Clubjazz - Honda Jazz & HR-V Forums

Other Hondas & General Topics => Off Topic (Non-Honda) => Topic started by: Jocko on September 05, 2017, 06:22:14 PM

Title: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: Jocko on September 05, 2017, 06:22:14 PM
Scotland’s First Minister today announced that new petrol and diesel vehicles will be phased out in Scotland by 2032 – eight years ahead of the rest of the UK. There is also to be a significant expansion in the charging network, including an Electric Highway along the A9, Scotland's longest road.
Scotland’s four biggest cities will have Low Emission Zones, banning the most polluting vehicles, by 2020. The Scottish government is already committed to one Low Emission Zones by the end of next year.
Let’s see what happens with that. Kind of goes against their North Sea Oil stance of the Independence Referendum.
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: wee jimmy on September 06, 2017, 07:11:20 PM


               think she,s kidding her self-on
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: VicW on September 06, 2017, 07:34:16 PM
More pie in the sky. Politicians are not on this planet with the rest of us.
Having lived in and toured Scotland extensively I find it hard to imagine all the EV charging points installed in the Highlands and Islands.

Vic.
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: culzean on September 06, 2017, 08:36:29 PM
I haven't a clue what planet dear Nicola is on, not even in our solar system I'm afraid. Looks like more political posturing to me, being seen to do something - anything to keep your name in the papers, bit like Katie price who was a world expert at it.
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: Jocko on September 06, 2017, 08:48:25 PM
Having lived in and toured Scotland extensively I find it hard to imagine all the EV charging points installed in the Highlands and Islands.
I was amazed to find just how many charging locations there are in Scotland, already. Including the Highlands and Island. In fact, it looks like there are more charging points than filling stations, if my experience of filling up while touring the Highlands is anything to go by. I remember one Sunday evening, trying to get back down from Speyside with an exceptionally light tank. I was in and out of towns and villages trying to find a filling station. The couple I did find were closed on a Sunday! Eventually I found one open but with no unleaded. I just filled up anyway. No real option.

http://www.greenerscotland.org/greener-travel/greener-driving/charge-point-map (http://www.greenerscotland.org/greener-travel/greener-driving/charge-point-map)
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: culzean on September 07, 2017, 08:39:52 AM
Having lived in and toured Scotland extensively I find it hard to imagine all the EV charging points installed in the Highlands and Islands.
I was amazed to find just how many charging locations there are in Scotland, already. Including the Highlands and Island. In fact, it looks like there are more charging points than filling stations

There needs to be more charging points than filling stations - each petrol pump can satisfy at least 10 cars an hour x the number of pumps at the petrol station - each charging point can only do 1 car an hour (for fast charger) or one car every two or three hours.  It won't be until more people start using charging points that the true extent of the lack of electrical power becomes manifest.   I know people can charge at home,  but that still needs electricity.

Most ICE cars can easily do 400 to 500 miles on a tank so don't need to visit a petrol station very often, EV has a bit to catch up.  I wonder how much of batteries charge can disappear when EV is left standing - batteries are well known to be 'leaky' (self-discharge) when not used,  especially in warmer weather.
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: VicW on September 07, 2017, 03:02:13 PM
Governments talk glibly about EV's but appear not to have considered that a considerable number of car owners do not have off road parking facilities. Therefore they could only trail a cable across the pavement to plug in with the obvious trip hazard to the passing public.
How about blocks of flats, of which there are many in cities?

Vic.
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: Jocko on September 07, 2017, 04:46:53 PM
I live in a block of flats and cannot even get my car within 30 yards of my front door. Because most of my motoring events are 4 mile trips with a cold engine, I'd like to fit a block heater. But even my garage (well away from house), has no electricity and no chance of getting electricity.
I thought this solution, trialling in Hounslow, was a good idea. Still not enough though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKaEhBjt1ls&t=1s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKaEhBjt1ls&t=1s)

As battery technology/range improves and charge times decrease, I am sure the time will come when we will charge our car as often as we fill up now. We will be able to charge while we are at the supermarket or other public parking places.
And once autonomous vehicles  are commonplace, we may find far fewer people own vehicles. I have several friends who have given up owning cars and use public transport, taxis, and the occasional car hire when they really need it. They all say they save a mint.
My grandson and his mates have no interest in owning cars (insurance probably puts them off). They too use buses and taxis.
Personally, they will have to tear my keys away from me, when my time comes.
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: trebor1652 on September 07, 2017, 09:27:27 PM
How are we going to generate all this electric, there are times when the national grid is pushed to the limit, perhaps all new builds must have solar panels to help.
I have also read (tongue in cheek) that if the car is on charge and you turn on the kettle for a brew you will trip the mains.
Oh dear, left hand not knowing what the right is doing.

Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: Jocko on September 07, 2017, 10:13:21 PM
if the car is on charge and you turn on the kettle for a brew you will trip the mains.
Take it from a retired electrical engineer that that is the biggest load of waffle ever.
As regards where we get the electricity from. The best time to charge your car is overnight. When you are not using it.
And overnight off peak electricity is the cheapest, because there is so much of it we struggle to use it all. We do have issues with the amount of available electricity at peak times, but only for a few minutes each day. We are not that tight for electricity supplies otherwise they would not have shut down Longannet Power Station (2.4 Gigawatt), a few miles from me, with the loss of local jobs it caused. As well as coal, it burnt oil, sludge and biomass. It was fitted with Low NOX burners and Carbon Capture. Mind you, it was in Scotland!
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: culzean on September 08, 2017, 08:21:08 AM
if the car is on charge and you turn on the kettle for a brew you will trip the mains.
And overnight off peak electricity is the cheapest, because there is so much of it we struggle to use it all.

Nocturnal solar energy - that is a new one on me,  the moon must be brighter than I realised.   Nicola has plans to 'kill two birds with one stone' and rebuild Hadrians wall using Tesla batteries,  from now on it will be 'Hadrians Powerwall' - two problems problem solved,  except those pesky English will be robbing the electricity.
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: Jocko on September 08, 2017, 08:39:42 AM
No. At the moment overnight electricity is the cheapest because there is so much of it. That's why we have pump storage here in Scotland. Cruachan and Foyers/Loch Mhór. Scotland has the potential for 500 GWh of pumped storage.
And regarding pump storage systems, solar can be used during the day to pump water up to the dams, so we can use hydro during the night. Then there is wind power. GFG Alliance has announced plans to install a wind farm to power its Lochaber aluminium smelter. The scheme would also provide power for Motherwell's Dalzell steel mills run by Liberty, which with another company SIMEC forms GFG Alliance
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: John Ratsey on September 08, 2017, 11:42:21 AM
No. At the moment overnight electricity is the cheapest because there is so much of it.
This could change as the nuclear and big thermal power stations, which are happiest if left running continuously at close to full output, are progressively phased out. At the present rate of progress there won't be a lot of new nuclear plants to replace the older ones. The nearest we are likely to get to reliable green electricity is a bunch of tidal plants around the UK coast line (positioned so that overall they will cover the unproductive parts of the tidal cycle), but that's unlikely to happen soon unless there's a big change in thinking.

A few years ago I was closely watching micro-CHP (heat the house and generate electricity at the same time). However, reliability proved to be a big problem and the manufacturers appear to have lost interest in the development of domestic-sized equipment.
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: Jocko on September 08, 2017, 11:56:22 AM
I think the problem with the micro-CHP is the fact it is burning stuff. Whether it is diesel, gas or biomass it is still stuff being burnt.
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: culzean on September 08, 2017, 12:29:17 PM
No. At the moment overnight electricity is the cheapest because there is so much of it.
This could change as the nuclear and big thermal power stations, which are happiest if left running continuously at close to full output, are progressively phased out.

That is exactly why overnight energy used to be cheap,  but not any more.  My local authority has been in the habit of turning streetlights off since about 2010 after a certain time of night (midnight) to 'save money' -  maybe because low carbon energy is neither as cheap or reliable as certain people hoped and as fossil / woodchip fueled thermal plants are being closed and nothing is being done to build any new nuclear it may be we have to get used to such things,  back to the dark ages anyone ?
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: culzean on September 08, 2017, 12:39:08 PM
I have also read (tongue in cheek) that if the car is on charge and you turn on the kettle for a brew you will trip the mains.

Not if you have the new EU approved 250 watt kettles that take 30 minutes to boil (if ever) or the new 100 watt toasters that will warm the bread but not brown it.  These devices are introduced to level out the 'peaks' in electrical supply that saved running a conventional station to handle and renewables cannot cope with (can't even cope with level demand).  Traditionally pumped storage schemes have been used to cope with expected peak demands - these can be run up to capacity to handle expected peaks (like half time in England world cup football matches (not too many of those) when everyone plugs in the kettle at the same time and can be at peak in as little as 20 seconds,  otherwise they take a few minutes to go from being turned on and sychronised with 50 Hz mains to supplying peak output,  but are normally only good for a few hours worth of demand.
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: trebor1652 on September 08, 2017, 12:48:00 PM
Don't forget the new ruling from the EU on vacuum cleaners that stipulates 900 watt max motor (supplies are allowed to be sold) supposed to save us up to £13.00 a year.
Think they got it wrong again they should have said maximum decibel ratting but that's the EU for you.

Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: RichardA on September 08, 2017, 01:56:00 PM
No. At the moment overnight electricity is the cheapest because there is so much of it.
This could change as the nuclear and big thermal power stations, which are happiest if left running continuously at close to full output, are progressively phased out.

