Actually it is, even where I now live in a small village, there is a fight for parking places in front of the house in my street. It is full in the evening. The sidewalks are used by kids, pedestrians, [with] all sort of things that should not cross cables. One could imagine charging poles every few meters, like we now have parking meters in some places every few meters... That would take a lot of new infrastructure,. One place I used to live in Amsterdam the electric tram rails were in front of the house, had to park my car around the corner in a side street. Parking on the sidewalk with the Mercedes in front of the building there resulted in an almost immediate ticket... No arguing..
Politics, I was googling just now and found CBP-7480.pdf Following the Government's announcement in July 2017 of plans to ban sales of "all new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans" from 2040 concerns were raised by the media that this policy would require significantly more capacity in the power sector and present challenges for balancing the electricity grid. For example, a Telegraph article suggested 10 new power stations would be required. 3.1 Responses to demand concerns Many of the estimates, and media reports, on future energy demand with electric vehicles are based on National Grid's report on Future
That last sentence contradicts all that went before. If you don't have a technology for distribution or practical conversion, research is the most productive forward path.
'Look at the numbers' is good advice: research is cheap and effective.
Best hydrogen storage for a vehicle is intercalation in solids; liquid is lower density than the intercalation solution, and has stricter tank requirements, and quicker explusion when t here's a leak (intercalation storage self-chills when gas is evolved, so pressure drops before the tank empties).
Hydrogen storage can be low-pressure gas, high-pressure gas, liquid, or intercalation. Mostly, intercalation is the best option for a vehicle. It does mean slow tank-fill, though, because the tank needs refrigeration during filling.
Teslas are not the usual electric car - and they will never be the mass-market electric car. They have significantly longer ranges than "normal" electric cars, significantly faster charging at their own dedicated charger stations, but cost significantly more than other electric cars.
As long as you are considering the electric car world from the perspective of a top-model Tesla owner, you are not going to understand what is involved in turning the /mass/ of cars numbers and car miles over to renewable and clean energy. Tesla means that /you/ can be happy driving long distances through your warm, rich states with good roads and regular supercharger stations beside fine bakeries. But until people can drive 4000 miles across the mid-West in their Nissan Leaf class electric cars, and through the winter snow (which halves battery capacity and efficiency, and doubles charging times), electric cars and the infrastructure needed is not close to ready.
Sure. (Ironically, electric cars /did/ come before petrol cars.) If electric cars and infrastructure had had the kind of investment that petrol cars have had in the last 50 years, electric cars would be cheap, charged everywhere (probably by coils in the road as we drive over them), long range, etc., and petrol cars to would noisy, smelly, inefficient beasts used only in drag races.
But that's not the world we live in.
I know you don't intend it, but you are one short step away from "let them eat cake".
Oh, I certainly have looked at electric cars, tested them, considered them in detail, worked through planning of what we would need, how it would work for daily use, how it would work for trips that are a bit longer, how it would work for much longer trips.
A small electric car would have been fine for our daily use. But it would not cope with medium length journeys without recharging, especially in the winter (we don't live in a land of eternal summer). It certainly would not cope with the longer journeys across the country
- not even a Tesla would do that in any sane time-scale.
For people who live and work in or near cities and more densely populated areas, small electric cars are great. We don't live in such a place - the nearest Tesla supercharger is an hour away by ferry, and there is only one public charger station in this area.
Again, I think your view is coloured by your significantly higher than median financial situation, and because the part of the world in which you live happens to have an abundance of electrical infrastructure.
Sure, I /could/ get a bigger supply. For a faster charger at home, we'd want three phase - that would mean new wires from the street transformer. That would involve a fair cost in wiring, fuseboxes, cables to the garage, etc., as well as higher rates from the electricity supplier. Increasing the current on the single phase would be easier and cheaper, but we'd still have to lay new cables out to the garage.
Now you are being absurd. The infrastructure for petrol is in place, and is /fast/. If I go to the petrol station and the pumps are all in use, I wait five minutes until one is free. If you go to the shopping centre and the charge stations are all in use, you could be waiting an hour. As electric cars get more common, this is going to be a bigger issue. The only way to avoid it is to have more chargers, and faster chargers - both of which mean more peak current supply needed.
I fully agree that BEVs are fine for many people, even though they would not be suitable for me (not yet, anyway). But I don't think you know how "the vast majority" of people live, or at least you haven't thought through how having a mass market BEV as their only car would work for them today.
