One prediction on electric cars

[gar]

140912-2032 EDT

One of the links from the Volt Forum " http://gm-volt.com/ "..

http://www.hybridcars.com/eight-impressive-statistics-about-teslas-gigafactory/

.

 

[mgookin]

Interesting.
Thanks for the post.

 

[Besoeker]

140912-2032 EDT

One of the links from the Volt Forum " http://gm-volt.com/ "..

http://www.hybridcars.com/eight-impressive-statistics-about-teslas-gigafactory/

.

Yes, interesting as mgookin says.
I saw the second article on another forum.
Let me say at the outset that I am not anti electric vehicles. EVs.

They are not a modern phenomenon - theyhave been around for a long time. In fact they pre-date internal combustion (IC) vehicles by about a hundred years.
They have been used in niche applications. In UK, they are used for deliveries of goods on defined routes. Particularly early morning deliveries where quiet operation was an advantage. Fork lift trucks are often electric - ours are. Use them for unloading or loading delivery vehicles - no great times or distances involved and never far from a charging point.

But EVs have never caught on in the same was IC vehicles have. And the reasons are much the same as they have always been.
Range, recharge times and cost. The cost issue has been, to some extent, addressed here by government incentives. AKA bribes. I think the current subsidy is about ?5k. But it still makes the Nissan Leaf almost double the price of of the IC counterpart it is derived from.

Range is typically in the order of 100 miles. And recharge time is a few hours. For people with short, defined routes this could work. My round trip to my office is 50 miles so comfortable within range.
Actually, I quite often work from home so the trip is bedroom to office.......

Slightly more seriously, I quite often drive much longer distances to see customers. A 200-mile round trip is not unusual and, later this month, we will go to Scotland via Cumbria. It will be a 1,000 mile trip. With my current quite frugal IC car that can be achieved on one tankful. A 10-minute splash and dash. Done. An EV would require ten recharges. Not really a practical proposition.

Maybe these practical limitations will get ironed out in time. But there one potentially major stumbling block that doesn't often get mentioned.
Supply capacity.
If/when EVs go mainstream we will need the electrical infrastructure that has the capacity to cope with that? Here (UK), the supply capacity is already on its knees for various reasons but to a great extent because most of our nuclear generating capacity, at one time about 20%, has reached end of life and is being decommissioned. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima stick in peoples' minds. Voter's minds. The gestation period for new build is longer than a government term in office and not a vote winner.

Ironically, at 05:50 on a Saturday, we are getting 7.22% of our electrical energy from France via the cross channel HVDC interconnector. It can't be more - it's running at rated capacity.
Ironically? Well France is about 70% nuclear for power generation. A decision made to avoid dependency on imported fuels.

The situation in USA?
I think no less parlous than that of UK. Possibly worse. Tops the tables for imported electrical energy. About 60 billion kWh.
Currently, there are about 250,000,000 passenger vehicles in USA.
If just half of those became EVs that would still be over 100,000,000 of them. One hundred million.

Supply capacity could be the show stopper.

 

[bphgravity]

Nearly 5,000 automobiles were manufactured in the U.S. by the year 1900. 28% of these automobiles were powered by electricity.

 

[starbolin]

...
Supply capacity could be the show stopper.

Will limit the market penetration. Certainly.

My peeve is lack of fuel redundancy. "Sir, I'm stuck up the road there. May I borrow a bucket of electrons?"

 

[GoldDigger]

Will limit the market penetration. Certainly.

My peeve is lack of fuel redundancy. "Sir, I'm stuck up the road there. May I borrow a bucket of electrons?"

Or a few kilos of watts?

 

[mgookin]

I expect a breakthrough in energy coming along any time now.
Power plants and grids are ancient technology which won't be around long.

 

[starbolin]

Or a few kilos of watts?

:lol:You sir, win the internets. :lol:

 

[Besoeker]

I expect a breakthrough in energy coming along any time now.
Power plants and grids are ancient technology which won't be around long.

OK
What alternatives do you predict will replace the 4.099 trillion kWh USA production?

 

[mgookin]

OK
What alternatives do you predict will replace the 4.099 trillion kWh USA production?

I didn't say it was my solution.
How long ago did man figure out nukes? Power plants? Etc?
Surely somebody will come up with something to replace the old technology.

