End of EV Subsidies?

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 12/8/2018 at 11:44 PM, ronwagn said:

Compressed Natural Gas Buses are all they use in Los Angeles, California. They have been using them for a long time now. London should be using them instead. IMHO all smog plagued cities should be using natural gas vehicles as soon as possible. 

LA at one time had a totally fabulous and extensive electric trolley-car system. Then the locals tore it all up.  Now the Big Bucks are being spent to rebuild street rail with "light rail," or multi-car trolleys.  

Maybe instead of CNG buses they would be better off going back to electric.  At one time both the US and Canada (esp. Toronto) had two-wire rubber tired buses running all-electric.  The trailing poles had enough swivel in them that they could move over one full lane to each side, effectively giving the bus full scope of the roadway.  Toss in a flywheel and you have stored energy in there for off-wire excursions. 

Edited December 10, 2018 by Jan van Eck
typing error

[ronwagn + 6,290]

I remember the streetcar era in Los Angeles. I lived there then. General Motors bought them out and replaced them with buses. At least that is the mythology but I believe it is true. The electricity would still be supplied primarily by natural gas plants. The streetcars or trains that you are referring to are vastly underutilized unfortunately. As a youth, I thought we would have monorails everywhere like the ones they had in Disneyland. They also had Autopia. I visit Southern California in the Winter and can tell you that Autopia won big time! The traffic is pure hell unless you carefully pick the day, time, and destination that you need to travel. I lived here half my life and always moved to the perimeter of the development. For that reason, I did not make a fortune on my homes. I eventually bought in rural Illinois for a small fraction of what I would have paid in California. The only traffic we have is from trains. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

I remember the streetcar era in Los Angeles. I lived there then. General Motors bought them out and replaced them with buses. At least that is the mythology but I believe it is true. The electricity would still be supplied primarily by natural gas plants. The streetcars or trains that you are referring to are vastly underutilized unfortunately. As a youth, I thought we would have monorails everywhere like the ones they had in Disneyland. They also had Autopia. I visit Southern California in the Winter and can tell you that Autopia won big time! The traffic is pure hell unless you carefully pick the day, time, and destination that you need to travel. I lived here half my life and always moved to the perimeter of the development. For that reason, I did not make a fortune on my homes. I eventually bought in rural Illinois for a small fraction of what I would have paid in California. The only traffic we have is from trains. 

What happened with the streetcar business was that it was all privately owned, I think in LA by Pacific Gas and Electric.  The rates were set by the government, however.  At the close of WWII the rationed prices for fuel and wages started to zoom, in the post-war boom.  The streeetcars now cost more money to run, with higher wages and higher costs for the electricity generation.  But the politicians controlled the fares, and there were a lot more voters with the passengers than with the PG&E shareholders, so the fares stayed frozen.  With the system running financially upside-down, it was History.  And that happened in pretty much every trolley system in the USA, except for Washington, DC, where the system was run by the Metro DC Govt directly. 

I actually was going to open a plant in Springfield, Ill.  But I was badly treated by one person inside the city government, so I scrapped that plan. I recall it would have employed about 430 men.  What city governments do not realize is that when they hire the useless self-absorbed, it instantly reflects badly on outside entrepreneurs.  I have learned to stay away from towns where I can get a vibe of poor government.  I don't much mind incompetent government, as you can usually work around that, but insolent, or arrogant, or imperious govt is poison, they will wreck your business without giving it a thought, as it is not their money, so don't even try.  I learned that lesson the hard way down South, in Georgia.  Never again. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

I actually was going to open a plant in Springfield, Ill.

Springfield is a mess, it's just that nobody there wants to admit the obvious.  They just voted in a solid Democrat/Liberal government and rejected the last Governor that was fighting hard to fix the financials.  He was Republican, and a pretty good guy, but then he started stating the obvious: the government debt is out of control, pensions for government employees are unsustainable, the government payroll it far too big, etc. etc. etc.  Out he goes!  How dare he!  Let's put in a billionaire Democrat Governor!  He'll know what to do!  Outside of Springfield and Chicago the people get it but they are not a voice that is heard.  Not loudly enough anyway.

[Red + 252]

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Compressed Natural Gas Buses are all they use in Los Angeles, California. They have been using them for a long time now. London should be using them instead. IMHO all smog plagued cities should be using natural gas vehicles as soon as possible. 

