We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Electric cars
Comments
-
It's about time a government somewhere in the world decided to use a bit of joined up thinking.
Build nuclear power stations that are designed to produce electricity and hydrogen. Also mandate that all new public busses must use electricity or hydrogen fuel cells. Then force all coaches to follow. Then force all taxis to follow. The infrastructure to distribute hydrogen will naturally build up. Subsidise hydrogen fuel cell cars. Then ban petrol and diesel engines. Hydrogen fuel cell cars will take off and all pollution from ICE will end.
Why nuclear, HPC is planned to start operation around 2027 at a CfD price of £100/MWh for 35yrs. With wholesale prices in the late 20's early 30's estimated to be around £50/MWh, that's approx £50/MWh in subsidies for 35yrs.
The latest off-shore wind contracts are £64/MWh for 15yrs, and are planned to come on line in 2023.
On-shore wind and PV are already cheaper, at around £50/MWh.
As for nuclear powerstations that make hydrogen, hydrogen is either made from FF gas, which isn't a viable option, or from electrolysis (using that nuclear leccy), but obviously the H2 doesn't care where the leccy comes from.
Due to the efficiencies involved in producing the hydrogen from leccy, and then leccy from hydrogen to power the BEV (that the fuel cell and H2 tank are attached too) a H2 car uses about 3 to 5 times as much leccy as a BEV per mile.
So H2 is not an option for cars, plus it's being sold as a solution to the problem of range anxiety and 'refueling' times, but these have pretty much already been solved by 200+mile range BEVs, a re-charging infrastructure, and rapid chargers - plus of course for most people, for most miles, simply recharging at home, so H2 solves a problem that has largely already been solved.
H2 may have a roll in heavy freight, but even then you are still talking about building a big BEV, such as the Nikola One truck which is a 320kWh BEV with a fuel cell and H2 tank attached.Mart. Cardiff. 8.72 kWp PV systems (2.12 SSW 4.6 ESE & 2.0 WNW). 20kWh battery storage. Two A2A units for cleaner heating. Two BEV's for cleaner driving.
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
It's about time a government somewhere in the world decided to use a bit of joined up thinking.
Build nuclear power stations that are designed to produce electricity and hydrogen. Also mandate that all new public busses must use electricity or hydrogen fuel cells. Then force all coaches to follow. Then force all taxis to follow. The infrastructure to distribute hydrogen will naturally build up. Subsidise hydrogen fuel cell cars. Then ban petrol and diesel engines. Hydrogen fuel cell cars will take off and all pollution from ICE will end.
Hydrogen fuel cells produce zero pollution but their advantage over battery electric cars is that you can stop at a fuel station, pump in more hydrogen and off you go. No waiting around to charge your car. The range would be unlimited, just like a car. Everyone would be willing to switch eventually.
Problem solved.
But it requires a government to do this because it's currently stuck in a catch 22. There is no infrastructure for hydrogen production and distribution. It can only be produced cheaply at very high temperatures, which is why you use the new nuclear power stations. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are too expensive because there is no scale. There is no scale because there is no cheap hydrogen.
There's a much bigger Catch 22, it would be completely unaffordable, it would make the Apollo moon program look like spare change.
It's been estimated the cost to replace the petrol infrastructure with H2 is in excessive of a trillion dollars for the reasons Adrian C and Martyn outlined you don't just pop some gas in a tank and you're done.
The second massive cost is that to support the one third efficiency of H2 cars (which comes again from the factors Adrian & Martyn outlines, eg compression, transport, decompression, cooling and heating) compared to pure electric, you'd need to build 3x as many nuclear power stations as for battery cars. That I feel sure woudl be comfortably in excess of a trillion dollars.
Add to that, we are just on the cusp of cars with 250 mile ranges that can be filled in 15-20 minutes yet you'd propose we build literally hundreds of additional nuclear power stations and spend a trillion dollars just so people can save ten minutes on the occasional time they need to fill up (because of course most times most people won't be doing 250 miles in a day and will have filled up at home overnight and so won't need to fuel up at all.
This proposal is based on old school thinking, it's different with electric in the same way as if you had a half sized petrol tank but it was filled up every night at home* how often would you visit a petrol station and would you really propose spending multiple trillions of dollars in order to save some people ten minutes every now and then? If you would, good luck getting elected.