 

[Besoeker]

I didn't say it was my solution.
How long ago did man figure out nukes? Power plants? Etc?
Surely somebody will come up with something to replace the old technology.

There are some alternatives.
Not replacements but alternatives and not exactly new.
Solar and wind have been around for decades but relative small beer.

Hydro, for the most part, even longer at utility level.
Check out Itaipu.

But it needs suitable topography and not so many places have that.
Norway does and is over 90% hydro.

 

[rlundsrud]

I think EV's could work if we had an inductive system under roads. The roadway would be the primary transformer and the car would be the secondary. That way instead of power flowing in and out of the battery it would flow in and out of the grid with the battery functioning as an accumulator. If this system could be developed it would solve the range issues that EV's have.

And for what it's worth, even if global warming isn't a proven fact, I would rather we take action against it. If there is a chance that it does have an impact that makes life more difficult for future generations, we owe it to ourselves to act proactively. It is pretty hard to get the pea out of the pool once it is in there.

Bob

 

[ActionDave]

And for what it's worth, even if global warming isn't a proven fact, I would rather we take action against it. If there is a chance that it does have an impact that makes life more difficult for future generations, we owe it to ourselves to act proactively. It is pretty hard to get the pea out of the pool once it is in there.

Bob

When you put it that way there is no reason not to do it. Must be asked though; do you live your life that way? I'll be honest; I don't.

As I ponder some more, if I wanted take action against an unproven fact how would I be so sure what action to take?

 

[Besoeker]

I think EV's could work if we had an inductive system under roads. The roadway would be the primary transformer and the car would be the secondary. That way instead of power flowing in and out of the battery it would flow in and out of the grid with the battery functioning as an accumulator. If this system could be developed it would solve the range issues that EV's have.

Even if a practical idea, what would you do?
Dig up and re-lay miles and miles of roadways?
And you'd still have to beef up the electrical infrastructure.
Who will foot the bill for all that? Where will the money com from?

You may have seen this idea:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=solar+freakin+roadways&oq=solar+frea&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.15559j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Debunked by Anthony Watts.

 

[fmtjfw]

OK
What alternatives do you predict will replace the 4.099 trillion kWh USA production?

Not all of it, but a significant portion.

Distributed generation: Solar, Wind
Reduced system losses: due to distributed generation
Higher efficiency generation: as older central power stations are retired because they don't meet environmental regulation & are replaced with more efficient stations
Co-generation: both for small plants associated with industrial, commercial, and heating loads and for central stations that sell "waste heat" rather than warming the air or water.
Conservation: Refit lighting in commercial, institutional, replacement of resistance heating with heat-pumps, more attention to motor efficiency. Added insulation and draft reduction to reduce heating and cooling loads.

 

[rlundsrud]

When you put it that way there is no reason not to do it. Must be asked though; do you live your life that way? I'll be honest; I don't.

As I ponder some more, if I wanted take action against an unproven fact how would I be so sure what action to take?

No, I really don't live life by this model, I suppose I am a hypocrite. I do think if a system was available like the one I described it would go a long way towards making a difference. I hope that this idea might start a discussion about the feasibility of such a system. Planting a seed so to speak.

As far as what action to take, I do think that discussion in forums like these were there is such a huge knowledge base is a good jumping off point.


Bob

 

[rlundsrud]

Even if a practical idea, what would you do?
Dig up and re-lay miles and miles of roadways?
And you'd still have to beef up the electrical infrastructure.
Who will foot the bill for all that? Where will the money com from?

You may have seen this idea:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=solar+freakin+roadways&oq=solar+frea&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.15559j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Debunked by Anthony Watts.

It would be installed as roadways are reworked, this would give adequate time to bolster the distribution system. I don't want to enter into a discussion about who would pay for it when the idea is still in the conceptual stage. I do think that if it is feasible it would have many merits as a functional system.

Bob

 

[Besoeker]

Not all of it, but a significant portion.

Distributed generation: Solar, Wind

I don't wish to burst your bubble but.....well let's look at some figures.
Yes, solar and wind are catching on in various parts of the world.

In USA, the installed capacity is about 5% of total capacity. It sounds like a significant amount. But you have to look at what that capacity means.