China has an electric bus rolling off production lines at  one every 2 minutes.   I doubt if the finger in the dyke mentality will stop the flood to the rest of the world.

 

[DA? + 301]

17 hours ago, jaycee said:

We have an AC system in the UK last I looked costs money to change out system

You make me laugh all the time.

Told you before I am C&I, you should know what that means having worked in a power plant, with a degree in Electrical and Electronic

 

The interconnectors are often DC and other bits. Yes it would cost to change out into a DC grid, but a large DC super grid makes a lot of sense and reduced losses helps pay for it. This allows for the movement of electricity over massive distances as has been demonstrated in China, this is one of the many changes that allow renewables to work and be cheaper than the present day system. Not sure what's so hard to understand with the concept you have to invest to improve the system and that will improve profits.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 hours ago, DA? said:

The interconnectors are often DC and other bits. Yes it would cost to change out into a DC grid, but a large DC super grid makes a lot of sense and reduced losses helps pay for it. This allows for the movement of electricity over massive distances as has been demonstrated in China, this is one of the many changes that allow renewables to work and be cheaper than the present day system. Not sure what's so hard to understand with the concept you have to invest to improve the system and that will improve profits.

Hi Da,

But will the improved profits be enough, soon enough?  A point I've been meaning to bring up with regards to China and other developing nations:  They got to start largely from scratch.  This makes, as I'm sure you're aware, a huge difference in how the cost to implement is handled.  It was like this for all kinds of things, like going straight to DVDs, lasers and streaming first instead of VHS.  I was amazed after a number of years going back to the U.S. for a visit and my whole family was still using VHS (ok, this was a while ago, but you get my drift).  They did it will cell phones as well.  Straight to mobile, nobody in China had landlines and it was not necessary to install them.  Lots of other examples.  It just made $$ and sense/cents.  Why go with the old tech when they could launch directly into state of the art.  However, for my family and most others it did not make sense to rush right out and buy the newest tech when they had just purchased top of the line VHS players (or whatever) and had their landline packages modified to cost considerably less than cell.  AS you well know, all of this has changed over time as consumers needed to replace equipment and/or the prices came down.  I'm sure this will happen with all of your renewable stuff too, so long as it costs the same, slightly more or less.

I'm just saying it's a hard sell to go to the average American consumer and say "we're going to change out your existing grid and build new renewable farms/factories/whatever, and by the way, it's going to cost you more".  That's just a hard sell no matter how you go about it.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

7 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Springfield is a mess, it's just that nobody there wants to admit the obvious.  They just voted in a solid Democrat/Liberal government and rejected the last Governor that was fighting hard to fix the financials.  He was Republican, and a pretty good guy, but then he started stating the obvious: the government debt is out of control, pensions for government employees are unsustainable, the government payroll it far too big, etc. etc. etc.  Out he goes!  How dare he!  Let's put in a billionaire Democrat Governor!  He'll know what to do!  Outside of Springfield and Chicago the people get it but they are not a voice that is heard.  Not loudly enough anyway.

The financials in Illinois can no longer be fixed.  As a practical matter the current in-crowd has confiscated all the earnings and retirement savings of the next three generations just to pay for the wages and benefits and retirement promises of the current workers for the State government.  Illinois is now ranked 50 out of 50 as far as State Finances go.  Since the State worker retirement packages cannot be paid, notwithstanding contract obligations, the only realistic solution is a bankruptcy petition.  There are problems with this, as government entities within the State need special permission to file for bankruptcy, and I do not think there is any precedent for an entire State to go under.  So Illinois will be breaking new legal ground.  Nonetheless, it is inevitable. 

That also means that the owners of new business enterprises will never be able to enjoy the fruits of their labors.  The direct implication is that "new blood" is not going to flow to Illinois; it will go elsewhere.  The future for Illinois is thus economic stagnation - until it goes bankrupt, flushes out the vast cornucopia that have been promised by the Democrats, flushes out the Democratic Party as a failed political institution, and starts over.  How the rebirth will be formulated remains unknowable. But without that, you have some variation of Camden, NJ institutionalized across an entire State.  Amazing stuff. 

