Goodbye to private motoring...from just 9 years?

Exemplar

50Twuncle said:

photome said:

Are you sure of your 50% figure

That's a rough guess

Dear Lord

[Deleted User]

50Twuncle said:

An average electric car consumes approximately 0.40 kWh/mile
So - with the average driver driving 15,000 miles per year - thats 6000 kWh per year per car/driver
If there are 40 million cars on the road in UK - Thats an extra 1,200,000 Mw of power needed - at the moment - the national grid produces 2,250 Tw - so this is an extra 50% on top of current production - which is a significant rise
The grid struggles as it is - so with an extra 50% - prepare for power cuts - or drive a lot less
Plus - this is just private cars - I dread to think of the amount that lorries/buses etc would consume !

TLDR: 12% extra electricity not 50% by my calculations

Just going to refine those numbers and correct your mathematics so people don't go out and panic buy candles and diesel generators.

• Firstly, 6000 kWh x 40 million cars would be 240 TWh  - no idea where you got 1,200,000 MWh from which would be 1.2 TWh anyway so the 50% claim is totally wrong. Using your figures it would be 10% of annual output. Shame because many will read your post and assume you have done your homework but your maths is wrong as well as your numbers.
  
  
• Average miles per car in the UK is 7,600 miles per year - reducing year on year for last 20 years
• 33 million cars on the road, increased 10% in last 10 years so say 36 million in 2030
• Average electric cars are now about 0.3kWh per mile and this will improve further over next 10 years
• 2300 kWh per year per car assuming all EV (but many will still by hybrid and ICE in 2030)
• Using these refined figures it is approx 82 TWh per year if 100% of cars are electric.
• Reality is that we might see 50% fully electric cars by 2030 the rest will be hybrid or ICE

Total electricity production (inc imports) in 2019 was 349TWh not the 2,250 TWh figure you quote. So if and only if all cars were 100% electric then we'd be using about 23% more electricity than now but I guess 50% will be all electric by then so only a 12% increase in electricity consumption over the next 10 years.

Total electricity demand is down by 10% over the last 10 years and likely to continue that way for the next 10 years so factoring that in, electric cars will only increase demand by about 2% over the next 10 years.

Sources:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/904805/DUKES_2020_Chapter_5.pdf
https://www.statista.com/statistics/299972/average-age-of-cars-on-the-road-in-the-united-kingdom/
https://insideevs.com/news/348093/energy-consumption-epa-compared-may-2019/

EDIT: Final thing to add, we have 75 GW generating capacity in the UK, peak demand in the winter daytime usually about 40-60 GW and mostly only 20GW overnight so we have plenty of headroom for all those cars plugged in.

Even national grid say only 10% of peak demand if all EV.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-8958509/National-Grid-says-suitably-robust-cope-electric-car-demand-2030.html

AdrianC

Car_54 said:

Mickey666 said:

Exactly.  Hydrogen is not a SOURCE of energy, only a means of transporting it.  A bit like electricity in that respect.

Or indeed petrol. Energy isn't created, simply converted to another form.

But, in the short term, petrol IS a primary source.

It's unlocking long-term hydrocarbon energy.
You can then use that to generate electricity (hybrid car, CCGT power station, diesel generator), or you can use it directly. There's various different levels of efficiency to consider, as well as the location of the combustion emissions.

Then you can generate electricity from other sources - renewables - and use that to power the car.

If you're using electricity generated away from the vehicle, then you can either use it directly (plug-in battery charging) or indirectly (hydrogen).

The ONLY advantage of hydrogen is that it enables quick and easy "recharging" of the car in a way that's relatively comfortable to people used to filling with petrol and diesel. The big downside is grid-to-motion efficiency.

AdrianC

Mickey666 said:

AdrianC said:

Mickey666 said:

Unfortunately, population control is too hot an issue for most governments, nay people, to handle so it is largely ignored.

As far as I'm aware, only one major government in recent times has had a serious attempt to restrict birth rates, with a single-child policy strictly enforced...
Yet birth rates have fallen in the UK. Total fertility rate of 3.5 children per woman at the start of the 20th century, 1.7 immediately pre-war, 2.7 immediately post-war, 2.9 in the early 60s, 1.6 today.