*Yes, there needs to be a solution for those who can't charge at home. Whatever it is I feel confident it won't cost trillions of dollars and will be easier than covering the planet with nuclear power stations,0 -
<scratches head>AnotherJoe wrote: »*Yes, there needs to be a solution for those who can't charge at home. Whatever it is I feel confident it won't cost trillions of dollars and will be easier than covering the planet with nuclear power stations,
I think you might be confusing the generation and distribution infrastructure there...
Frankly, I'm still in shock that Martyn and I seem to be in agreement.0 -
<scratches head>
I think you might be confusing the generation and distribution infrastructure there...
Frankly, I'm still in shock that Martyn and I seem to be in agreement.
LOL.
Nope, no confusion. My thought is that you've got 25% car owners who cant charge at home, and so "Mr H2"'s proposal would presumably be to just do what they do now at petrol stations with H2 instead, since it obviously would be far too difficult to expect them to wait an extra ten minutes to charge.0 -
There will never be a way for everyone to charge electric cars at home. Far too many victorian terraces. There's also the problem that poor people will never be able to afford them. Battery replacement is too expensive, and so is battery leasing.
Nuclear is the cheapest clean and reliable form of energy. Wind and solar can never be the primary source of energy unless you spend trillions building energy storage everywhere, flooding half the country.
Nuclear is the only viable solution. Otherwise we are just stuck with Gas forever.Changing the world, one sarcastic comment at a time.0 -
The cost per MWh is not really important when producing hydrogen. Without the extremely high temperatures of nuclear, the process is more inefficient.Martyn1981 wrote: »Why nuclear, HPC is planned to start operation around 2027 at a CfD price of £100/MWh for 35yrs. With wholesale prices in the late 20's early 30's estimated to be around £50/MWh, that's approx £50/MWh in subsidies for 35yrs.
The latest off-shore wind contracts are £64/MWh for 15yrs, and are planned to come on line in 2023.
On-shore wind and PV are already cheaper, at around £50/MWh.
The costs of HPC are not really relevant since that's the cost of building and designing and getting approval for a single power station.
If you were mass building new nuclear, the costs would be spread over many more power stations, bringing costs down.Changing the world, one sarcastic comment at a time.0 -
There will never be a way for everyone to charge electric cars at home. Far too many victorian terraces. There's also the problem that poor people will never be able to afford them. Battery replacement is too expensive, and so is battery leasing.
On street charging points, charging at lamposts, charging stations in small carparks (if that's where the people store their cars overnight), charging at supermarkets whilst doing the shopping, on-street charging whilst in work, charging in work.
[Edit - Sorry forgot your battery cost bit - batt costs are tumbling, also why would you need to replace them if the Tesla batts are expected to be at 90% capacity after 500,000 miles?
If the second hand EV car you are buying has low capacity, then that would be reflected in the price you pay, and then you can buy a new batt for it, to give a decade plus of cheap motoring.
Even if H2 cars could go head to head with BEV's today, I suspect your battery claims would fail, but since we are probably talking 5-10yrs at the earliest, then with falling batt costs, there is no way your claims can stand the test of time, even if they were true today. M.]Nuclear is the cheapest clean and reliable form of energy. Wind and solar can never be the primary source of energy unless you spend trillions building energy storage everywhere, flooding half the country.
Nuclear is the only viable solution. Otherwise we are just stuck with Gas forever.
Actually nuclear is already the most expensive form of generation, as I've already pointed out off-shore wind (which is more expensive than on-shore wind and PV) is now down to £64/MWh v's the £100/MWh for HPC (Hinkley Point C).
£100 is a lot more than £64. £100 is a lot further away from wholesale prices of £50/MWh, than £64 is.
35yrs of subsidy for nuclear is a lot more than 15yrs for off-shore wind.
In subsidy ratio terms, assuming a wholesale price of £50 (see page 39 of the NAO report), that means a subsidy for off-shore wind of 15yrs x £14 = 210
for HPC we have 35yrs x £50 = 1,750
so the subsidy cost ratio is 210 : 1,750
Also note that the UK could generate 10 to 100 times as much leccy as we need just from off-shore wind
The UK is the Saudi Arabia of wind energy
and that costs are still falling with Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium all issuing subsidy free contracts, and the UK possibly not far behind (though our deployments must also pay for infrastructure build out, and are typically in deeper waters and farther off-shore).The cost per MWh is not really important when producing hydrogen. Without the extremely high temperatures of nuclear, the process is more inefficient.
The costs of HPC are not really relevant since that's the cost of building and designing and getting approval for a single power station.
If you were mass building new nuclear, the costs would be spread over many more power stations, bringing costs down.
By high temps are you thinking of H2 from natural gas?
