will be taxed.

Repeating what you have already said is not helping. Please prove why EVs are safer and why ICE cars cannot be self driving. There are health benefits but spending a massive amount of money on a smart power grid and changing all cars to EVs seems rather expensive when stopping people smoking would have a similar effect for a fraction of the cost. You will need more than that to convince me of the cost benefits.

[jaycee + 348]

1 minute ago, DA? said:

Plastics are really just hydrogen and carbon plenty of that around that's not dinosaur juice.

Transmission losses, DC grids help there and Carnot still means it's more efficient.

Money will be spent on the grid as money will be made on it, it's called investing.

Low speed traffic does have considerable noise loss with EV's especially with larger vehicles. Can you point out were any research shows EV's knock down more people? Even if a few accidents occur due to this the over all level of harm is far less.  And of course with self driving they will be much safer.

I was pointing out refineries are closing and one I know will still be there will be Grangemouth as it feeds the petrochem industry round it. Plastics are used for building cars. Them's the facts however I was referring to a very tenuous reply from NickW claiming closing refineries would be a benefit of EVs when as I point out they are closing anyway.

Losses are losses reducing them by using DC is fine how much do you think a DC grid would cost out of curiosity?

Money spent is investing I remember Gordon Brown fromer left wing chancellor saying that as he ran up humungus debts that we are still paying off now.

If all cars knock down X amount of people then EVs will knock down X plus those that dont hear them coming,you have a far better chance of hearing an ICE car. X is due to bad driving, bad weather etc which is common to all cars. . Basic stuff really. Anyway here is some research, from a very left wing paper so should be Green leaning, for you if it makes you happier.

Research shows electric cars are about 40% more likely to hit a pedestrian than a conventional vehicle. One study suggests that 93% of blind and partially sighted people have had problems with them. “It is a really important issue,” said White. “Guide dogs are all about giving people confidence and independence and a near miss or an incident with a vehicle of this type could really set people back a long way.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/06/new-law-combats-silent-menace-electric-cars

[DA? + 301]

20 minutes ago, jaycee said:

As I said not saying things are impossible however a clear view of the problems ahead prevents issues like France where the natives like the idea of change but dislike the cost. 

Its getting boring you using the same words as me try using your own it is a feature of our discussions for some reason. 

So in reply to your safer EV reply I claim that is fake news read on....

https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/blog/model-3-lowest-probability-injury-any-vehicle-ever-tested-nhtsa

So one very expensive car is safer than others the words from Tesla are 'we engineered Model 3 to be the safest car ever built.' I post a section of the safety features here...

'In frontal crashes, Model 3’s efficient front crumple zone carefully controls the deceleration of occupants, while its advanced restraint system complements this with pre-tensioners and load-limiters that keep occupants safely in place. Specially designed passenger airbags are shaped to protect an occupant’s head in angled or offset crashes, and active vents dynamically adjust the internal pressure of the frontal airbags to optimize protection based on the unique characteristics of the crash. Front and knee airbags and a collapsible steering column work to further reduce injury, all contributing to Model 3’s 5-star rating in frontal impact.'

The safety features, apart  from moving the battery a bit can be repeated on any ICE car if someone was willing to throw money at safety or just copy the stuff on Tesla's. The fact its an EV does not make it safer, the battery makes very little difference apart from being a little moveable. I suggest Tesla spent a load on safety to make drivers forget about the danger of lithium ion batteries catching fire in accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicle_fire_incidents

Regards not separating self driving from EVs why not? Are all Tesla's cars right now self driving? Don't think so. Why can't ICE cars be self driving?

As I said why are EVs safer than ICE cars? You have not proven it just given me irrelevant facts to muddy the waters.

You did say they cancelled builds in Germany after I had said they were still building coal plants there and I proved my point with this article from Acid News, a very Green publication.

"Germany still constructing new coal power stations

Several countries in Europe, among them Germany, have recently built or are planning to build new coal power stations. Some examples of such plants are presented here….."

http://www.airclim.org/acidnews/germany-still-constructing-new-coal-power-stations

I do read what you say DA but its painful having to remind you of what I said as you clearly don't read my words. Round, and round we go where we stop nobody knows. Keep repeating stuff DA somebody will believe you but I don't.