[DA? + 301]

34 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Hi Da,

But will the improved profits be enough, soon enough?  A point I've been meaning to bring up with regards to China and other developing nations:  They got to start largely from scratch.  This makes, as I'm sure you're aware, a huge difference in how the cost to implement is handled.  It was like this for all kinds of things, like going straight to DVDs, lasers and streaming first instead of VHS.  I was amazed after a number of years going back to the U.S. for a visit and my whole family was still using VHS (ok, this was a while ago, but you get my drift).  They did it will cell phones as well.  Straight to mobile, nobody in China had landlines and it was not necessary to install them.  Lots of other examples.  It just made $$ and sense/cents.  Why go with the old tech when they could launch directly into state of the art.  However, for my family and most others it did not make sense to rush right out and buy the newest tech when they had just purchased top of the line VHS players (or whatever) and had their landline packages modified to cost considerably less than cell.  AS you well know, all of this has changed over time as consumers needed to replace equipment and/or the prices came down.  I'm sure this will happen with all of your renewable stuff too, so long as it costs the same, slightly more or less.

I'm just saying it's a hard sell to go to the average American consumer and say "we're going to change out your existing grid and build new renewable farms/factories/whatever, and by the way, it's going to cost you more".  That's just a hard sell no matter how you go about it.

It will take time. And that's an issue for such countries they get left behind and stagnate. But at some point soon the pay off point is reached. It's not going to cost more as shown in South Australia changing over saves the customer money. The great thing about the more sustainable technologies they normally are the economic choice. Wind and solar are for most of the worlds population the cheapest source of electricity and as a bonus they employ more people.

[shadowkin + 584]

On 12/3/2018 at 11:05 PM, DA? said:

The USA apart from a few companies is stagnating in the renewables and EV race. It will be even less competitive with countries like China by going down this road. Trump seems to want to harm the USA's economy by just helping to protect the wealth of a few. GM and Ford are already behind in the EV game, which one goes under first? EV's are the future, if they don't catch up soon there will be many more jobs lost.

Except for your comment about Ford this post is incorrect. Most traditional carmakers worldwide are falling behind in the EV race. At this point the only apples/apples comparison as far as EVs that can be made is in the US since Model 3 isn’t yet available in Europe or China and Chinese vehicles, with the exception of busses, have no presence in the US.

Tesla is leading in EVs. See the chart for EVs sold in the US for 2018 through November. Model 3 is 1st. Model S is 3rd. Model X is 4th. Tesla sold more than all other manufacturers in the US combined.

Maybe you’re alluding to BYD/BAIC. True, overall in 2018, they sold more vehicles than Tesla if you include PHEVs (= not fully electric) but they almost exclusively sell in China with the exception of their busses. The busses they do sell to the US are to cities, mainly because they’ve been forced to by politicians, and they are already finding out the hard way the quality of Chinese vehicles is poor. In any event Tesla doesn’t sell busses so it’s meaningless to make a comparison there.

Fifth and six in the US was the Chevy Volt and Bolt (both GM). Volt is PHEV and is being discontinued. Toyota was number 2 but the Prius Prime is also a PHEV. Toyota recently stated they aren’t interested in selling EVs in the US because they won’t sell. 

VW, Porsche, Audi have been producing pretty pictures and prototypes. Jaguar I-Pace recently came to market but spec-wise can’t compete with Tesla and in any case they only plan to sell 30k a year. We’ll see if they can even do that. Nissan LEAF does fairly well at number 8.

Germany is panicking when it comes to EVs. They know it is already doing damage to their car industry and economy and have already admitted Tesla is taking sales from them. Did you think VW was willing to invest $30 billion in Tesla when Musk claimed he was taking Tesla private because Germany was leading in EVs?

[DA? + 301]

3 minutes ago, shadowkin said:

Except for your comment about Ford this post is incorrect. Most traditional carmakers worldwide are falling behind in the EV race. At this point the only apples/apples comparison as far as EVs that can be made is in the US since Model 3 isn’t yet available in Europe or China and Chinese vehicles, with the exception of busses, have no presence in the US.

Tesla is leading in EVs. See the chart for EVs sold in the US for 2018 through November. Model 3 is 1st. Model S is 3rd. Model X is 4th. Tesla sold more than all other manufacturers in the US combined.

Maybe you’re alluding to BYD/BAIC. True, overall in 2018, they sold more vehicles than Tesla if you include PHEVs (= not fully electric) but they almost exclusively sell in China with the exception of their busses. The busses they do sell to the US are to cities, mainly because they’ve been forced to by politicians, and they are already finding out the hard way the quality of Chinese vehicles is poor. In any event Tesla doesn’t sell busses so it’s meaningless to make a comparison there.