HPC is not a single power station, it follows 60yrs of subsidy supported nuclear generation, and unlike wind and PV whose costs have tumbled in the last 10yrs following large scale deployment, nuclear has bucked the trend (of all other technologies) and gotten more expensive over time.
It is not the first powerstation, it is the third EPR power station that France is building, with the earlier two (Finland and Flamanville) both years and years behind schedule and billions over budget.
There have already been issues found in the quality of HPC, and the Flamanville reactor will have to shut shortly after commissioning to replace the reactor lid which is faulty - it would be easier and more sensible to replace the lid before commissioning but EDF need it to be (briefly) operational before 2020 or the UK can withdraw loan guarantees on the HPC deal.
The subsidy alone for HPC will be approx £45bn, that buys you a lot of wind and PV, perhaps 45GW's, or in subsidy terms, probably an infinite amount of PV and wind, as it'll go subsidy free long before it can consume that much - and note, I'm comparing the wind and PV industries (the industries) to a single nuclear powerstation of 3.2GW, not the proposed 16GW industry the govt has suggested.Mart. Cardiff. 8.72 kWp PV systems (2.12 SSW 4.6 ESE & 2.0 WNW). 20kWh battery storage. Two A2A units for cleaner heating. Two BEV's for cleaner driving.
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
You didn't address the problem with wind at all.
That is that it isn't always windy.
You build these dangerous off-shore wind farms that kill people, but where does the electricity come form when there's a quite period? Don't say it's always windy somewhere, because it's not. You'd have to store enough energy to power the grid for days and that's not viable. Or you'd have to build coal power stations, and leave them sitting there, not doing anything until they are needed, then you'd suddenly switch them all on and spew out all this pollution until it's windy again. This would cost a huge amount of money and needs to be built into the cost of off shore wind, which you claim is £64 MWh
HPC is the first new reactor built in the UK. It requires approval from the UK and these design and approval works have already cost a billion.
If you built ten reactors to the same design, you'd be reusing the same design and employing people on long term contracts, which is cheaper.Changing the world, one sarcastic comment at a time.0 -
You didn't address the problem with wind at all.
That is that it isn't always windy.
Very true it's not always windy, but the UK off-shore wind fleet generates approx 100% of the time, each farm generates approx 85% of the time, and with interconnectors you also have European fluctuating generation.
Energy Numbers - UK offshore wind capacity factors
Then there is also bio-energy, solar, hydro, tidal, and hopefully wave too soon.
ATM wind and solar are generating 18.3GW, whilst gas, nuclear and coal (coal has gone zero yet again) are generating 15.6GW.
In the last 10yrs RE has gone from 5% to 30% of UK generation, whilst nuclear is at approx 20% and HPC (7%) won't come on line for another decade.You build these dangerous off-shore wind farms that kill people, but where does the electricity come form when there's a quite period? Don't say it's always windy somewhere, because it's not.
Dangerous, unlike nuclear?You'd have to store enough energy to power the grid for days and that's not viable.
Not days, though the common myth put about by nuclear fans is 21 days or 504hrs. Reports looking at both Australia and the US, have suggested the need for 12hrs of storage.
For the UK, a detailed report stated 500GWh, which is co-incidentally 12hrs based on todays generation, but the report was based on a future leccy demand of 72GW (not the current 40GW), so approx 7hrs of storage.
Yes, 500GWh is a large number, but storage is being deployed all over the world already, at grid, commercial and domestic levels, and prices are tumbling. Storage today, is where PV was around 2012.
Back to that 500GWh - if we move to EV's, and have 30m of them, then at 50kWh each, that would be 1,500GWh of storage in the UK, which could provide grid support (absorbing cheap excess, and providing peak supply top ups), and all without any capital expenditure by the National Grid, nor the DNO's. I think it's reasonable to assume that 1/3rd of that storage will be available at any given time.Or you'd have to build coal power stations, and leave them sitting there, not doing anything until they are needed, then you'd suddenly switch them all on and spew out all this pollution until it's windy again.
Nope, nobody would build coal power stations for this purpose, also in case you didn't know, coal generation is on a death spiral, down to around 7% of our generation (from approx 30% just a few years ago) and is to cease in 2025, so no, not coal.
You might well use the existing gas fleet (~25GW) for back up, but hopefully this will make use of biogas, either from biogas production (see Ecotricity's green grass mills), or from excess generation that would be otherwise wasted, stage one being hydrogen production, handy for heavy freight if the bother to go down that route, but probably more useful for on site leccy generation by commercial scale fuel cells.This would cost a huge amount of money and needs to be built into the cost of off shore wind, which you claim is £64 MWh.
