What should the UK energy policy for the next 25 years+be

rogerblack

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Just thinking out loud, but if each house had storage for 2kWh's, then I think that works out at about 20GW reduction in demand for 2 hours (5 to 7pm). Appreciate that would be a nightmare, but could localised battery storage work instead, say 2MWh's per 1,000 properties?

I have wondered about this - it seems to me that batteries may not be the correct solution, but modular flywheels running in vacuum.
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/Beacon.pdf

This is of 200 25kWh storage flywheels.
The total cost is $52M - so $10/Wh.

This is about eight times lead acid batteries.
However - those have had over a century of cost reduction.

If I was put in charge of UK energy generation(*), part of my policy would be prizes for disruptive technologies.
£50M, for any means of storing energy for over 5 days that is reproducable in the medium and large scale, and does not require use of near-finite resources at 1p/kWh.
This would include flywheels, novel batteries, fuel cells, ...
It would not include pumped energy storage.
£50M for substantial advances in storage heater technology - that are producible at comparable cost to existing ones. (For example, vacuum insulated heaters)
£20M for coming up with a hyper-insulated easy to use water pipe at a non-ridiculous cost.
(A pipe which will stay hot for several hours with no external insulation).

It seems vacuum is the theme running through these.

*) Something I am not aware there are any moves to do.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Now for the opposite effect .... we've got, say, a 3GW reduction in peak demand, but what other developments are happening on the decarbonisation front which will place load onto the grid ? ... well, electric vehicles is probably the main one .... consider a point where EVs have reached a mere 20% penetration into the market and, to not overstate the point, that every household only has one vehicle. For this exercise let's say that all of the EVs have a 50% battery discharge, having covered 15miles (Nissan Leaf), and that 1/3 of vehicles would need to be used again the same evening (which is likely) and would therefore need to be recharged immediately, consuming 6.6kW(Nissan Leaf) .... that's 10.9GW (6600x0.2x0.33x25) of additional carbon reducing demand required at peak generation times ....

It all goes to show that decarbonisation and peak demand reduction are not really the same thing and that cutting the peak is by no means 'easy', that is without major social & economic upheaval ....

HTH
Z

Hiya Zeup, been pondering this. All theoretical at this stage, but I wondered if the roll out of electrical cars could have the opposite effect. The idea that has been put out, is that the car batteries would be well suited to contributing to energy supply at peak times. So you plug them in to charge, but if not needed immediately (2/3 of cars using your assumptions) could supply power, rather than draw it.

So, counter-argument, just for the fun of it. 50% discharge from 15miles use, seems a little unfair, I thought the Leaf was good for 50 to 80 miles on a charge, driven reasonably.

So if 1/3 are needed again that evening (sounds fair), I'd also assume that half those cars/trips won't need additional charging, so lets say 10% to 20% need charging.

Of the remaining cars, some won't have enough charge to 'steal' so are 'out of the game', but hopefully a fair guess is that 50% of all cars are plugged in, ready for night time charge, and having enough charge to contribute to evening peak.

Apologies for the mountain of assumptions built one on top of the other, but this might mean a ratio of 50:15 of cars helping v's cars exacerbating the problem.

Appreciate that this may seem a silly issue to raise, but we are looking some way ahead, and as battery capacity and range increase, that will mean less cars needing to be charged at crucial times, and more cars, with more 'spare' being available to help. (I think?)

@Roger, thanks, I'd forgotten about flywheel technology.

Mart.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya Zeup, been pondering this. All theoretical at this stage, but I wondered if the roll out of electrical cars could have the opposite effect. The idea that has been put out, is that the car batteries would be well suited to contributing to energy supply at peak times. So you plug them in to charge, but if not needed immediately (2/3 of cars using your assumptions) could supply power, rather than draw it.

So, counter-argument, just for the fun of it. 50% discharge from 15miles use, seems a little unfair, I thought the Leaf was good for 50 to 80 miles on a charge, driven reasonably.

So if 1/3 are needed again that evening (sounds fair), I'd also assume that half those cars/trips won't need additional charging, so lets say 10% to 20% need charging.

Of the remaining cars, some won't have enough charge to 'steal' so are 'out of the game', but hopefully a fair guess is that 50% of all cars are plugged in, ready for night time charge, and having enough charge to contribute to evening peak.

Apologies for the mountain of assumptions built one on top of the other, but this might mean a ratio of 50:15 of cars helping v's cars exacerbating the problem.

Appreciate that this may seem a silly issue to raise, but we are looking some way ahead, and as battery capacity and range increase, that will mean less cars needing to be charged at crucial times, and more cars, with more 'spare' being available to help. (I think?)

@Roger, thanks, I'd forgotten about flywheel technology.

Mart.

Hi

I still think that the average person would jealously guard their investment in batteries ... maybe, if the technology is developed ,there's a case for using vehicle battery power in your own house in order to reduce consumption at peak, but I still see a major issue .....

The reference to the Nissan Leaf was simply to provide a reference point for the power/energy requirements, not to base all EVs on the Leaf, don't forget, quite a degree of latitude had already been allowed for by assuming only 1 vehicle/household ... around here it's probably three or four per household, in some cases it's that many per person! .... take for example a Toyota Prius Plug-In which has an EV range of ~15miles, so every one of them would have exhausted batteries & need recharge unless the owner used standard hybrid mode.