So why don't normal manufactures make ICE cars as safe? Comparing apples to apples. They've invested so much, such a complicated car to make but still competes with cars in it's class. To bring an ICE up to those standards increases the size of the car, weight and cost. In fact it makes the other manufactures look a bit crap really that a new start up with very little investment can show them up. Oh the batteries catching on fire, please what the hell, look at the numbers, look how they burn compared to a petrol tank going up. So much FUD.

ICE cars can be made to self drive and are. But they don't make long term sense, it just makes things more expensive.

I haven't proven it but if you look apples for apples they can be if care is taken. What is it in the USA 400 to 500 ICE vehicles burn a day. They are nasty I've had to put a small engine fire out once, it took a lot to do it.

Oh my god, yes they are building one or two plants in Germany last time I looked, but they had planned loads. Coals dead get over it. 42% of coal fired generators are loss making according to Carbon Tracker, not a good sign. You'd have to be a pretty dumb investor to put money in a coal generator.

It is round and round, why don't you ignore me and do some actual research into renewables and EV's and see for yourself. 

 

[jaycee + 348]

3 hours ago, NickW said:

Well I have already outlined what is potentially needed to fill that capacity gap if we went 100% EV. . Some of that can be met by increased use of idle power plant overnight 

Consider the amount of electricity that will be required do you really think that there is enough power spare at night to do that? Please remember that solar does not work in the dark and the wind does not always blow so what are you powering the cars with fossil fuels? Seems to be a little pointless no? Why not put them straight in the car and save the losses?

3 hours ago, NickW said:

Please explain the specific need to upgrade the grid to accomodate EV's? at least 2/3rd of houses have driveways and its not that difficult to convert lamp posts into slow charges.  If most charging is undertaken overnight then we are simply using under capacity that is pretty much idle. 

You need a smart grid to accommodate all the different variable unpredictable power sources that will need to be added as your power use would also increase during the day unless of course we just build more nukes and fossil fuel power stations.

Have you been to a city before Nick? I only ask as you may find many people don't have drives and many that do have drives too small to accommodate one car and many households have 2 cars. I have lived in many places and this is the first house I have had a drive that I can park a car on. My car is in the street however as my wife uses it for her's. This house cost a hell of a lot of money to have that kind of space as I live in Greater London. Converting lamp posts is fine, is that a free service?

3 hours ago, NickW said:

My households overnight electricity use is less than 100 watts. I think on single phase I consume up to about 12-13KW. 

Not everyone can charge a car at night as I pointed out.

3 hours ago, NickW said:

Tranmission lose rates are well known. 

Doesn't make them zero though

[DA? + 301]

6 minutes ago, jaycee said:

I was pointing out refineries are closing and one I know will still be there will be Grangemouth as it feeds the petrochem industry round it. Plastics are used for building cars. Them's the facts however I was referring to a very tenuous reply from NickW claiming closing refineries would be a benefit of EVs when as I point out they are closing anyway.

Losses are losses reducing them by using DC is fine how much do you think a DC grid would cost out of curiosity?

Money spent is investing I remember Gordon Brown fromer left wing chancellor saying that as he ran up humungus debts that we are still paying off now.

If all cars knock down X amount of people then EVs will knock down X plus those that dont hear them coming,you have a far better chance of hearing an ICE car. X is due to bad driving, bad weather etc which is common to all cars. . Basic stuff really. Anyway here is some research, from a very left wing paper so should be Green leaning, for you if it makes you happier.

Research shows electric cars are about 40% more likely to hit a pedestrian than a conventional vehicle. One study suggests that 93% of blind and partially sighted people have had problems with them. “It is a really important issue,” said White. “Guide dogs are all about giving people confidence and independence and a near miss or an incident with a vehicle of this type could really set people back a long way.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/06/new-law-combats-silent-menace-electric-cars

Yeah I hear all the time petro-chemicals is going to help save the oil industry but this totally ignores the massive work that's going into finding better sources that are cheaper and allow far better products to be made.