Fifth and six in the US was the Chevy Volt and Bolt (both GM). Volt is PHEV and is being discontinued. Toyota was number 2 but the Prius Prime is also a PHEV. Toyota recently stated they aren’t interested in selling EVs in the US because they won’t sell. 

VW, Porsche, Audi have been producing pretty pictures and prototypes. Jaguar I-Pace recently came to market but spec-wise can’t compete with Tesla and in any case they only plan to sell 30k a year. We’ll see if they can even do that. Nissan LEAF does fairly well at number 8.

Germany is panicking when it comes to EVs. They know it is already doing damage to their car industry and economy and have already admitted Tesla is taking sales from them. Did you think VW was willing to invest $30 billion in Tesla when Musk claimed he was taking Tesla private because Germany was leading in EVs?

I seemed not to make myself clear. I did mention a few companies aren't stagnating in the USA, meaning Tesla as one. Don't discount china, in the past the west did that with Japan. When you look a little further in to Ford and GM than sales figures they are in deep trouble. When a recession hits then the shit hits the fan.

[shadowkin + 584]

43 minutes ago, DA? said:

I seemed not to make myself clear. I did mention a few companies aren't stagnating in the USA, meaning Tesla as one. Don't discount china, in the past the west did that with Japan. When you look a little further in to Ford and GM than sales figures they are in deep trouble. When a recession hits then the shit hits the fan.

Ok gotcha. I agree regarding China as well as GM and Ford. I think GM is in a better position since they have the Bolt. Ford seems to be in real trouble. There's been talk of Ford using VW's EV platform for their own future EVs but VW itself hasn't made any EVs yet. If there is a recession it's hard to see politicians not bailing these car companies out again.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

18 hours ago, Red said:

China has an electric bus rolling off production lines at  one every 2 minutes.   I doubt if the finger in the dyke mentality will stop the flood to the rest of the world.

 

Where is your backup reference? China also uses natural gas vehicles. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2012/04/13/natural-gas-vehicles-in-china/#4ecf2ee5bf18

http://www.coachtour.com/bus-tour-blog/green-initiatives-for-buses/ 

Unfortunately, most of China's electricity comes from burning coal. 

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Where is your backup reference? China also uses natural gas vehicles. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2012/04/13/natural-gas-vehicles-in-china/#4ecf2ee5bf18

http://www.coachtour.com/bus-tour-blog/green-initiatives-for-buses/ 

Unfortunately, most of China's electricity comes from burning coal. 

I got my data several sites about electric buses in China: Snapshot & Growth trend .

As to China and coal power, you could say the same for most of the countries in the world.  Except China already leads the rest of the world in new renewables capacity by a very long margin, while its annual rate of additional capacity to 2022 will see it with about 40% of the global share: China & renewables

[Auson + 123]

On 12/9/2018 at 4:44 AM, ronwagn said:

Compressed Natural Gas Buses are all they use in Los Angeles, California. They have been using them for a long time now. London should be using them instead. IMHO all smog plagued cities should be using natural gas vehicles as soon as possible. 

ronwagn,

Yes that would be cheap, clean and easy.

£1million only buys you 3 of the malfunctioning hybrid buses.  

[jaycee + 348]

On 12/8/2018 at 8:59 PM, NickW said:

 My wife is a Chartered Chemical Engineer. You don't sound like an Engineer to me. 

1. Yes - for onshore. However I said Offshore where the majority of the UK's future growth in wind power will come from.  Try reading what I wrote. BTW - capacity factors for onshore are rising as small 1990's turbines (200-500KW) are gradually replaced with 2-4 MW turbines which are much taller. 

2. I have never argued that there is parity in taxation per mile between EV's and ICE. I have said repeatedly - the Govt justification for the EV preference is to increase EV market share. 

3. I have never argued that the EV driver should pay no tax. This is another member of your strawman army. 

4. I made no reference to a 'smoking ban' but yes if people stop smoking the tax revenue will be raised from another source. 

5. I don't know which dark orifice you have pulled this one out of but my view is that EV's offer a moderate improvement in terms of CO2 emissions but the primary immediate benefit is a stark reduction in tailpipe emissions of pollutants that are harmful to health. 

