EV Discussion thread

JKenH

Grumpy_chap said:

silverwhistle said:

kick the DNO's into action, 

This is a definite need.
I am fortunate in that I have my own driveway which should make the provision of home charging easy.  Little did I imagine the challenge of the task.
Car ordered 18th June and collected 30th June.
Electrician quoted and ran the cables the week after the car arrived.  He cannot return to connect until the "cut-out" (fuse) and the meter are upgraded.
End July, the actual wall charger landed.
EDF will write by the end of September (inline with regulated timescale apparently) to offer a date for the meter upgrade.  No indication of how long the meter upgrade will be after that.
UKPN will not attend to assess the fuse upgrade until the meter has been upgraded first, then whatever time scale that takes.
I have no visibility of the costs for the meter and fuse upgrade and just have to pay whatever is demanded.
This is a cost that I had never envisaged plus the time and hassle is all stuff I could do without.
In the mean-time, stuck on a granny-charger which is becoming limiting.

Yes DNOs are not yet on board. While I had no trouble getting my charger installed as I had a 100A fuse (which is good for 120A short term I noticed during a saving session) I cannot expand my solar array or even fit a grid tied battery as my local DNO doesn’t seem to accept export limitation devices). I have room on my roof for 20kWp but my local grid can’t take it. Last year I reported problems with grid voltages up to 259v when the sun was shining and AFAIAW Northern Powergrid have not done anything about it. It will be a massive problem to upgrade rural grids for the new electric era of EVs and heat pumps with half a dozen houses served by transformers on poles. 

JKenH

Last year when I was moaning about difficulties in finding working, available public chargers I was given a hard time on this thread (suggestions that other members could give me lessons etc) yet it seems other EV users are so unhappy with the situation that two thirds are prepared to pay a premium to reserve a charging bay and one third avoid them because they have found them broken. Just more FUD, no doubt some will say. 

Electric vehicle drivers prepared to pay to reserve a charging bay

Two-thirds (67%) of electric vehicle (EV) drivers would be prepared to pay a premium to reserve a public charging bay, new research suggests.

More than one-in-four (27%) would be willing to part with up to £10 and one third (33%) happy to pay up to £5, while 7% said that they would be prepared to stump up more than £10 to reserve their charging spot.

“However, in the race to meet EV charging expectations, targets and market share, companies have deployed – and continue to install – the wrong type of chargers, in the wrong location.

“Added to this, the payment options are either substandard or created to monopolise the market, and infrastructure maintenance seems to be firmly off the ‘to-do’ list.

“This is creating a ‘perfect storm’ of customer dissatisfaction, frustration and charge anxiety for EV drivers, and the future of electric motoring in the UK is coming under unfair scrutiny as a result. We simply must do more.”

The survey suggests that more than one-in-three (36%) of EV drivers avoid public chargers because they have been unable to use a charge point because it was broken.

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/latest-fleet-news/electric-fleet-news/2023/08/16/electric-vehicle-drivers-prepared-to-pay-to-reserve-a-charging-bay

JKenH

This article specifically refers to the American market where pick up trucks are now being fitted with 200+kWh batteries but the trend in the UK has also been to ever bigger batteries. (A small car like the MG4 is now available with a 77kWh battery). The bigger the battery the more front end loaded the CO2 consumption is from manufacture and that has not only a longer CO2 payback time but an immediate effect on CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Installing 80kWh instead of 40kWh batteries doubles the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere here and now. That is not additional CO2 for 1 year but 100 years. The bigger the CO2 blanket the more heat is retained and that heat build up doesn’t disappear when CO2 payback is achieved; it is baked into the atmosphere.  

The extra CO2 from the additional 40kWh of battery manufacture will NEVER be paid back. A 80kWh battery car can displace no more ICEV emissions than a 40kWh one; in fact the extra weight means the car it is in is less efficient which further aggravates the problem. By doubling the size of car batteries we are unnecessarily adding to the global warming problem, not only accelerating the rate of CO2 emissions but putting twice as much into the atmosphere as we need to to solve the ICEV problem. 

I am not arguing BEVs emit more CO2 than ICEVs, rather that by limiting the size of batteries we could halve the amount of CO2 we are emitting building BEVs and probably save the equivalent of 2-5 years ICEV emissions. 

No one in authority seems to get this.

I have always believed that bigger battery vehicles should be taxed more heavily than, say, sub 50kWh ones but as the article says the incentives in the US actually encourage bigger battery vehicles. 

Will super-sized batteries strain the supply chain?

As Bloomberg recently calculated, using EV models from the U.S., Europe, and China, the average pack size is now around 80 kwh, from in the vicinity of 40 kwh in 2018, and the growth trend is expected to continue for some years. 