And I think you are misunderstanding my motivations here. I would /like/ to be able to have battery-only cars. I would like /everyone/ to have cars running entirely on renewable clean energy. But we are not there yet - not by a very long way.
And I don't think battery cars are the full answer - though they are without doubt an important part of it.
My arguments are based on industry experts. Part of that is from the car manufacturers - they want to sell you new cars, and need to know what kinds of cars people will be wanting in the future. And part of it is by independent research.
/Nobody/ - not even Tesla - is making money from making battery cars. They are too expensive to build, the batteries are too expensive (especially the raw materials), the numbers are too small, and the research and development investments are too high. And while larger volumes will reduce some costs, the batteries still need expensive and unpleasant raw materials.
Improvements are coming - such as solid state batteries that can be charged much faster and have a noticeably bigger capacity. They still suffer from problems such as poorer performance in cold weather, and somewhat unpredictable capacities and remaining charge, and while it is great to be able to charge your car in a few minutes, the challenges of building and supplying fast charge stations is not insignificant. And once such cars and charge stations are available, home charging will drop - who will want to install new wiring and expensive chargers at home to give a bit of loading overnight, when you can just drop in to the charger station once a week? In addition, once there are better batteries with higher capacities and faster chargers, people will want to use them in bigger and more demanding cars - they will want to replace their gas-guzzler SUV's with electric SUV's, not small and efficient electric cars.
Current state-sponsored research in Norway is that building a hydrogen infrastructure will be a good deal cheaper than building an electric car infrastructure for handling the majority of road traffic. (A high proportion of /new/ cars in Norway are electric - about 25%, I believe - but the vast majority of existing cars are fossil fuel. And an even higher proportion of miles travelled is by fossil fuel.)
Hydrogen is not expensive to make or handle. The biggest two points are the electricity for generating it, and storing it. The great thing about using electricity for generating hydrogen is that it doesn't matter if the supply varies, or if it is in the middle of nowhere - making it ideal for wind, wave or solar generators. According to Toyota, one of several car companies betting on hydrogen cars, a big cost of the vehicles is the hydrogen tank. But these costs - unlike batteries - will drop rapidly with production volume.
The key challenge in changing the fuel type for vehicles is the chicken-and-egg issue - you can't have cars needing a fuel until you have filling stations, and you can't economically have filling stations until you have the vehicle fleet. Electric cars avoided this with home chargers. For hydrogen, the key here is for commercial transport - trucks with predictable delivery routes, buses and taxis. You can support significant fleets of such vehicles with only a few refilling stations, then cars can use them too. And then you can expand gradually without having an all-or-nothing stage.
This is currently in progress in Norway and a number of other European countries. And there are a number of vehicle manufacturers building up production of hydrogen cars and trucks.
I have difficulty imagining anyone liking the huge screen in the middle of the dashboard, but people do buy these cars so some people must think they are a good idea. My wife and I sat in a Tesla (I can't remember the model) in a showroom while looking at cars. The seats were comfy, but we both took one look at the dashboard and burst out laughing.
Yes, it is a totally subjective opinion.
I have no idea (or particular interest) in what a "Ridge Runner truck" might be. But Teslas are high-end cars with significant price tags, something like double the price of more common electric cars. Of course they are price-competitive when comparing to other expensive cars (electric or fossil fuel).
I think you are wrong on several accounts. Battery charge is not nearly as predictable as petrol (or hydrogen), especially in varying temperatures. And while car batteries don't degrade or age as much as many people think, they do still degrade. People are happy to keep driving on a quarter tank of petrol, and think "that will be fine until the end of the week" - they get /very/ nervous when the battery charge goes below 25%. (They do the same for mobile phones.) Secondly, peak supplies to fast charger stations are inevitable unless some sort of massive capacitor buffer is used - perhaps more batteries.
I mean they will want to drive up to the charger, put their card in the machine, plug the charger cable into their car, wait while the joules and the dollars count up for a couple of minutes, then disconnect and drive away.
The majority of people do not want the price of a good lunch included in the price of filling their car - nor do they want the time it takes.
Re-read the numbers I gave earlier. When solid-state batteries are in place - and they will be, in a few years - MW chargers will be needed. Who is going to be happy with an hour-long "fast" charge if they can get
5 minute charges?