I've seen loads of discussions regarding using EV power storage, however, what seems to be missed in most cases is simple human nature .... if there's a chance that the EV will be needed later, the car will be put on charge immediately ... personally, if I've invested heavily in a means of personal transportation then I would want it to be available for use whenever it's needed .... just think, an emergency which needs the car to be used .... phone rings ....

"Sorry (mum/boss/doctor/son/officer/dear/...), I know it's urgent, but can you just not (insert action) just yet as I've been watching some TV and the car's not due to start it's re-charge for another 20 minutes. I'll try to be there in two hours or so ... is that okay ?" ...

HTH
Z

spgsc531

Are EV cars really the future?

I thought the likely main direction of the world's car manufacturers was hybrid, and likely hydrogen in the future?

rogerblack

spgsc531 wrote: »

Are EV cars really the future?

I thought the likely main direction of the world's car manufacturers was hybrid, and likely hydrogen in the future?

It depends.
If someone comes up with a nice cheap battery technology, that lasts well, doesn't catch fire too fast when crushed, and is recyclable, electric cars could take over almost tomorrow.

zeupater

spgsc531 wrote: »

Are EV cars really the future?

I thought the likely main direction of the world's car manufacturers was hybrid, and likely hydrogen in the future?

Hi

You're probably right, but instead of hybrids such as the Prius, with limited EV mode (~1mile), we're starting to see the release of vehicles like the Prius Plug-In which is mains rechargeable with a range of ~15miles .... they effectively use the same drivetrain but have newer technology battery packs with far more storage .... then there's the Ampera - all GM need to do is sort the production costs so they don't make a loss of ~£20k on each one sold (reported $49k loss in USA based on $40k list price).

HTH
Z

spgsc531

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

You're probably right, but instead of hybrids such as the Prius, with limited EV mode (~1mile), we're starting to see the release of vehicles like the Prius Plug-In which is mains rechargeable with a range of ~15miles .... they effectively use the same drivetrain but have newer technology battery packs with far more storage .... then there's the Ampera - all GM need to do is sort the production costs so they don't make a loss of ~£20k on each one sold (reported $49k loss in USA based on $40k list price).

HTH
Z

Well, of course the technology is constantly improving...

There's also the upcoming Mclaren P1, it can cover 6 miles on electric power alone, just enough to cover the CO2 test cycle :think:

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I still think that the average person would jealously guard their investment in batteries ... maybe, if the technology is developed ,there's a case for using vehicle battery power in your own house in order to reduce consumption at peak, but I still see a major issue .....

The reference to the Nissan Leaf was simply to provide a reference point for the power/energy requirements, not to base all EVs on the Leaf, don't forget, quite a degree of latitude had already been allowed for by assuming only 1 vehicle/household ... around here it's probably three or four per household, in some cases it's that many per person! .... take for example a Toyota Prius Plug-In which has an EV range of ~15miles, so every one of them would have exhausted batteries & need recharge unless the owner used standard hybrid mode.

HTH
Z

Don't get me wrong, I can see all these problems, but I still think (largely hypothetically) that there is something here.

After all, as the number of cars per household grow, you also see a drop in annual mileage per car. I'd guess that the ratio of cars that don't need charging immediately, would actually grow, as the household acquires more cars.

However, all of this is academic without some sort of punitive pricing during those key hours, and probably an hour either side too, though a little less punitive.

Personally, I'd share your concerns about 'using up' my battery lifespan for domestic use, but this will all depend again on punitive pricing, and on the reliability/lifespan of the batts - which in the case of the Prius, appears to be extremely good (so far).

For daytime use, to work and back (locally) I'd guess you are right at about 15miles use, so we also need to see cars with around 100mile ranges. That way they still have 80 or so miles left, and instant charging (on return) would not be a major concern.

Mart.

Martyn1981

spgsc531 wrote: »

Well, of course the technology is constantly improving...

There's also the upcoming Mclaren P1, it can cover 6 miles on electric power alone, just enough to cover the CO2 test cycle :think:

That P1 is an interesting car, but I suspect a little out of my price range. Interesting to see such a difference between torque and horsepower, almost as if it's been tuned to perform more like a motorbike engine, then use the leccy motor's instant torque for any shortfall. That'll wake you up!

Sticking with McLaren (well, not really, but a tenuous link) I really like the idea of Gordon Murray's new car the T25 and T27 (electric):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/carreviews/9378514/Gordon-Murray-T27-review.html

Fascinating story on the design of this car, he took manufacturing, shipping, factory location etc into account, and approached the design process almost in reverse. This car, or ideas like it, could really change our approach to city motoring.

Mart.

spgsc531

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

You're probably right, but instead of hybrids such as the Prius, with limited EV mode (~1mile), we're starting to see the release of vehicles like the Prius Plug-In which is mains rechargeable with a range of ~15miles .... they effectively use the same drivetrain but have newer technology battery packs with far more storage .... then there's the Ampera - all GM need to do is sort the production costs so they don't make a loss of ~£20k on each one sold (reported $49k loss in USA based on $40k list price).

HTH
Z

You need to get a more up to date google search..

VW Golf Mk7 plug-in hybrid:
combination of a 148bhp 1.4-litre TFSI petrol engine and a 100bhp electric motor for a combined 256lb ft of torque, a 138mph top speed and a 0-62mph sprint time of 7.6sec. According to the official EU test cycle, the Golf achieves 188mpg or a CO2 rating of just 35g/km.
In pure electric mode, the Golf can travel up to 31 miles and has a maximum speed of 81mph.
Audi A3 e-tron has same drivetrain.