6. I took nucs out of the equation as they are an unlikely source of additional generating capacity in the short - medium term. I referenced CCGT because any additional conventional thermal capacity will most likely be CCGT.

7. I see you are comparing apples and oranges.  

The leaf is a small family car

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf

The 108 is a city car

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peugeot_108

The leaf is almost a metre longer than the 108. My comparison was with a Nissan Pulsar which has a similar wheelbase as the Leaf. 

https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/nissan/pulsar-2014

 

69mpg for a 108 😄

Low 50's in the real world. 

https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/peugeot/108-2014

If you want to stick with Peugeot a fairer comparison would be against a 308 although it is smaller than the Leaf. 

--------------------------

 

1. I brought up the topic of wind and was taking into account onshore, you deciding to use offshore is your choice but not waht I was using. Offshore iseven more expensive to install so you are just increasing the costs even more.

2. And my point you repeatedly bypass to spout some other nonsense is that EV drivers will have to make up the tax take lost on ICE cars once they replace them. There will be a large hole in the budget. I can't make it more simple EVs will not be cheaper than ICE cars in the future to run for Joe Bloggs.

3. I have no idea what you are talking about now where did I say that EV drivers will pay no tax, I have argued the exact opposite, see last answer, jeeze this is tiring.

4. You are confusing issues, again. I brought up the suggestion of a smoking ban doing more for health than removing ICE cars and would be a dam sight cheaper. There would be lost tax revenue but the capital costs would not be paid for to change an entire country to running electric cars. The costs of going to EVs are massive something you continuously avoid.

5. See above

6. cant be bothered to look back at how we got to this pont getting very bored and have still to try and figure out your calc.

7.

On 12/8/2018 at 8:59 PM, NickW said:

A recalc of the EV figures. 

To get 1 KWH into the battery you need to input 4.675 MJ

4.675 / 0.55 (efficiency of CCGT)  = 8.5 MJ of primary energy input at the CCGT

So the figure is 1.7 MJ / Km  

Your recalc is confusing as you are now using different input numbers than the first time, please provide links to where you got your numbers and set out your calc logically. From looking at it this is all I can work out
If 8.5MJ are input at CCGT 4.675 MJ will come out due to 55% efficiency
Then subtract transmission and charging losses of 23% and the amount of energy going to the battery is 3.9 MJ which is less than the figure you say is required of 4.675 MJ to get 1 KW/h your first calc was incorrect at least we agree on that.

On 12/8/2018 at 11:21 PM, NickW said:

You seem to mention in every other sentence you are an Engineer......and then you come out with the 'piece da resistance' highlighted above. 

I will let you in on a little secret - the manufacturers fuel consumption figures are utter bullshit. They are based on laboratory rolling road tests where the vehicle is kept at an optimum temperature before performing that test. Now manufacturers figures are useful to compare models but do not reflect real world conditions.  

I mentioned I am an engineer but it you keep disputing it with no actual proof apart from the fact you sleep with a process engineer.

Regards using manufacturer's numbers go ask your wife where she gets the numbers from when she is designing a system or looking at a valve sizing. Manufacturers catalogues, it is standard engineering practise to take manufacturers figures. The fact car manufacturers figures are ropey is not my problem I follow engineering procedure and get info from manufacturers specs.
 

[jaycee + 348]

Here is a classic example of a project vastly over running and highlights the point I am trying to make to the daydreamers who think everything to do with changing the UK to EVs will be cheap and easy. This project to put in 8.7 miles of electric trams cost £776m budget was £375m the fact it is an electrification project adds to the relevance.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-42096589

[Auson + 123]

42 minutes ago, jaycee said:

1. I brought up the topic of wind and was taking into account onshore, you deciding to use offshore is your choice but not waht I was using. Offshore iseven more expensive to install so you are just increasing the costs even more.

2. And my point you repeatedly bypass to spout some other nonsense is that EV drivers will have to make up the tax take lost on ICE cars once they replace them. There will be a large hole in the budget. I can't make it more simple EVs will not be cheaper than ICE cars in the future to run for Joe Bloggs.

3. I have no idea what you are talking about now where did I say that EV drivers will pay no tax, I have argued the exact opposite, see last answer, jeeze this is tiring.

4. You are confusing issues, again. I brought up the suggestion of a smoking ban doing more for health than removing ICE cars and would be a dam sight cheaper. There would be lost tax revenue but the capital costs would not be paid for to change an entire country to running electric cars. The costs of going to EVs are massive something you continuously avoid.