Cross-country driving in general is much easier where you are - you have far bigger and straighter roads, because you have far more people travelling and far easier country for building roads. In much of Norway you have very little traffic (at least outside the peak tourist season). The country is mountainous with long fjords - roads are often narrow, twisty with frequent tunnels because there is no flat way between places.
It is going to be the main model for most people - electric cars, hydrogen cars, fossil fuel, etc. The "charge at home" model is fine for people with garages (as many garages as they have cars). "Charge at work" will work for a few - it will fail if there are too many people needing it, except for executives with their own private parking spot. "Charge while eating lunch at a fine restaurant" is never going to be regular practice for most people.
A lot of the charging /will/ be at peak times - at those chargings will be the ones that need to go fastest. Close to 25% of Norway's energy usage is for road transport - even if that was all done off-peak, it would still be a very significant jump in the country's power needs. I think you will find few places where the electricity generation or distribution will be happy with that sort of increase without a significant investment.
The electricity grid in many countries - including parts of the USA - is already stabilised by grid storage. Batteries are used there as a major method of energy storage (there are lots of others that can be cheaper for quantity, or work well in particular situations).
If you are correct that the petrol station model will disappear for electric cars, then clearly no batteries will be needed at the fast charger stations because there will be no fast charger stations. All charging will be done overnight, at home, off peak - plus a few hour long charges over lunch.
If I am correct that people will want five minute charges, then those charging stations /will/ need batteries or alternative energy storage that is charged stably off-peak and discharged quickly as needed by customers.
ld ever get off the ground. Coal & gas are mined, hydrogen can't be. At bes t it's just energy converted from one form to a less practical one at signi ficant cost.
you look at the numbers. Practical it is not.
I'll refrain from making up numbers. Unless you can show some credible dat a I'll assume your point is null.
ready for prime time. Yeah, it requires converting energy from one form t o another, but so does *every* power source for cars. Gasoline *uses* powe r for refining, cracking, etc.
actically it's a nonstarter. It's just more expensive & harder to handle.
lysis is 70-80% efficient and the electricity can come from sources other t han carbon.
on acceptable.
the cars and an infrastructure. That is likely some 20 years off before it even starts to look attractive.
n interesting one.
made to work on LSC (light sweet crude). IC engines can't handle the tars s o they'd use the exhaust heat to refine the crude, optionally producing a r ange of saleable chemicals as well as running on them. And use the exhaust heat again to crack long chain stuff to more usable chemicals.
tant past it's not especially complex. People do it in shacks in the 3rd wo rld.
otype car running?
it of waste material too. Wood chips, some plastics, food waste, grass etc.
ptacle and pump or charge. Wood, food... lol!
electric vehicles when refineries are shut down.
ble reason to do so would be the above scenario of cars refining their own fuel.
ings so they *all* can't be shut down. But they won't be needed to provide fuel for electric cars which will eliminate a great number of refineries a nd a lot of excess energy use involved.
e big truck companies are watching Tesla very closely and have their orders in. There is even a serious competitor in the electric truck race. In th e auto sector there are no serious contenders because of the lack of chargi ng for anything other than Teslas. That will take time to change.
y of energy. Bottom line is I can drive a BEV with a fuel cost of around $
0.04 per mile. The fuel cost of running a gasoline vehicle is presently ar ound $0.10 per mile. So clearly there is a net energy savings somewhere in the process.
So that's not the reason.
n a diesel or petrol, it also has to lug a lot more weight and has many oth er downsides, some of which are show stoppers for large scale deployment.
e.
ficiency in any step, too much weight, etc, it would show up in higher cost s to run. The Teslas cost for electricity is about a third the cost of gas for comparable autos. So clearly the things you complain about aren't sig nificant factors.
is the quickest 0 to 60 production sedan in the world! How bad can the wei ght be???
e car off peak. :)
arison between the source and end points for gasoline and BEVs. But that o nly considered the amount of energy input at the beginning and the energy r eaching the car. Significant amounts of energy must be used in the process and it is likely much greater in gasoline produced for cars.
side.
IME it's the sort of comment people make when they've tired of ill informed opinion & ego posturing from people that have no concept of being less tha n perfectly informed.
This is an electronics group. On that nearly everyone here is an expert. Ch ange to other topics and a different picture emerges.
In the future, I would hope that most electricity is clean. In particular, coal has to be phased out and the oil and gas will run low while being needed for other purposes - it will become too expensive to use for electricity generation.