For wind turbines, a typical capacity factor is given as 30% The British Wind Energy Association, BWEA, is one source but you might expect them, given who they are to be optimistic rather than pessimistic. But take the 30% for what it's worth. A 1MW turbine would, on average (back to that in a moment), give you 300kW.

For solar, the capacity factor is usually taken as about 20%. Actually, the theoretical maximum if you do the trig, is about 30% and then you'd get that only within the tropics and at the time of year when the sun is directly overhead at high noon - you stand within your own shadow. And 12 hours a day of unbroken sunshine. Other places at other times of year and with a bit cloud cover and the yield would be much less. The 20% may be a a fair average.

The 5% installed capacity may just be a tad misleading. And a long way short of being a really significant contributor.

Then there's the average business. "The wind bloweth where it listeth." John 3:8 (KJV).
One might add when it listeth. The point is that it is a variable source. As is solar - none during the hours of darkness.
So they are on availability sources. We have on demand expectations. You want that light to come on when you flick the switch.
The resolution for that variability is storage, but it would need to be at utility scale. And we simply do not have that.

Reduced system losses: due to distributed generation

The difference between US production and consumption is a shade over 5%.
Even if you cut the losses to zero, clearly not an achievable goal, that gives you some perspective on what you might save.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not for a moment suggesting that we shouldn't be looking for solutions. But we should not underestimate the magnitude of the issues.

 

[bluesmoke...oops]

I don't want to enter into a discussion about who would pay for it when the idea is still in the conceptual stage. I do think that if it is feasible it would have many merits as a functional system.

Part of a feasibility analysis would include cost predictions and where funding comes from. Otherwise it's just hypothetical thinking that doesn't go anywhere.

 

[fmtjfw]

I don't wish to burst your bubble but.....well let's look at some figures.
Yes, solar and wind are catching on in various parts of the world.

In USA, the installed capacity is about 5% of total capacity. It sounds like a significant amount. But you have to look at what that capacity means.

For wind turbines, a typical capacity factor is given as 30% The British Wind Energy Association, BWEA, is one source but you might expect them, given who they are to be optimistic rather than pessimistic. But take the 30% for what it's worth. A 1MW turbine would, on average (back to that in a moment), give you 300kW.

For solar, the capacity factor is usually taken as about 20%. Actually, the theoretical maximum if you do the trig, is about 30% and then you'd get that only within the tropics and at the time of year when the sun is directly overhead at high noon - you stand within your own shadow. And 12 hours a day of unbroken sunshine. Other places at other times of year and with a bit cloud cover and the yield would be much less. The 20% may be a a fair average.

The 5% installed capacity may just be a tad misleading. And a long way short of being a really significant contributor.

Then there's the average business. "The wind bloweth where it listeth." John 3:8 (KJV).
One might add when it listeth. The point is that it is a variable source. As is solar - none during the hours of darkness.
So they are on availability sources. We have on demand expectations. You want that light to come on when you flick the switch.
The resolution for that variability is storage, but it would need to be at utility scale. And we simply do not have that.


The difference between US production and consumption is a shade over 5%.
Even if you cut the losses to zero, clearly not an achievable goal, that gives you some perspective on what you might save.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not for a moment suggesting that we shouldn't be looking for solutions. But we should not underestimate the magnitude of the issues.

The French prior to WWII had no nuclear generation capacity. What gets built is a matter of economics and regulation. That's how France got to the high level of Atom power.

There has been an engineering study about installing a broad swath of offshore wind mills along the east coast and the weather reports and the law of large numbers indicate that they could deliver predicable constant power.

People are engineering storage facilities to smooth out non-fossil fuel variations.

Some of the southern states have been lobbied by the POCOs to add a tax to solar power because of the purported "costs" to the power company. [Or perhaps to fulfill the prediction "solar power will not be feasible until the corporations can figure how to meter sunbeams.]

I had a 700W Solar Panel Installation in Massachusetts around 2000 that generated 1MWh per year. I have a realistic idea on their efficiencies. I also know that the efficiency has gone up since then.

LEDs have the possibility of making a large dent in lighting loads.

A large portion of the housing stock here can be made more energy efficient at a cost per KWh below the cost of building new generation. It is just a question of providing the proper incentives to the POCOs. In Massachusetts they were allowed add the cost of customer efficiency work to their rate-base just as if they had added a new plant. In WV no incentives, no meaningful programs.

It's not easy, but there are significant issues to overcome.