5. See above

6. cant be bothered to look back at how we got to this pont getting very bored and have still to try and figure out your calc.

7.

Your recalc is confusing as you are now using different input numbers than the first time, please provide links to where you got your numbers and set out your calc logically. From looking at it this is all I can work out
If 8.5MJ are input at CCGT 4.675 MJ will come out due to 55% efficiency
Then subtract transmission and charging losses of 23% and the amount of energy going to the battery is 3.9 MJ which is less than the figure you say is required of 4.675 MJ to get 1 KW/h your first calc was incorrect at least we agree on that.

I mentioned I am an engineer but it you keep disputing it with no actual proof apart from the fact you sleep with a process engineer.

Regards using manufacturer's numbers go ask your wife where she gets the numbers from when she is designing a system or looking at a valve sizing. Manufacturers catalogues, it is standard engineering practise to take manufacturers figures. The fact car manufacturers figures are ropey is not my problem I follow engineering procedure and get info from manufacturers specs.
 

Its a bit of a red herring to state that manufacturers MPG figures are too high. 

There are a select group of 'hypermilers' who compete to increase mpg with things like driving style, thinner engine oil and high tyre pressures. They can exceed manufacturers quoted MPG in real life. Besides we all need a baseline to work from otherwise its just an argument.

I would say that driving a Tesla hard and fast you won't get anywhere near the range quoted. There was talk of a one make race series with the Tesla P100 where races would be limited to 20 minutes as thats how long the battery would last !

[NickW + 2,714]

34 minutes ago, jaycee said:

1. I brought up the topic of wind and was taking into account onshore, you deciding to use offshore is your choice but not waht I was using. Offshore iseven more expensive to install so you are just increasing the costs even more.

2. And my point you repeatedly bypass to spout some other nonsense is that EV drivers will have to make up the tax take lost on ICE cars once they replace them. There will be a large hole in the budget. I can't make it more simple EVs will not be cheaper than ICE cars in the future to run for Joe Bloggs.

3. I have no idea what you are talking about now where did I say that EV drivers will pay no tax, I have argued the exact opposite, see last answer, jeeze this is tiring.

4. You are confusing issues, again. I brought up the suggestion of a smoking ban doing more for health than removing ICE cars and would be a dam sight cheaper. There would be lost tax revenue but the capital costs would not be paid for to change an entire country to running electric cars. The costs of going to EVs are massive something you continuously avoid.

5. See above

6. cant be bothered to look back at how we got to this pont getting very bored and have still to try and figure out your calc.

7.

Your recalc is confusing as you are now using different input numbers than the first time, please provide links to where you got your numbers and set out your calc logically. From looking at it this is all I can work out
If 8.5MJ are input at CCGT 4.675 MJ will come out due to 55% efficiency
Then subtract transmission and charging losses of 23% and the amount of energy going to the battery is 3.9 MJ which is less than the figure you say is required of 4.675 MJ to get 1 KW/h your first calc was incorrect at least we agree on that.

I mentioned I am an engineer but it you keep disputing it with no actual proof apart from the fact you sleep with a process engineer.

Regards using manufacturer's numbers go ask your wife where she gets the numbers from when she is designing a system or looking at a valve sizing. Manufacturers catalogues, it is standard engineering practise to take manufacturers figures. The fact car manufacturers figures are ropey is not my problem I follow engineering procedure and get info from manufacturers specs.
 

1 KWH = 3600,000 joules

To generate this from a CCGT at 55% thermal efficiency the input of primary energy is 6545,000 J (Gas)

The 3600000J of mains (E) becomes 2772000 (E) in the battery due to the 23% loss. 2772,000J is 3.85KM (based on 5KM per KWH)

6545,000J / 3.85 (KM) = 1700000J / KM

----------------------------------

I explained to you the value of manufacturers MPG figures  - they are laboratory tests. They give an indicator and are good for like for like comparison of models but do not reflect real road fuel consumption figures. Every Engineer in the UK knows this (except you it appears)

You appear to be suggesting that a vehicle bathed at 20 plus degrees C for the past 24 hours, running on a rolling road will give a realistic figure for on the road driving conditions?

If you follow manufacturers specs - fill a 108 to the brim and see if you can get 69mpg with ordinary driving conditions 

 

 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

2 minutes ago, Auson said:

Its a bit of a red herring to state that manufacturers MPG figures are too high. 