Losses are losses but compare to running things on fossil fuels are far less. Can't give a price on DC grids but the way they are being installed I'd say they pay for themselves.

So we should be scared of any investing because one person fucked up? That's one way to collapse the economy.

Noise kills and harms, here are a few examples

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180205141116.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181116110615.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140701085328.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010523072445.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150623200112.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150526085736.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171205203047.htm

Although I understand in the UK any danger of someone not hearing an EV at very low speed is being solved by a new law requiring them to emit a sound.

Can't wait to get rid of human drivers they are just so horrendous at driving.

[DA? + 301]

4 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Consider the amount of electricity that will be required do you really think that there is enough power spare at night to do that? Please remember that solar does not work in the dark and the wind does not always blow so what are you powering the cars with fossil fuels? Seems to be a little pointless no? Why not put them straight in the car and save the losses?

You need a smart grid to accommodate all the different variable unpredictable power sources that will need to be added as your power use would also increase during the day unless of course we just build more nukes and fossil fuel power stations.

Have you been to a city before Nick? I only ask as you may find many people don't have drives and many that do have drives too small to accommodate one car and many households have 2 cars. I have lived in many places and this is the first house I have had a drive that I can park a car on. My car is in the street however as my wife uses it for her's. This house cost a hell of a lot of money to have that kind of space as I live in Greater London. Converting lamp posts is fine, is that a free service?

Not everyone can charge a car at night as I pointed out.

Doesn't make them zero though

There is no problem about powering these electric cars, try cleanthecnica.com for finding answers to this problem.

Yup smart grids are coming. No nukes or fossil fuels required, renewables can and will do it along with storage in a number of forms.

Yeah cities suck, about time they were given to people not cars. Self driving helps this, why own a car when you can use one for a fraction of the price of owning one and never have to look for a parking space again.

Less loss in the system than fossil fuels

[jaycee + 348]

9 minutes ago, DA? said:

So why don't normal manufactures make ICE cars as safe? Comparing apples to apples. They've invested so much, such a complicated car to make but still competes with cars in it's class. To bring an ICE up to those standards increases the size of the car, weight and cost. In fact it makes the other manufactures look a bit crap really that a new start up with very little investment can show them up. Oh the batteries catching on fire, please what the hell, look at the numbers, look how they burn compared to a petrol tank going up. So much FUD.

Can you provide a like to prove that ICE cars are not made as safe because of weight and cost? Will all other EV manufacturers spend as much on safety? You have still not proved EVs are inherently safer than ICE cars.

Thought you would like the catching fire one had to throw it in got to cover all the issues lol

14 minutes ago, DA? said:

ICE cars can be made to self drive and are. But they don't make long term sense, it just makes things more expensive.

Splendid we agree that ICE cars can be made self driving just like EVs. Why are sensors etc more expensive on an ICE car by the way?

17 minutes ago, DA? said:

Oh my god, yes they are building one or two plants in Germany last time I looked, but they had planned loads. Coals dead get over it. 42% of coal fired generators are loss making according to Carbon Tracker, not a good sign. You'd have to be a pretty dumb investor to put money in a coal generator.

Wow have you finally agreed I was right!!!!!! I accept your admission thanks.

19 minutes ago, DA? said:

It is round and round, why don't you ignore me and do some actual research into renewables and EV's and see for yourself. 

Why don't you ignore me, round and round we go...

[DA? + 301]

3 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Can you provide a like to prove that ICE cars are not made as safe because of weight and cost? Will all other EV manufacturers spend as much on safety? You have still not proved EVs are inherently safer than ICE cars.

Thought you would like the catching fire one had to throw it in got to cover all the issues lol

Splendid we agree that ICE cars can be made self driving just like EVs. Why are sensors etc more expensive on an ICE car by the way?

Wow have you finally agreed I was right!!!!!! I accept your admission thanks.

Why don't you ignore me, round and round we go...

