Electric cars

AnotherJoe

Gloomendoom wrote: »

See post #773


Thanks for the link. The question being addressed there is that of satisfying peak demand, not local network capability.

I think if transformers needing to cool down for 12 hours a day was part of the problem they would mention it.

It does, however, provide a link to another document (Future Energy Scenarios, National Grid, 2017) which I have quickly scanned through and that does, at first glance, seem to lend weight to the notion that the network, as it stands, won't cope if there is a significant swing to mass EV ownership.

For example...

"Consumer Power sees the most aggressive rise in peak demand. This is brought about by less engaged consumers who use electricity when it suits them. The potential impact that unmanaged mass EV charging, particularly at peak time, could create is significant. In such a scenario, challenges to operating the system, generation and network capability will need to be addressed if we are to have a network that is safe, secure, reliable and economical"

OK, so address them. Like our predecessors did.

"How the peak time demand from EVs is treated has a significant effect on the electricity system. If left largely unmanaged, as in Consumer Power, it has the potential to be a challenge to the system but in particular to the distribution networks and for system operators post 2030."

So, dont leave it unmanaged.

"By 2030, our scenarios predict there will be between 1.9 and 9.3 million EVs on the roads. If these vehicles were all to charge at the same time it would put significant strain on distribution networks and peak generation capacity."

IF they were all to charge at the same time. A wholly unlikely scenario. And note, thats just a strain. It doesnt say it couldnt cope and thats even in the not just unlikely but not gonna happen, scenario where everyone charges their EVs at the same time. Kettles on at half time in the FA cup final is more likely.

"More broadly, networks will need to upgrade and adapt to the changing nature of generation and demand connected to them, taking a whole electricity system approach to minimise costs to consumers."

Thats not a problem, its an opportunity.

"We have also assumed that the network infrastructure changes, which will undoubtedly be required to support such a rapid electrification of transport, are in place and so do not prevent consumers from owning EVs."

That will to a certain extent be self-gating. If they arent in place, demand wont be as much as if they are.

"With the level of new generation capacity expected, there will be a requirement for considerable electricity network development."

Which scenario is that for? They gave four scenarios, and the one they think is most likely has no need for significant new generation. One of them does, thats the one the newspapers picked up on with scaremongering headlines like 10 more nuke stations, thats the one they dont think will happen and even if it did wont need ten new nukes. Is that the one you are reading?

Gloomendoom

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Which scenario is that for? They gave four scenarios, and the one they think is most likely has no need for significant new generation. One of them does, thats the one the newspapers picked up on with scaremongering headlines like 10 more nuke stations, thats the one they dont think will happen and even if it did wont need ten new nukes. Is that the one you are reading?

I'm reading the whole paper, superficially and excluding gas. While the first three comments appear to relate specifically to Consumer Power (the worst scenario?) and the last to Two Degrees, the rest are general comments.

zeupater

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Ha ha! If you were privy to his CV, that might be something of an insult.

Anything specific that you take issue with?

Hi

I don't really care too much for claims about that particular CV content as I'll never see it, but would hope that anyone presenting figures (or CVs) would consider their relevance & accuracy if looking to be taken seriously!

Now, the issue ...

... Interestingly, looking at the previous slide in the presentation, based on a VW Golf sized EV travelling the UK average 24 miles per day, drawing 12 kwh/day from the grid, the maximum the grid could cope with could be as few as 1 million vehicles. ...

We effectively have the following information available ...

1 - VW Golf sized EV
2 - UK average 24 miles per day
3 - 12 kwh/day from the grid

... From which a conclusion 'the maximum the grid could cope with could be as few as 1 million vehicles' ..

Now, addressing the question "Anything specific that you take issue with?" ... well, considering that there's only three variables, let's look there first as it's pretty straightforward ... 1's a given, 2's overstated a little & 3's overstated by considerably more (based on real-world energy use) ...

So, to the conclusion - The information given can only allow a conclusion to be formed based on energy, therefore without introducing the variable of time (so that required average power can be derived) there can be no meaningful grid based vehicle capacity conclusion ... at least two more variables are needed to make any form of assessment! ...