Considering the expected growth in battery size per EV, along with the expected growth of the EV market, Bloomberg suggests that battery demand in 2030 will be 50-70% higher, and that will put a direct strain on lithium supplies, although a shift to LFP cells will help soften the effect on cobalt. Without proper planning, the supply pinch could play out like the price spike that happened in 2021 into 2022, interrupting what had otherwise been a longtime drop in battery prices and thus a boost in EV affordability. 

One simpler way to cut the dependence on super-size battery packs is by incentivizing vehicles that do more with less. 

Right now, that’s not what U.S. rules and incentives do—especially not the EV tax credit. 

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1140506_will-super-sized-ev-batteries-strain-the-supply-chain

Grumpy_chap

silvercar said:

That said, we could have managed on a granny charger and if we had to pay lots for it, I doubt we would have bothered.

We are managing on the granny-charger, but if I had to return to 5 days per week in the office it would become ever more difficult.

I charged last week after the last trip to work (Thursday) so charged on Friday.
On Saturday we went to visit  my Niece and it was raining when we arrived home, plus I was rather tired so did not plug in.
Charged on Sunday from about 9 am and ready to unplug just before bed at 11 o'clock.
Work on Monday and plugged straight in when I returned home but not fully charged by Tuesday morning to go to work.
Work on Tuesday and plugged straight in once I got home, charged back to full (90%) by around 10 am this morning.

If I had to go to work for the remainder of the week, I'd be depreciating my start of day charge every day and then need to find 24 hours or more of charging at the weekend, which would limit the availability of the car for use.

Until we get a fully functional home charger, we are restricted.

silvercar

Grumpy_chap said:

silvercar said:

That said, we could have managed on a granny charger and if we had to pay lots for it, I doubt we would have bothered.

We are managing on the granny-charger, but if I had to return to 5 days per week in the office it would become ever more difficult.

I charged last week after the last trip to work (Thursday) so charged on Friday.
On Saturday we went to visit  my Niece and it was raining when we arrived home, plus I was rather tired so did not plug in.
Charged on Sunday from about 9 am and ready to unplug just before bed at 11 o'clock.
Work on Monday and plugged straight in when I returned home but not fully charged by Tuesday morning to go to work.
Work on Tuesday and plugged straight in once I got home, charged back to full (90%) by around 10 am this morning.

If I had to go to work for the remainder of the week, I'd be depreciating my start of day charge every day and then need to find 24 hours or more of charging at the weekend, which would limit the availability of the car for use.

Until we get a fully functional home charger, we are restricted.

Fair enough, you do a lot more mileage than we do. The Leaf is only charged once a month! The Tesla possibly once a week unless we have a long distance trip planned. (and we tried and failed to manage with one car).

JKenH

Grumpy_chap said:

silvercar said:

That said, we could have managed on a granny charger and if we had to pay lots for it, I doubt we would have bothered.

We are managing on the granny-charger, but if I had to return to 5 days per week in the office it would become ever more difficult.

I charged last week after the last trip to work (Thursday) so charged on Friday.
On Saturday we went to visit  my Niece and it was raining when we arrived home, plus I was rather tired so did not plug in.
Charged on Sunday from about 9 am and ready to unplug just before bed at 11 o'clock.
Work on Monday and plugged straight in when I returned home but not fully charged by Tuesday morning to go to work.
Work on Tuesday and plugged straight in once I got home, charged back to full (90%) by around 10 am this morning.

If I had to go to work for the remainder of the week, I'd be depreciating my start of day charge every day and then need to find 24 hours or more of charging at the weekend, which would limit the availability of the car for use.

Until we get a fully functional home charger, we are restricted.

Could you not use a public charger/supercharger on your way to and from the office?

thevilla

JKenH said:

This article specifically refers to the American market where pick up trucks are now being fitted with 200+kWh batteries but the trend in the UK has also been to ever bigger batteries. (A small car like the MG4 is now available with a 77kWh battery). The bigger the battery the more front end loaded the CO2 consumption is from manufacture and that has not only a longer CO2 payback time but an immediate effect on CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Installing 80kWh instead of 40kWh batteries doubles the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere here and now. That is not additional CO2 for 1 year but 100 years. The bigger the CO2 blanket the more heat is retained and that heat build up doesn’t disappear when CO2 payback is achieved; it is baked into the atmosphere.  

The extra CO2 from the additional 40kWh of battery manufacture will NEVER be paid back. A 80kWh battery car can displace no more ICEV emissions than a 40kWh one; in fact the extra weight means the car it is in is less efficient which further aggravates the problem. By doubling the size of car batteries we are unnecessarily adding to the global warming problem, not only accelerating the rate of CO2 emissions but putting twice as much into the atmosphere as we need to to solve the ICEV problem. 

I am not arguing BEVs emit more CO2 than ICEVs, rather that by limiting the size of batteries we could halve the amount of CO2 we are emitting building BEVs and probably save the equivalent of 2-5 years ICEV emissions. 