It's just engineering if you want to improve an ICE in a crash more needs to be put into it, a longer crumple zone for a start. If others want to compete against Tesla then yes they will have to be safe. Tesla's are and that was the point I was trying to make and they can be made safer due to more room on designing them.

I know that fire thing, the FUD always rises to the surface.

I don't know why are sensors more expensive on ICE cars? But in the near future why would you worry about building a self driving ICE, seems pointless and expensive, especially as they will basically end up mostly been driverless taxis and such.

About german coal fire stations I've never said they weren't building anymore (at least if I did I must have been having a moment). It's amazing what subsidies can keep going.

I don't ignore you as it amuses me.

 

[jaycee + 348]

12 minutes ago, DA? said:

Yeah I hear all the time petro-chemicals is going to help save the oil industry but this totally ignores the massive work that's going into finding better sources that are cheaper and allow far better products to be made.

Where did I say that?  I said Grangemouth will exist because of the petrochem plants beside it. Where did I say save the oil industry? 

 

14 minutes ago, DA? said:

Losses are losses but compare to running things on fossil fuels are far less. Can't give a price on DC grids but the way they are being installed I'd say they pay for themselves.

So there is a capital cost. Thank you

15 minutes ago, DA? said:

Noise kills and harms, here are a few examples

You should see what food gives you cancer, do you read the Daily Mail. Everything kills you if you listen to them. I should be dead and obese just now considering i grew up beside a main road and usually lived beside one ever since. Instead I am a very fit human who still gets paid to get on a pitch at the weekend in my main hobby.

18 minutes ago, DA? said:

Although I understand in the UK any danger of someone not hearing an EV at very low speed is being solved by a new law requiring them to emit a sound.

So they will emit a noise does that mean they will be polluting?

20 minutes ago, DA? said:

Can't wait to get rid of human drivers they are just so horrendous at driving.

Agreed, now there's a thing.

[DA? + 301]

7 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Where did I say that?  I said Grangemouth will exist because of the petrochem plants beside it. Where did I say save the oil industry? 

 

So there is a capital cost. Thank you

You should see what food gives you cancer, do you read the Daily Mail. Everything kills you if you listen to them. I should be dead and obese just now considering i grew up beside a main road and usually lived beside one ever since. Instead I am a very fit human who still gets paid to get on a pitch at the weekend in my main hobby.

So they will emit a noise does that mean they will be polluting?

Agreed, now there's a thing.

I was just saying when the petrochemical thing is brought up it seems that there is great hope that this will offset losses due to EV's.

Ye there is a capital cost in building something, best make sure it's going to be long term profitable, look at those trends.

Well done, but statistics are statistics. It's just reducing the odds.

Yes they will, it is a ridiculous law, guide dogs can easily hear a EV.

[DA? + 301]

28 minutes ago, jaycee said:

You have still not proved EVs are inherently safer than ICE cars

I don't have to it's already been done.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/07/09/electric-cars-offer-passenger-safety-advantages-ev-safety-benefits-part-3/

[jaycee + 348]

14 minutes ago, DA? said:

It's just engineering if you want to improve an ICE in a crash more needs to be put into it, a longer crumple zone for a start. If others want to compete against Tesla then yes they will have to be safe. Tesla's are and that was the point I was trying to make and they can be made safer due to more room on designing them.

One high end Tesla is safer than an ICE car, will all EVs be build to the same standard or are you assuming the world will only buy top end Teslas? I am sure ICE manufacturers could build the same safety standards into their vehicles but it is probably not the biggest selling point otherwise everyone would drive a Volvo. I suggest Tesla has done this to put a line under safety after the bad publicity generated by the battery fires.

18 minutes ago, DA? said:

I don't know why are sensors more expensive on ICE cars? But in the near future why would you worry about building a self driving ICE, seems pointless and expensive, especially as they will basically end up mostly been driverless taxis and such.

They aren't, that was my point, so why do you suggest making an ICE car driver less is more expensive than an EV?

20 minutes ago, DA? said:

About german coal fire stations I've never said they weren't building anymore (at least if I did I must have been having a moment). It's amazing what subsidies can keep going.

You did and repeated it earlier you said  'No I said they cancelled planned builds, which they have.'