As previously mentioned .. too many issues for the presentation to be taken seriously, that's if it's been remembered/described correctly!

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Gloomendoom wrote: »

See post #773



Thanks for the link. The question being addressed there is that of satisfying peak demand, not local network capability. It does, however, provide a link to another document (Future Energy Scenarios, National Grid, 2017) which I have quickly scanned through and that does, at first glance, seem to lend weight to the notion that the network, as it stands, won't cope if there is a significant swing to mass EV ownership.

For example...

"Consumer Power sees the most aggressive rise in peak demand. This is brought about by less engaged consumers who use electricity when it suits them. The potential impact that unmanaged mass EV charging, particularly at peak time, could create is significant. In such a scenario, challenges to operating the system, generation and network capability will need to be addressed if we are to have a network that is safe, secure, reliable and economical"

"How the peak time demand from EVs is treated has a significant effect on the electricity system. If left largely unmanaged, as in Consumer Power, it has the potential to be a challenge to the system but in particular to the distribution networks and for system operators post 2030."

"By 2030, our scenarios predict there will be between 1.9 and 9.3 million EVs on the roads. If these vehicles were all to charge at the same time it would put significant strain on distribution networks and peak generation capacity."

"More broadly, networks will need to upgrade and adapt to the changing nature of generation and demand connected to them, taking a whole electricity system approach to minimise costs to consumers."

"We have also assumed that the network infrastructure changes, which will undoubtedly be required to support such a rapid electrification of transport, are in place and so do not prevent consumers from owning EVs."

"With the level of new generation capacity expected, there will be a requirement for considerable electricity network development."

We seem to be going in circles. All of your highlights relate to peak demand periods. Avoid charging at peak, and there's no problem.

Sorry if I seem to be belittling the issue here but I simply don't understand why anyone would add 2,000kWh+ to their demand but not take advantage of off peak pricing?

It also ignores the potential of having far more EV's supplying grid support at peak times (and being paid for this) than EV's charging, so problem solved, again.

Gloomendoom

Martyn1981 wrote: »

All of your highlights relate to peak demand periods.

All apart from the ones that don't...

"More broadly, networks will need to upgrade and adapt to the changing nature of generation and demand connected to them, taking a whole electricity system approach to minimise costs to consumers."

"We have also assumed that the network infrastructure changes, which will undoubtedly be required to support such a rapid electrification of transport, are in place and so do not prevent consumers from owning EVs."

"With the level of new generation capacity expected, there will be a requirement for considerable electricity network development."


The ones that don't still point to the need for upgrades and improvement, development of the existing network.

Anyway, I've got go now. I've an electric car to build.

AdrianC

AnotherJoe wrote: »

I agree, i am a big proponent of EVs but I think not only is autonomy a busted flush and wont happen

It'll happen. Not in the short term, but it'll definitely happen eventually.

Simple thought experiment; which has fewer car journeys ? (1) I drive to work and park. (2) a car drives to my house, the car drives to my work, the car drives somewhere else?

'course, there's a bit more to it than that.

1. You get in car that's been sat on the road outside all night, drive to work, leave it outside work all day, drive back, leave it on the road all night.

2. A car drives from near you, collects you, drives to your work, drops you off, drives to the next fare, repeat.

The proof point of this is already here, because uber-type services with lowered cost of transport are increasing congestion because of the cars driving in to pick up people which a car already parked there wouldn't do (because its cheaper to uber in and out than drive in and park all day). There are articles/op ed pieces in local newspapers complaining about ubers waiting to pick up people.

Uber is just a minicab. It's nothing new.

Secondly, they are not displacing personal cars. They are displacing public services such as bus and tram in their heartlands of Seattle and San Francisco. If you could take an uber for say $5 compared to bus of $3 or $4, wouldn't you? So what does that do to the number of vehicles on the road?

Now there I do definitely agree with you. Public transport should be the goal in urban environments, and park-and-ride for commutes from extra-urban homes.

zeupater

AdrianC wrote: »

.. 1. You get in car that's been sat on the road outside all night, drive to work, leave it outside work all day, drive back, leave it on the road all night.

2. A car drives from near you, collects you, drives to your work, drops you off, drives to the next fare, repeat. ...

Hi

... and in terms of motive energy efficiency per passenger mile? ... which option consumes/wastes more energy, a vehicle travelling empty, or a parked vehicle ? ... that's the crunch - all this talk about not having the infrastructure to deliver energy, then immediately looking to increase demand through introducing inefficiencies!

The first person to try & sell MrsZ the advantages of an autonomous electric vehicle will start to understand that they've really misunderstood what people want from an EV and that they've likely flushed piles of development cash down the drain ... people just aren't ready for the technology yet ...

There's far too much of this 'build it & they will come' babble linked to autonomy in the automotive sector ... when it boils down to it, people still want to buy products, but manufacturers see the financial benefits of selling packaged services ... autonomy is simply a big 'foot-in-the-door' for the service salesman with an eye on future commissions & revenue streams ...

High value, highly serviced, high usage ... that's where autonomy fits, and that's not what's being pushed ...

'Noticed your EV's been running erratically/slowly since the last firmware upgrade? .. buy the latest iEV-X by simply pressing this button now (T&Cs apply, APR 28.8%)'

... sound familiar? .. well what about ...

'Sorry mate, it's failed the MOT & you're not allowed to take that 3year old lump of junk on the road like that, it's a death trap! It needs new calibrated sensor modules and they're now obsolete - best just to get a new one .. like this spanking new iEV-X over here if you'd like to follow me!'

Product or service? .... until the technology has settled, it's not really as tough a decision as it first seems!

HTH
Z

AdrianC

How many people BUY their shiny new cars now, rather than having them on three-year-then-hand-back leases/PCPs/whatever?

zeupater

AdrianC wrote: »

How many people BUY their shiny new cars now, rather than having them on three-year-then-hand-back leases/PCPs/whatever?

I don't know, we do, maybe you should investigate ! .. but whilst you're delving around in the statistics, don't forget to include re-sale of pre-owned vehicles, the sector which is likely to see the most impact when modular sensor systems and processing power become the focus of the inevitable (more regular than MOT!) safety-critical inspection regimes ... if most people don't check critical items such as oil/water/tyres etc as regularly as they should, why on earth would we expect absolutely everyone to take extreme care of sensors which have 'With Care, delicate instrument - keep clean & do not touch' plastered all over & around them!

In my view, it's acceptance in the pre-owned automotive sector which will decide the future of autonomous vehicles, not the OEM marketing departments (no matter how hard they'll try!) ... if there's no re-sale market the impact on new autonomous vehicle sales will be huge due to unit capital depreciation (~100%?) no matter how they're initially financed ... that makes the option look very, very expensive!

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Gloomendoom wrote: »

All apart from the ones that don't...

"More broadly, networks will need to upgrade and adapt to the changing nature of generation and demand connected to them, taking a whole electricity system approach to minimise costs to consumers."

"We have also assumed that the network infrastructure changes, which will undoubtedly be required to support such a rapid electrification of transport, are in place and so do not prevent consumers from owning EVs."

"With the level of new generation capacity expected, there will be a requirement for considerable electricity network development."


The ones that don't still point to the need for upgrades and improvement, development of the existing network.

Anyway, I've got go now. I've an electric car to build.

None of which support your (somewhat hysterical) claim:-

at first glance, seem to lend weight to the notion that the network, as it stands, won't cope if there is a significant swing to mass EV ownership.

Developing and adapting are nothing new, that's what systems do. This is wholly different to anyone believing that the grid which copes with 50-55GW of demand at peak (down from around 60GW) can't cope with EV's being charged at night.

That's why I've tried hard to give reasonable and rational figures of power and energy (W's and Wh's) to show that outside of the peak we can cope, and even during the peak EV's may be more of a support solution than a problem, albeit with steady adaptation and development ....... call it progress.