Of course, the real issue with population growth is the other end of the age range. People do insist on living longer and longer... Life expectancy now is around 82, about twice that of the middle of the 19th century, and about 50% longer than the 1930s.

But the fact is that 7billion people is ALREADY too large a population for the planetary resources to support sustainably at the standards of living that everyone aspires to.

And therein lies the problem.
Our expectations.

So should we in the developed world insist on ever more toys and consumerism and consumption?
Or would it be fairer for the entire world to head to a level that is sustainable, even if that means a reduction for those of us way ahead of that point?

And, of course, it's not just consumerism - it's medical technology, too. We in the developed world get ever more money spent on prolonging our poor-quality, poor-health last years, while the growth in the world population is largely due to massive reductions in infant mortality and deaths from easily preventable causes, including simple malnutrition.
Who could possibly argue against that?

...our population continues to grow (it has TRIPLED in my lifetime!)

Gosh. You must be very old.
The UK's population is now about 66m - a third of that is 22m, a level last seen in the 1860s.

Oh, you mean the world's?
Yes, it's tripled in the last 70 years or so... since about 1950 - a time when average life expectancies in the UK were just under 70 years of age...

I can’t see any coherent point being made, just a few random observations.  Is that because you don’t think global over-population is a problem?

Try re-reading it... Clue: it's not within the sphere of control of the UK government, and there are no politically palatable options.

Mickey666

Car_54 said:

Mickey666 said:

A._Badger said:

born_again said:

ToxicWomble said:

What about all those “white” vans and HGVs
What are the stats for pollution caused proportionaly by these ?
Think I will just go buy a van

Sorry to spoil your day but EV "White Vans" & HGV's are already here.
Failing that HGV's can run on hydrogen.

You do know it takes a lot of energy to produce hydrogen, I suppose?

Exactly.  Hydrogen is not a SOURCE of energy, only a means of transporting it.  A bit like electricity in that respect.

Or indeed petrol. Energy isn't created, simply converted to another form.

True, energy is not created, but petrol and other fossil fuels are a bit like a battery (effectively stored solar energy from millions of years ago) so they are a short term source of energy.  It is this ‘battery energy’ that humanity has used for the past 150 years or so to build our current industrial world of incredible wealth, albeit not distributed equitably.  The problem facing humanity is that this ‘windfall’ has enabled us to grow beyond the limits of sustainability but the ‘windfall’ is now in decline and the planet will not be able to sustain our current standards of living in the future.   

It’s a bit like winning the lottery, blowing it all within a few years and then expecting to carry on living as a millionaire.  The inevitable reality, of course, is crash and burn - which is exactly what we’re now seeing around the world, slowly but surely.
’Green’ thinking cannot save us when we’re already living unsustainably - either our standards of living must reduce (on average) or our numbers must reduce.  There are no alternatives.

Herzlos

facade said:

Car_54 said:

Really? That's not what the government say.

"The UK has taken another historic step on the road to ending its contribution to climate change while boosting jobs in the process, as the Prime Minister, Transport Secretary and Business Secretary announced the end of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars in the UK by 2030."

So world emissions is indeed the main goal, followed by jobs. Reducing pollution in towns and cities is in 3rd place at best.

The jobs reference confused me as well, I assumed at first he meant in China, and places like the DRC, although there would be some short-term work for sparkies wiring in the access points.

Then it occurred to me that he is referring to the multiple layers of bureaucracy needed to administer the new transport revolution, and organise things like road use tax

There will be lots of jobs in infrastructure - fitting chargers and upgrading the network.

[Deleted User]

Supersonos said:

Deleted_User said:

I have a new phone, same size as my old one (3 years old) with a battery that is 2x the capacity in the same space, 

Are you sure about that?

Battery tech hasn't really advanced for many years.   Phones/computers etc. have become much more energy efficient, but batteries have largely remained the same.  Want more capacity?  Add more batteries.

Tesla have a tech that squeezes a little more watts per kilo, but it's less stable.