Come on now being wrong isn't such a bad thing to admit. You must have done it before if you are defending EVs all the time. Hell Tesla is wrong frequently and he builds them!

22 minutes ago, DA? said:

I don't ignore you as it amuses me.

To be fair I am getting bored again pointing out the problems and costs of this revolution you are predicting. Its taken so long just to get you to even read what you have written never mind me!

[NickW + 2,714]

47 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Consider the amount of electricity that will be required do you really think that there is enough power spare at night to do that(1) ? Please remember that solar does not work in the dark and the wind does not always blow so what are you powering the cars with fossil fuels? Seems to be a little pointless no? Why not put them straight in the car and save the losses (2)?

You need a smart grid (3) to accommodate all the different variable unpredictable power sources that will need to be added as your power use would also increase during the day unless of course we just build more nukes and fossil fuel power stations.

Have you been to a city before Nick? (4) I only ask as you may find many people don't have drives and many that do have drives too small to accommodate one car and many households have 2 cars. I have lived in many places and this is the first house I have had a drive that I can park a car on. My car is in the street however as my wife uses it for her's. This house cost a hell of a lot of money to have that kind of space as I live in Greater London. Converting lamp posts is fine, is that a free service? (5)

Not everyone can charge a car at night as I pointed out.

Doesn't make them zero though

1. Yes - I have already pointed out the additional generation needs to supply 80 TWH of electricity. However overnight there is a massive amount of idling CCGT plant that could be utilised for off peak charging. As I write at 8.54pm  there is at least 9GW of idling CCCT on the Uk grid

https://www.bmreports.com/bmrs/?q=eds/main

2. Whats the conversion efficiency of a petrol engine - 35-40%? I have already explained that an additional benefit of EV's is that even if running on coal fired electricity it moves the point source of pollution away from the population. It is that interface that causes most of the health issues associated with pollution exposure. 

3. Beyond a certain level of penetration by variable renewables then yes a smart grid will help manage that. 

4. Funnily enough yes. Until recently I lived in London. According to the article  below 2/3rds of British households have a driveway. Many of those that don't have communal parking where it would be feasible to install an EV charger. As EV's become more widespread EV chargers will be more frequently installed at supermarkets, workplaces etc. Other options being trialled include using the supply to lamp posts. Another point here is that there is a gradual shift away from car ownership, particularly in big cities where people use public transport and quick hire schemes like zip car to fill in the gaps. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42944523

5. No - but then the user will pay for the electricity which will fund the installation. Similar to how buying petrol funds the infrastructure of a petrol station. 

Edited December 6, 2018 by NickW

[jaycee + 348]

13 minutes ago, DA? said:

I don't have to it's already been done.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/07/09/electric-cars-offer-passenger-safety-advantages-ev-safety-benefits-part-3/

Now that's the first interesting thing you have shown me! Not a slamdunk as the website do put some caveats in such as 

Every promising technology comes with its own caveat, and the in-hub idea has a little problem, which is unsprung weight. Basically, any weight outside the center of gravity adds more push and pull on the motor and affects the overall dynamics of a car. Simply put, it theoretically is less stable

but it does say they can be a little safer if the drive train is rearranged. Why did we have to argue about this for a few pages before we got to this?

Mind you it appears the fact EVs are heavier than ICE cars is perhaps the main reason. Clearly ICE manufacturers will have to add some weight to their cars to catch up with EVs weight or everyone should just drive pickups.

https://insideevs.com/are-electric-vehicles-inherently-safer-than-ice/

'That’s Rader’s way of saying that the added weight of the lithium-ion battery pack makes the typical electric vehicle safer than its non-electric counterpart.  '

[jaycee + 348]

25 minutes ago, NickW said:

1. Yes - I have already pointed out the additional generation needs to supply 80 TWH of electricity. However overnight there is a massive amount of idling CCGT plant that could be utilised for off peak charging. As I write at 8.54pm  there is at least 9GW of idling CCCT on the Uk grid

So you want to fie up the gas turbines at night and use the waste heat to power EVs? Not getting the logic there to be honest I thought you were looking at cutting fossil fuel burning. I did the calc a few years ago for the amount of power needed to power the UK car fleet based on how much energy it uses during the day and I saw a large imbalance.