That is the expectation - and companies like Toyota have made very large investments in the plan.
Petrol stations come in a variety of sizes, but yes - that's the scaling. You can "cheat" a bit more with bigger stations - it may be reasonable to assume that no more than half the points are actually actively charging at a time (for the rest, customers are paying, driving in or out, etc.) - if more stations are in use at a time you can reduce the power to some or all of the chargers to reduce the peak load. Such balancing would have little effect on the average charge time. Still, the power requirements for full load are huge.
What you need here is something that can give high peak power at short notice. Your big charger station might need 18 MW peak - but it will be
0.3 to 1 MW average. Neither solar nor windmills would be practical for placement, and nuclear would be useless because it can't easily be ramped up and down (even if you could persuade people it is safe to have a nuclear generator at a charging station). Liquid or gas fuelled generators could work, but batteries are probably a practical choice, charging up during off-peak hours. You don't need expensive lithium ion batteries here - size and weight are not a concern. Sodium ion batteries are cheaper (or will be), and flow batteries are nicely scalable. Even flywheel energy storage could be used.
H? is not bad at all. Modern hydrogen cars go 500 km to the tank, with refills in a couple of minutes. And it is as clean as it comes - the exhaust is water.
There are plenty of ideas for alternative methods for storing and transporting the H? to avoid high pressure tanks. But so far, liquid H? seems to be the one used.
At the moment, there are no efficient (in terms of energy and cost) ways to synthetically make ethanol - so for now, that does not help. If someone figures out a way to do it conveniently then it would be a different matter as the /current/ car fleet and /current/ infrastructure could become "green". That would be better than replacing everything. So it is worth trying to find ways to make ethanol cleanly and efficiently - but not worth betting the planet's future on it.
At the moment, these are the best choices for a lot of use. But they will not be the best choices in the future.
Of course it does. Hydroelectric and geothermal power are fine examples. Wave power, wind power and solar power have their costs but are certainly clean. Nuclear power could be clean if done right - and that is being driven by "new" industrial countries India and China at the moment. "Old" industrial areas like the USA and Europe will catch up.
No.
The key trouble with things like solar power and wind power is that the output is not stable - it varies significantly and unpredictably. If you put the power generation in a place where it is relatively stable (like a desert, for solar generation), then you are far from where people want the power. But if you use the power for generating hydrogen, you can do so during sunny and windy periods - you don't need battery banks, towers full of molten salt, or anything like that. All you need are some big tanks for your H?.
Oil is not an unlimited resource, no matter how much money you are willing to spend looking for it. And what is more important from an economic viewpoint, /cheap/ oil is not unlimited. It doesn't really matter if you can say there are gazilions of litres of oil waiting to be pumped up if the price of doing so is too high for people to use.
And there is the small matter of half the world's population living underwater if we continue to burn the fossil fuels as we do now.
It is a made-up number today - it will be a different matter when fast-charge solid state batteries are available. It will be a good few years before these are ready for mass production, but it will come - and it will make a significant difference to the way electric vehicles are used.
Agreed.
Or India.
We also won't need it if we /don't/ develop alternatives, since most of the petrol users will be under water.
On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 3:56:01 AM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@nospam.org w rote:
mitive.
ly
overnight.
cky in some sort of
It was done back in the 1970's and published in the Proceedings of the IEEE .
Yet. Nor do we have enough electric cars around yet to make it worth settin g up the extra power generators.
It's a manageable problem - not something that is intrinsically impossible, or even difficult.
y few years...
In Canada, parking meters have a power outlet, so that parked cars can plug in and rely on an electric heater to stop the engine blocked from freezing solid.
It's not a big stretch to imagine on street parking offering the same servi ce to keep the battery in an electric car topped up. You'd now wave your ca sh-card over the switch to turn it on, as opposed to the Canadian original where you fed coins into the parking meter, but that today's technology.
Battery pack replacement doesn't seem to be a serious problem for people us ing electric cars now, and recycling old batteries isn't exactly an unfamil iar idea.
The biggest environmental load seems to be on the brains of people who thin k that because something isn't being done now, it is impossible that it mig ht be done sometime soon.
Thermal solar does push molten salt up towers to the focal point to get it hotter, but it doesn't store the hot molten salt there - the hotter molten salt goes back down the tower into large and well-insulated tanks with ther mal time constants of a couple of day or longer (which isn't difficult with large enough tanks).