Yes I am sure, your ignorance of battery tech is not my concern

My new phone is Pixel 5, old phone is Pixel 2

Pixel 2 145.7mm x 69.7mm x 7.8mm thick, 143g weight

Pixel 5 144.7mm x 70.4mm x 8mm thick, 151g weight

Near as damn it equal

Pixel 2 battery at new was 2700mAh

Pixel 5 battery at new is 4080mAh

I remembered it wrong as the 2 at 3 years old, was holding about 2000mAh

Asus ROG II has 6000mAh capacity in a phone 171mm x 77.6mm x 9.5mm weighing 240g, Xiaomi Mi Max 2 is 174.1mm x 88.7mm x 7.6mm weighing 211g and has a 5300mAh battery

Fact is, batteries are getting bigger capacity without making the phones bigger - not more batteries

[Deleted User]

ToxicWomble said:

Mickey666 said:

ToxicWomble said:

Hmm kill of a couple of billion people so we can carry on driving petrol cars — radical but tempting.
Natures having a good go atm
Maybe she drives a V8 🤫

A typically stupid comment that prevents any sensible discussion about the problem of over-population.  Well done.

Tell me oh wise one then how you propose to cull a couple of billion people from the worlds population.
There is a reason starvation and disease exists and we do ourself no favours by trying to alleviate it imo - it just delays the inevitable

One of the reason conspiracy nuts like to target Bill Gates with their myths about population killing etc is because of a speech he made where he explained how the world population can fall naturally through things like improved healthcare, vaccination etc - in poor countries they still have lots of kids in each family due to the number of children dying at at early age - you remove the need to have so many kids, populations stabilise. If you look at the way families of immigrants change, the number of kids each subsequent generation has falls when they move to countries like the UK where women have access to education, healthcare and contraception

AdrianC

Deleted_User said:

Supersonos said:

Deleted_User said:

I have a new phone, same size as my old one (3 years old) with a battery that is 2x the capacity in the same space, 

Are you sure about that?

Battery tech hasn't really advanced for many years.   Phones/computers etc. have become much more energy efficient, but batteries have largely remained the same.  Want more capacity?  Add more batteries.

Tesla have a tech that squeezes a little more watts per kilo, but it's less stable.

Yes I am sure, your ignorance of battery tech is not my concern

My new phone is Pixel 5, old phone is Pixel 2

Pixel 2 145.7mm x 69.7mm x 7.8mm thick, 143g weight

Pixel 5 144.7mm x 70.4mm x 8mm thick, 151g weight

Near as damn it equal

Pixel 2 battery at new was 2700mAh

Pixel 5 battery at new is 4080mAh

I remembered it wrong as the 2 at 3 years old, was holding about 2000mAh

Asus ROG II has 6000mAh capacity in a phone 171mm x 77.6mm x 9.5mm weighing 240g, Xiaomi Mi Max 2 is 174.1mm x 88.7mm x 7.6mm weighing 211g and has a 5300mAh battery

Fact is, batteries are getting bigger capacity without making the phones bigger - not more batteries

But is the actual battery in the phone physically larger, just that the phone packaging itself masks it?
The Asus you mention is 60% heavier than the Pixel, 55% larger volume, for 50% extra battery capacity.
The Xiaomi is 40% heavier, 45% greater volume, for 30% more battery.

Let's face it, the form factor of a modern mobile is driven by the screen dimensions. The thickness is minimal, and driven by the need for side buttons and to have something that won't fold in your pocket.

All are the same basic chemistry - and one of the things Google got panned for with the Pixel 2 was poor battery capacity and life.

born_again

jon81uk said:

headpin said

Reducing pollution in towns and cities is the goal, so people aren't breathing in small particulates.

In Leeds they have solved that issue.
They were going to introduce Emission charging zone. But something called "Covid19" cropped up and they had a 3 month lockdown.
Pollution levels have dropped so low, that the council have scrapped the zone (£28 million wasted) and said that levels will never return to what they were pre-covid. So that there is no need for the charging zone in the future. And that is a Labour Council, so has to be right 🤣