There are a select group of 'hypermilers' who compete to increase mpg with things like driving style, thinner engine oil and high tyre pressures. They can exceed manufacturers quoted MPG in real life. Besides we all need a baseline to work from otherwise its just an argument.

I would say that driving a Tesla hard and fast you won't get anywhere near the range quoted. There was talk of a one make race series with the Tesla P100 where races would be limited to 20 minutes as thats how long the battery would last !

On the Leaf figures for a 24kwh model I quoted 80 miles (imperial) as the typical range as opposed to the 124 manufacturers figures. It is from that 80 mile figure I am working on the 5KM / KWH figure. If we take that to 124 miles its 8.3 KM / KWH

[NickW + 2,714]

19 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Here is a classic example of a project vastly over running and highlights the point I am trying to make to the daydreamers who think everything to do with changing the UK to EVs will be cheap and easy. This project to put in 8.7 miles of electric trams cost £776m budget was £375m the fact it is an electrification project adds to the relevance.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-42096589

Nice little subject change there.

I would agree that cost is horrendous. They could have achieved the same result at a fraction of the cost using EV buses given how short the distances are.

[Auson + 123]

8 minutes ago, NickW said:

On the Leaf figures for a 24kwh model I quoted 80 miles (imperial) as the typical range as opposed to the 124 manufacturers figures. It is from that 80 mile figure I am working on the 5KM / KWH figure. If we take that to 124 miles its 8.3 KM / KWH

Nick W,

I won't dispute those figures but I will illustrate the problem with picking just one vehicle as an example. With these figure achieved on road and in competition.

• 149.95 mpg_‑US (1.5686 L/100 km; 180.08 mpg_‑imp) with a 1947 Studebaker in 1949
• 244.35 mpg_‑US (0.9626 L/100 km; 293.45 mpg_‑imp) with a 1959 Fiat 600 in 1968^[5]
• 376.59 mpg_‑US (0.62459 L/100 km; 452.27 mpg_‑imp) with a 1959 Opel in 1973.

The world record in diesel efficiency was achieved by a team from the Universitat Politècnica de Valencia (Politechnical University of Valencia, Spain) in 2010 with 1396.8 kilometres per litre

Thats 3000 mpg UK !

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, Auson said:

Nick W,

I won't dispute those figures but I will illustrate the problem with picking just one vehicle as an example. With these figure achieved on road and in competition.

• 149.95 mpg_‑US (1.5686 L/100 km; 180.08 mpg_‑imp) with a 1947 Studebaker in 1949
• 244.35 mpg_‑US (0.9626 L/100 km; 293.45 mpg_‑imp) with a 1959 Fiat 600 in 1968^[5]
• 376.59 mpg_‑US (0.62459 L/100 km; 452.27 mpg_‑imp) with a 1959 Opel in 1973.

The world record in diesel efficiency was achieved by a team from the Universitat Politècnica de Valencia (Politechnical University of Valencia, Spain) in 2010 with 1396.8 kilometres per litre

Thats 3000 mpg UK !

This doesn't represent real life driving conditions though does it.

I got 100mpg out of my 2L Nissan Qashqai driving down the side of a Mountain in Australia. Beat my wifes 34mpg average any day.

[jaycee + 348]

19 minutes ago, NickW said:

I explained to you the value of manufacturers MPG figures  - they are laboratory tests. They give an indicator and are good for like for like comparison of models but do not reflect real road fuel consumption figures. Every Engineer in the UK knows this (except you it appears)

Feeble, very feeble. You asked your wife yet how she does her job?

 

19 minutes ago, NickW said:

Nice little subject change there.

I would agree that cost is horrendous. They could have achieved the same result at a fraction of the cost using EV buses given how short the distances are.

No change it has been my point all along something you have desperately tried to move from.

[Auson + 123]

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

This doesn't represent real life driving conditions though does it.

I got 100mpg out of my 2L Nissan Qashqai driving down the side of a Mountain in Australia. Beat my wifes 34mpg average any day.

Its not normal but it is real. I have just quoted 3000 mpg ! that is a illustration that arguing over 50-69 mpg is still a lot lower than what is possible. 

370 mpg nearly 60 years ago ! and the best you can come up with is driving down the side of a mountain. 

Do you think the fuel economy competitons are all down hill ?