No one in authority seems to get this.

I have always believed that bigger battery vehicles should be taxed more heavily than, say, sub 50kWh ones but as the article says the incentives in the US actually encourage bigger battery vehicles. 

Will super-sized batteries strain the supply chain?

As Bloomberg recently calculated, using EV models from the U.S., Europe, and China, the average pack size is now around 80 kwh, from in the vicinity of 40 kwh in 2018, and the growth trend is expected to continue for some years. 

Considering the expected growth in battery size per EV, along with the expected growth of the EV market, Bloomberg suggests that battery demand in 2030 will be 50-70% higher, and that will put a direct strain on lithium supplies, although a shift to LFP cells will help soften the effect on cobalt. Without proper planning, the supply pinch could play out like the price spike that happened in 2021 into 2022, interrupting what had otherwise been a longtime drop in battery prices and thus a boost in EV affordability. 

One simpler way to cut the dependence on super-size battery packs is by incentivizing vehicles that do more with less. 

Right now, that’s not what U.S. rules and incentives do—especially not the EV tax credit. 

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1140506_will-super-sized-ev-batteries-strain-the-supply-chain

Good idea. Let's ban anything bigger than an 800cc ICE engine too.  More than adequate.

JKenH

thevilla said:

JKenH said:

This article specifically refers to the American market where pick up trucks are now being fitted with 200+kWh batteries but the trend in the UK has also been to ever bigger batteries. (A small car like the MG4 is now available with a 77kWh battery). The bigger the battery the more front end loaded the CO2 consumption is from manufacture and that has not only a longer CO2 payback time but an immediate effect on CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Installing 80kWh instead of 40kWh batteries doubles the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere here and now. That is not additional CO2 for 1 year but 100 years. The bigger the CO2 blanket the more heat is retained and that heat build up doesn’t disappear when CO2 payback is achieved; it is baked into the atmosphere.  

The extra CO2 from the additional 40kWh of battery manufacture will NEVER be paid back. A 80kWh battery car can displace no more ICEV emissions than a 40kWh one; in fact the extra weight means the car it is in is less efficient which further aggravates the problem. By doubling the size of car batteries we are unnecessarily adding to the global warming problem, not only accelerating the rate of CO2 emissions but putting twice as much into the atmosphere as we need to to solve the ICEV problem. 

I am not arguing BEVs emit more CO2 than ICEVs, rather that by limiting the size of batteries we could halve the amount of CO2 we are emitting building BEVs and probably save the equivalent of 2-5 years ICEV emissions. 

No one in authority seems to get this.

I have always believed that bigger battery vehicles should be taxed more heavily than, say, sub 50kWh ones but as the article says the incentives in the US actually encourage bigger battery vehicles. 

Will super-sized batteries strain the supply chain?

As Bloomberg recently calculated, using EV models from the U.S., Europe, and China, the average pack size is now around 80 kwh, from in the vicinity of 40 kwh in 2018, and the growth trend is expected to continue for some years. 

Considering the expected growth in battery size per EV, along with the expected growth of the EV market, Bloomberg suggests that battery demand in 2030 will be 50-70% higher, and that will put a direct strain on lithium supplies, although a shift to LFP cells will help soften the effect on cobalt. Without proper planning, the supply pinch could play out like the price spike that happened in 2021 into 2022, interrupting what had otherwise been a longtime drop in battery prices and thus a boost in EV affordability. 

One simpler way to cut the dependence on super-size battery packs is by incentivizing vehicles that do more with less. 

Right now, that’s not what U.S. rules and incentives do—especially not the EV tax credit. 

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1140506_will-super-sized-ev-batteries-strain-the-supply-chain

Good idea. Let's ban anything bigger than an 800cc ICE engine too.  More than adequate.

I suspect you have missed the point I am making. It isn’t an EV vs ICE argument or comparison of emissions of ICEVs and BEVs or an argument against BEVs in principle.  We are moving to a world without ICEVs but it will be a hollow victory if, in the rush to get there, we ignore the CO2 implications of large battery BEVs.

Edit: I have removed previous edits and also my comment on 800cc cars. This isn’t about ICE cars.

silverwhistle

In a way it is the ICE mentality of must have a certain range that is driving larger battery sizes. I've got the smallest battery MG4 and the range is greater than my bladder or recommended times for a safety break. The M1 certainly needs a charging upgrade, but a bigger problem for my recent long trip was its closure due to an accident. No issues on the way home from the Dales even starting with 80% battery although congestion does make it a very tiring trip.

thevilla

We can't tell people to go for BEV over ICE but then restrict their options for range.  Agreed many overestimate their needs, but imagine the (not) supportive press headlines.

I suspect the issue, if there really is one,  will be solved by advances in battery manufacture.  New chemistries and also the general decarbonisation of industry including mining will reduce the impact of EV manufacture and recycling will be further benefit.