The proof of principle systems that have been built haven't got very big ta nks, but that's not the kind of principle that needs much testing.
And have sorted out what they are going to do with the nuclear waste - not that thorium reactors generate as much as uranium reactors, but I still wou ldn't want it in my back yard.
Ten metres of sea level rise won't submerge half the world's population
formatting link
puts it at closer to 400 million, or 5%.
It will destroy a lot of expensive water-front property, if more intense hu rricanes haven't done it long before the vulnerable ice sheets have slid of f into the sea.
NT may think he looks like a genius, and DecandentLinuxUserNumeroUno may harbour the same delusion, but at least they aren't silly enough to make the claim for themselves - unlike that self-proclaimed "stable genius", Donald Trump.
NT is rather like krw - completely convinced that everything that he thinks he knows is right - and DecandentLinuxUserNumeroUno seems to suffer from much the same problem.
It's funny when they starting congratulating one another - exhibiting another set of silly ideas for our amusement.
Strangely, NT doesn't seem to imagine that he might be less than perfectly informed.
When one asks him to back up his bizarre opinions with links that might be trustworthy, he can't do it, but he still thinks that his ideas should be taken seriously.
NT's opinions on health and John Larkin's opinions on climate change are particularly fine examples of less-than-expert opinions.
They've both got to be as gullible as Cursitor Doom in their specialist areas of lunacy.
suggests that the US would have to generate 29% more electric power if gasoline power cars were replaced by grid-charge electric cars.
There's more power-generating capacity installed in US cars than there is in electricity generating plant, but cars spend 95% of their time parked, and generating plants are rather more heavily used.
Almost certainly.
It only accomplishes the goal if the electricity generating plant is producing much lower CO2 emissions, in tons of CO2 per Megwatt hour, than car engines. This isn't difficult.
Less CO2 injected into the atmosphere. And less soot, and oxides of nitrogen too.
snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote in news:7f22e289-d3fd-4c37-8ed4-1624e4c5d0b2 @googlegroups.com:
You really are an abject idiot. ALL of the water in the world being placed into the oceans would not cause such a rise. The water on the Earth is a small ball in comparison to the solid mass.
formatting link
See the picture, dipshit?
We do have to do something to conserve our fresh water. But tem meters of ocean rise? That will never happen with the current amount of water. As more is added from space... maybe in another million years.
Ok, I see there is no point in discussing this with you. You have an image in your mind that I won't be able to alter... so for you, electric cars are an impossibility. Ok.
I've not seen what exactly they're investing in. Does it by any chance have some other secondary use?
of course it wouldn't have little effect. And if you doubled charge time to 10 minutes, you need twice as many chargers.
Maybe if it's a village shop charging station. Most garages where I live ar e busy busy busy all day long. So that's maybe 9MW days per day.
or any other reason
that's the one thing it would have no problem with. But it would increase p ower cost. Using reduced power demand moments for CHP would only claw back a small percentage of missed income.
it wouldn't be politically/militarily accceptable
none of those are practical. Do the sums. And even if they were it would not solve the problem
more money for more hazard is entirely bad
and nox
quid H?
but only when cost is no object, ie for publicity, research etc
be
there are no end of non-existent technologues that might make the planet a better place. They don't exist. And none of that changes the problems with electrolysing water to H2 (or et hanol).
nothing has come along that can challenge them to any great extent. Electri c is interesting but shows no sign of taking a large bite out of liquid fue l use.
Hydro is not available in large enough amounts to take over from diesel/pet rol. Geothermal is a small player
You've not said what you mean by clean, but they produce lots of CO2 per kW h. Total output is also lacking. Or do you really propose to cover half the land in the country with pv panels?
.
the problem with nuclear & electric cars is distribution. Unless we start d riving Ford Nucleons :)
No, the key problem is cost. Intermittency are serious problems too.
and vast pockets, which tend to kill ideas dead in the real world
probably true, but we're nowhere near its limits
sure, but that's not the situation in our life time. There's no lack of tim e to build more nukes.
The science behind that is hopelessly flawed. Slow man believes it.
One way electric trucks might work is to power them on motorways from overh ead lines. Battery power would then suffice for the trip from motorway to f actory for a useful percentage of cases. Of course you may as well then add a pair of rails on the ground beside the motorway. But it's not going to w ork for private cars.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.