 

30 minutes ago, NickW said:

2. Whats the conversion efficiency of a petrol engine - 35-40%? I have already explained that an additional benefit of EV's is that even if running on coal fired electricity it moves the point source of pollution away from the population. It is that interface that causes most of the health issues associated with pollution exposure. 

Now the efficiency one I remember better. Coal fired plant has an efficiency of 33 to 40% similar to a car however transmission losses and  battery losses makes an EV less efficient than a petrol car.

32 minutes ago, NickW said:

3. Beyond a certain level of penetration by variable renewables then yes a smart grid will help manage that. 

Splendid we agree smart grid needed.

 

35 minutes ago, NickW said:

4. Funnily enough yes. Until recently I lived in London. According to the article  below 2/3rds of British households have a driveway. Many of those that don't have communal parking where it would be feasible to install an EV charger. As EV's become more widespread EV chargers will be more frequently installed at supermarkets, workplaces etc. Other options being trialled include using the supply to lamp posts. Another point here is that there is a gradual shift away from car ownership, particularly in big cities where people use public transport and quick hire schemes like zip car to fill in the gaps. 

All done for free as well I assume no cost to anyone? My point as it always has been is the costs of this brave new world is not being shown to the people but will be slowly when its too late, unless you are French off course who smell a rat already.

36 minutes ago, NickW said:

5. No - but then the user will pay for the electricity which will fund the installation. Similar to how buying petrol funds the infrastructure of a petrol station. 

But we already have paid for the petrol stations. Change is going to cost us big time and the beneficiaries are the ones telling us how marvelous EVs are. Funny that.

[jaycee + 348]

And with that I am going to call an end to my posting on renewables I feel a bit dizzy. I have too little spare time as it is and a fair bit of research I need to do on some shares, not renewable industries I hasten to add.

Good night.

[NickW + 2,714]

2 minutes ago, jaycee said:

So you want to fie up the gas turbines at night and use the waste heat to power EVs?(1) Not getting the logic there to be honest I thought you were looking at cutting fossil fuel burning. I did the calc a few years ago for the amount of power needed to power the UK car fleet based on how much energy it uses during the day and I saw a large imbalance (2)

 

Now the efficiency one I remember better.(3) Coal fired plant has an efficiency of 33 to 40% similar to a car however transmission losses and  battery losses makes an EV less efficient than a petrol car.

Splendid we agree smart grid needed.

 

All done for free as well I assume no cost to anyone (4)? My point as it always has been is the costs of this brave new world is not being shown to the people but will be slowly when its too late, unless you are French off course who smell a rat already.

But we already have paid for the petrol stations (5). Change is going to cost us big time and the beneficiaries are the ones telling us how marvelous EVs are. Funny that.

1. Stop making spurious comments - obviously the CCGT produces electricity for EV charging although more CHP would be great.

2. Yes. I have said several times the additional electricity is approx 80TWH

3. You have omitted the fact that electric motors are inherently more efficient than ICE engines. 1 KWH of electricity  will propel a Nissan Leaf 5 km so thats 720KJ / Km. A Nissan Tilda doing 7.1L/100KM (40mpg) uses 2.48 MJ per km. Even your coal plant running at 35% thermal efficiency will be around the 2 MJ / km mark. As DA and other people have pointed out - we are rapidly moving away from coal. Electricity will come from a mix of natural gas, wind, solar, biogas, biomass, hydro and whatever is left of our nuclear fleet plus imports (mostly french nuclear) 

4. No claim has ever been made that any of this is free. Of course BAU is by no means free either

5. Which have significant ongoing maintenance costs so by no means are they 'free'. 

 

 

[Bobby P + 88]

On 12/5/2018 at 11:43 AM, DA? said:

What subsidies are you referring to? The government back loan that was paid back early? Clients getting a tax refund?

What makes you thank god your new car wasn't an EV? 

Just to piss people like you off. LOL!