Intermittency costs are already considered, and may be around £10/MWh for wind.
I don't claim that the latest off-shore wind is £64, I'm simply telling you that it is, if you don't know any of the costs, then I suggest you look at the UK CfD register:
One of the 6 latest off-shore wind contracts at £63.66/MWh for 15yrs
HPC £99.87/MWh for 35yrs
I apologise to you if these costs are a shock, since you believe that nuclear is the cheapest.HPC is the first new reactor built in the UK. It requires approval from the UK and these design and approval works have already cost a billion.
HPC is the first new reactor built in the UK ...... for some time, but the nuclear industry has been building vast amounts of nuclear generation, supported by vast subsidies for 60yrs.
Of course it needs design approval, that's one of the reasons why nuclear costs have gone up, not down, because we have found that earlier, cheaper designs were not safe enough, needed too much down time and maintenance, and cost far, far more to decommission than expected as they were not build with decommissioning in mind. That's part of the reason why the UK's NDA (nuclear decommissioning agency) has a budget of approx £3bn pa for the next 80-100yrs.If you built ten reactors to the same design, you'd be reusing the same design and employing people on long term contracts, which is cheaper.
The EPR reactor design being built at Hinkley is the same as the ones being built in Flamanville and Finland, it's not AFOAK. Yet HPC is to be the most expensive powerstation in the world.
As to falling costs, such as off-shore wind in the last decade falling from approx £160 to £60, well building SC (Sizewell C) gets us a 3.24% reduction.
Regarding employment, not only is RE cheaper, but it's also one of the most labour intensive industries out there. Comparing output generation to output generation, far more people are employed in the RE industries than in nuclear or FF's.
It's also worth looking to the wider world for feedback. The UK, China and the UAE are looking at expanding nuclear capacity.
Germany is ending all nuclear, France is scaling back generation from 75% to 50% due to falling RE costs (and the fact nuclear is incredibly unpopular there), S. Korea which has a large percentage of nuclear is stepping back and has suggested no new builds after the completing current ones, the US which has the largest fleet in the world has been shutting reactors before they reach end of life as it's simply not economical to re-furbish them when major overhauls become due. Also they only have (or had) 4 reactors under construction, but have just cancelled two of those mid build as they simply won't be economic on completion.
I apologise for using so many facts to address your unsubstantiated claims. [Changing the world, one sarcastic comment at a time.]Mart. Cardiff. 8.72 kWp PV systems (2.12 SSW 4.6 ESE & 2.0 WNW). 20kWh battery storage. Two A2A units for cleaner heating. Two BEV's for cleaner driving.
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
their advantage over battery electric cars is that you can stop at a fuel station, pump in more hydrogen and off you go
How long does that take?
Have a look at destination charging for anyone who can't charge at home or is on a long journey. Having to wait for a car to charge isn't as common as people seem to think (IME).
You have listed a lot of problems with hydrogen, and propose nuclear power stations as a solution. Might I suggest simply that electric cars might be the better solution? Charge your car at home, public chargers are only needed for long journeys, plenty of 200 mile EVs are just around the corner. How long will that plant take to build?How much is a Tesla 3 going to cost?
From around £30 I think it is...There's also the problem that poor people will never be able to afford them.
Just. What?! Poor people can't afford those big expensive piston engined cars either then. Oh, that's right, cars depreciate. What's this about battery replacement? They look like lasting the life of the car. And battery leasing could cost the same as the petrol you no longer buy.Nuclear is the cheapest clean and reliable form of energy
Missing out a couple of mildly important factors, like the cost of building the plant, and carefully storing the waste for thousands of years. Also, Cernobyl, Fukushima. And I actually like nuclear!Wind and solar can never be the primary source of energy unless you spend trillions building energy storage everywhere, flooding half the country.
Trillions. Have you done any sums? What if you put the panels, batteries, turbines, on the nuclear sites? Panels on peoples' homes, batteries too. Think small.You didn't address the problem with wind at all.
That is that it isn't always windy.
I'll address it for you. Take one of those old oil rigs. Put turbine(s) on it. Put batteries on it. STORAGE.You build these dangerous off-shore wind farms that kill people
Eh? Are they more dangerous than oil rigs? 'Guns don't kill people, off-shore wind farms do'.
I'm not arguing against a nuclear power plant, we probably do need one more, but you've got some crazy ideas about renewable energy.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 258K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards