Maybe UK govt are not crazy

Dave_Fowler

leviathan wrote: »

No problem.

leaf battery - 40-62 kWh --> https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=leaf+battery+pack

Lets say 40kWh is required nightly. As a UK average. I think I'm being generous to the EV cause as not everyone driving an ICE has a small car.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-licensing-statistics-2018
At the end of 2018, there were:
38.2 million licensed vehicles in Great Britain.
Dig into the report and it's 33million ICE cars.

Let's say only 1 million of them need a charge every night.
Again being somewhat generous I fear.
40kw * 1,000,000 = 40GW
....

40 / 3.2Gw = 12.5 Hinkley points.

You seem to be mixing up kWh and kW.

Very few, if any, home chargers are going to charge the car in one hour - my type 2 charger takes over 4 hours to charge a fully depleted battery to fully charged. Few homes have a 40kW supply!

So the 40GW(h) is spread over at least 4 hours. So you need to divide your total number of power stations by at least 4.

Furthermore, it's at night when there is often surplus energy on the grid. At least 3GW could be imported via the interconnectors on the nights of dead calm when none of the wind turbines all over the UK are generating.

Dave F

1961Nick

GreatApe wrote: »

So twice the price costs more to insure
Sure it's a better car but not a lot of people have twice the cash to throw away on a better car
MC Donald's outsells the local premium restaurants 100:1 so it's not about premium it's about affordability

Still, it appears that "not a lot of people" is a considerable multiple of Tesla's annual output - until supply exceeds "not a lot of people", it's not a issue.

As for 'Corolla v. Tesla' ... you're havin' a laugh! I doubt many Corolla owners bought it for the driving experience or an adrenaline rush!!:rotfl:

(Apologies if there are any Corolla owning Stigs out there.)

GreatApe

1961Nick wrote: »

Still, it appears that "not a lot of people" is a considerable multiple of Tesla's annual output - until supply exceeds "not a lot of people", it's not a issue.

As for 'Corolla v. Tesla' ... you're havin' a laugh! I doubt many Corolla owners bought it for the driving experience or an adrenaline rush!!:rotfl:

(Apologies if there are any Corolla owning Stigs out there.)

Corolla is the best selling model in the history of mankind so whatever it is is what most people want
Most people don't care enough about speed or acceleration to pay a worthwhile premium or the ford ST variant of the models would outsell the non ST variants

There is demand for Teslas
I am saying Tesla won't be able to become a Toyota or VW at this price point

So demand is somewhere from 0.5 million a year to below 10 million a year my guess would be 3 million a year for combined s X 3 y R Pickup and I believe Tesla will get to 3 million per year with perhaps 6 factories in the late mid 2020s

That might be 3% market share and if they are profitable that would be a success
They won't be an apple or Amazon with 50% market share and virtual monopolies as some like to think

Solarchaser

We bought a leaf a year ago. It replaced the wifes petrol car, it's worth more now than when we bought it, even though we added 6k miles.
It's very convenient to charge, much more convenient than filling at a petrol station, as it's already parked on the drive way, you just plug it in.
Only way it could be more convenient would be induction charging off a pad on the driveway.
Its cost about £60 in "fuel" for those 6k miles.
Petrol car could not compete.

I've nothing really useful to add to this thread, I think its flowing rather smoothly.
I just wanted to note that I've finally worked out who great troll reminds me off with the restating of the same buzz words over and over and over, the same "solutions" that have broadly disproved, like the on board generator/range extender for EV's.

It's when he said "fake news" it finally struck me.
It's the populist leader of the right wing, pick farage, trump or bojo, different cheeks of the same rear end.
Make diesel cars great again!

GreatApe

Solarchaser wrote: »

We bought a leaf a year ago. It replaced the wifes petrol car, it's worth more now than when we bought it, even though we added 6k miles.
It's very convenient to charge, much more convenient than filling at a petrol station, as it's already parked on the drive way, you just plug it in.
Only way it could be more convenient would be induction charging off a pad on the driveway.
Its cost about £60 in "fuel" for those 6k miles.
Petrol car could not compete.

I've nothing really useful to add to this thread, I think its flowing rather smoothly.
I just wanted to note that I've finally worked out who great troll reminds me off with the restating of the same buzz words over and over and over, the same "solutions" that have broadly disproved, like the on board generator/range extender for EV's.

It's when he said "fake news" it finally struck me.
It's the populist leader of the right wing, pick farage, trump or bojo, different cheeks of the same rear end.
Make diesel cars great again!

I don't think I say anything particularly controversial most my views are just stating the current reality

Petrol and diesel cars work and work well BEVs won't replace petrol cars anytime soon
Fossil fuels improve human lifespan and health and economic productivity (look at winter deaths and winter sickness rates before natural gas saved millions of lives and hundreds of millions of illness days by making central heating affordable in the UK)

Wind and PV won't repalce coal or gas anytime soon, globally Fossil fuels will be here for decades

This is actually the conventional reasonable view

joefizz

1961Nick wrote: »

S
As for 'Corolla v. Tesla' ... you're havin' a laugh! I doubt many Corolla owners bought it for the driving experience or an adrenaline rush!!:rotfl:

(Apologies if there are any Corolla owning Stigs out there.)

I puked my guts up once trying to read pace notes in the passenger seat of a Corolla WRC once.
To be fair though it wasnt just the corolla, I couldnt handle reading pace notes at all in any car.

1961Nick

GreatApe wrote: »

Corolla is the best selling model in the history of mankind so whatever it is is what most people want
Most people don't care enough about speed or acceleration to pay a worthwhile premium or the ford ST variant of the models would outsell the non ST variants

Using your logic ... most people don't buy Corollas so it's a model that most people don't want to own.;)

The Subaru Impreza WRX & STI outsold the cooking models despite the premium.

silverwhistle

leviathan wrote: »

Lets say 40kWh is required nightly.

Why?



Average annual mileage 8000. Daily say 22. At 4 miles per kWh that's a daily top up demand of about 5.5kWh per vehicle. Ignoring those with domestic PV that will be catered for by cheaper overnight electricity.

GreatApe

1961Nick wrote: »

Using your logic ... most people don't buy Corollas so it's a model that most people don't want to own.;).

There is a range of price points for a range of different vehicles
The premium end is limited perhaps about 20% of the market
Tesla will be and is a player in this part of the market
It will take a share of the sales there perhaps as much as 15%
This will put Tesla on sales of about 2.5 million per year which is a good achievement

Martyn1981

leviathan wrote: »

No problem.

leaf battery - 40-62 kWh --> https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=leaf+battery+pack

Lets say 40kWh is required nightly. As a UK average. I think I'm being generous to the EV cause as not everyone driving an ICE has a small car.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-licensing-statistics-2018
At the end of 2018, there were:
38.2 million licensed vehicles in Great Britain.
Dig into the report and it's 33million ICE cars.

Let's say only 1 million of them need a charge every night.
Again being somewhat generous I fear.
40kw * 1,000,000 = 40GW

I'm afraid your numbers and assumptions are entirely wrong.

The average car will not need a full 40kWh charge each day.

As I've already explained to you, the average mileage is 7,900 pa, in fact another poster a month ago found figures that it might be 7,100.

7,900 miles / 52 = 152m per week.

BEV's, can do approx 4 miles /kWh, and this figure includes the TM3 which is mid sized, so we can use it as an average since your claim that not all cars are small is true, but you forgot that not all are big either ...... hence the need for averages.

152/4 = 38kWh per car per week, or approx 2MWh per year.

Approx 30m cars @ 2MWh is approx 60TWh, the figure I've already given you.


Your 40GW figure for 1m cars is also wrong. First you are assuming home charging at 40kW, and you are assuming they are all charging at the same time, for the same hour. Why????

So, let's try to give you some realistic numbers, as I get bored with negative nancies posting hysterical negative nonsense.

So we need 60TWh pa, and I'll assume 90%* of that is charged at night between 8pm and 8am. Also, as I understand, charger subsidies now require smart chargers to help balance grid loads.

So, here we go:
60TWh / 365 days = 164.38GWh of car BEV charging per day
164.38GWh / 12hrs*90% = 12.3GW of car BEV charging per night.

So you say 40GW, I say ~12GW.

Also note that charging will take place mostly at night, because demand at night is typically 10-20GW's lower than daytime demand.

Also note that wind has a slight preference to dusk to dawn generation.

*I say 90% for those that charge during the day, say for long journeys etc, but the figure could be lower with smart charging where BEV's plugged in during the day, but on an optional charge setting, are topped up with cheap excess generation, especially if PV is doing well.

leviathan wrote: »

You said::
[The UK currently averages ~38GW.]
Hinkley Point C (3.2GW)

40 / 3.2Gw = 12.5 Hinkley points, not 30.
Yeah. I think you got me, it's a trival problem... :cool:

Your error here again revolves around you not understanding the difference between power GW's and energy GWh's.

As previously explained, and having netted off the savings from reduced leccy demand at refineries, the net increase is ~4GW.

4GW, is approx one HPC, but let's be more precise at 1.25 HPC's, or to put it another way, 1/10th of your claimed figure of 12.5HPC's.

For context, this year the UK issued 5.5GW of off-shore wind contracts which with a capacity factor of ~50% is ~2.75GW, just from that one RE source. And for further context, we will need the full additional leccy capacity for cars BEV's in approx 25yrs+, assuming we can get to 100% of new sales in 10yrs, and then allowing another 15yrs for the ICE fleet to be retired.

So ~4GW+ of capacity over 25yrs.

Not quite *****30 NUCLEAR POWERSTATIONS******

leviathan wrote: »

PS: your calculations and mine dont include losses in the grid for distribution and power conversion. Add another 10-15% overhead.

Nope, not 10-15%, approx 8%, but at least you are getting closer.

Also note that demand side PV generation has little to no losses* if used on site, or exported to neighbouring properties.

*The high voltage network (National Grid) loses approx 2-3%, and the low voltage network (local DNO's) loses approx 5%, mostly at switchgear.

leviathan wrote: »

PPS: the cost of building nuclear power stations and the subsidies for the price per MW also dont factor. If we are serious we need to stop all that crap and nationalise power production and charge at cost. Nuclear should not be run for profit, no energy should. Dont even start on RE which is a transfer of wealth exercise and has nothing greeen about it other than virtue signalling. Same as FiT's and solar PV.

Again, complete gibberish.

The cost of building nuclear does factor, if you know what you are talking about.

The latest off-shore wind prices (and on-shore wind and PV) are now approx at wholesale average prices, meaning that the CfD subsidy scheme will pay out little, possibly nothing, across the 15yr period.

However, HPC's CfD of £102/MWh for 35yrs will cost approx £50bn in subsidies:

£102 - £50 (approx average wholesale price) = top up CfD subsidy of £52/MWh

3,200MW @ 92%cf *£52/MWh * 24hrs * 365 days * 35yrs = £47bn

That's £47bn out of the subsidy pot that could instead go to RE generation, storage, BEV support etc etc etc..

It's all about bang for your buck*, and we will get vastly more RE generation for our subsidy money (possibly zero subsidy money soon for future deployments) than we will get from ever more expensive nuclear.

Also note that RE is going subsidy free after approx 10yrs of serious subsidy support, whereas nuclear is asking for vast, long term support, despite having already received vast subsidies for 60yrs.

*[Edit] - In case the bang for your buck is not clear, let's assume that RE isn't going subsidy free, but will require approx £14/MWh top up, this would apply to the 2017 CfD off-shore wind auction results of ~£64/MWh.

When you take account of the £52 v's £14 difference, and the 35yrs v's 15yr difference, then you get approx 8.7 times as much generation for every pound of subsidy spent on RE v's nuclear ....... 8.7 times as much generation!

PS - If you think I'm being at all aggressive in my response, then pop yourself in my shoes for a second, as I've being responding to the same false claims you are making, for around 5yrs, and I think it's incredibly rude and aggressive to post such inflammatory and false information on a green and ethical board when you simply don't know what you are talking about.