That is exactly why overnight energy used to be cheap,  but not any more.  My local authority has been in the habit of turning streetlights off since about 2010 after a certain time of night (midnight) to 'save money'

A new build development up the road has no street lamps at all. But given B*vis' reputation...;)

Sent from my GT-S7500 using Tapatalk 2

Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: culzean on September 08, 2017, 02:36:13 PM
I know there are people pushing for lessening of light pollution from street lamps,  but good design of lamp luminares can cover this,  or at least reduce it drastically.   
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: Jocko on September 08, 2017, 02:39:04 PM
My local council is replacing the street lights with LED luminares. They are whiter and actually brighter and than the old 250 - 300 watt sodium tubes they replace, and only consume about 40 watts. They are really bright, but only in a downward direction, making the pavements far better illuminated. They are far easier on the eye when driving. One of the advantages of these is it leaves capacity in the miles of cables, already laid, for other things.
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: guest1372 on September 08, 2017, 04:33:13 PM
My local council is replacing the street lights with LED luminares. ....  One of the advantages of these is it leaves capacity in the miles of cables, already laid, for other things.
As this month's Economist notes, streetlamps as EV charge points is under active development.

"Officials in London recently announced plans for 1,500 new charging-points by 2020. Local authorities there are experimenting with providing low-cost kerbside charging by enabling streetlights to double up as charging-points.

China’s government, which is set on remaining the largest market for electric cars, has far bigger plans. This year alone it is installing 800,000 public charging-points, including 100,000 semipublic ones at workplaces and for taxis and commercial vehicles.

Last year Daimler, BMW, Volkswagen and Ford also said they would together install a total of 400 public charging-points in Europe delivering 350KW, which will charge a small car to three-quarters full in four minutes and a big vehicle in 12 minutes."
(At the dealers I assume)
--
TG
https://www.economist.com/news/business/21728671-reliable-network-should-not-prove-insurmountable-roadblock-infrastructure-charging

(open in private/incognito if article limit reached)
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: culzean on September 08, 2017, 04:58:09 PM
Fast charging of batteries damages them, so to talk of charging a 30kWh battery to 3/4 full in 4 minutes is a bit much. Charge efficiency is lower at high charge rates so you have to supply 30kw in 4 minutes or 1/15th hour and at 240 volts 1kw = 4 amps.   120 amps would charge 30kWh in an hour, so to charge it in 4 mins you need 15 x 120 amps = 1800 amps from the 240 volt supply or 1060 amps from 400 volt single phase supply, if you use 3 phase it will be 630 amps per phase,  430kw which is a huge lump of power in any language. Battery heating could be a problem - I am pretty sure the times should have been 40 minutes and 120 minutes, would not be the first time a journalist has failed at maths.
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: Jocko on September 08, 2017, 05:24:29 PM
Yes, those numbers look a bit iffy. A Tesla will charge to 80% in 40 minutes. New battery technology allows far faster charging than Lead Acid, but the problem in trying to get 1800 Amps along a wire requires huge conductors and massive connectors.
I worked in an industry that used high current like that. The conductors were as thick as your wrist, and you need two, plus the connectors were made of HCOF Copper (High Conductivity, Oxygen Free) and were securely bolted. Any poor connection burns out in seconds (I can smell the burnt insulation as I type this!).
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: culzean on September 08, 2017, 05:37:31 PM
Yes, those numbers look a bit iffy. A Tesla will charge to 80% in 40 minutes. New battery technology allows far faster charging than Lead Acid, but the problem in trying to get 1800 Amps along a wire requires huge conductors and massive connectors.
I worked in an industry that used high current like that. The conductors were as thick as your wrist, and you need two, plus the connectors were made of HCOF Copper (High Conductivity, Oxygen Free) and were securely bolted. Any poor connection burns out in seconds (I can smell the burnt insulation as I type this!).

I used to work for a resistance welding company,  and those sorts of currents were what a machine used to pull for fractions of a second to weld steel together, to pull that sort of current for longer would need massive cables.

then there is this, using batteries the size of shipping containers
https://phys.org/news/2016-01-electric-car-fast-tank-gas.html
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: Jocko on September 08, 2017, 06:30:31 PM
Our equipment was for evaporating Germanium, Zinc Sulphide and Sapphire (Aluminium Oxide). The boats would be drawing up to 1200 amps (4 volts) for up to 12 hours of the three shift day.
When you consider the size of storage tanks for petrol and diesel then four shipping containers is not that large. And as storage technology improves and energy density with it, then sizes will fall somewhat.
Don't get me wrong. I know there are huge obstacles to overcome, but we will overcome them and probably sooner than we think. After all, I think it was AT & T that had a feasibility study done in 1990, into mobile phones, and the experts said they would never take off. People wouldn't want them, the batteries would last no time at all and there was no infrastructure to support them. Sound familiar?
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: guest1372 on September 08, 2017, 07:09:09 PM
Yeah those numbers can't be right.  Many years ago I worked for a concert PA company and the size our our power hook ups for a stadium gig were pretty massive (NEC/MEN Arena etc. incandescent lighting and low efficiency amps) I would not want to try to plug one of those cables into a car; 350kW and 4 minutes don't add up.  Maybe a site with say 8 hookups, and 32 minutes makes more sense.
--
TG
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: culzean on September 08, 2017, 07:59:37 PM

As this month's Economist notes, streetlamps as EV charge points is under active development.

Officials in London recently announced plans for 1,500 new charging-points by 2020. Local authorities there are experimenting with providing low-cost kerbside charging by enabling streetlights to double up as charging-points.

One charging point per lamp-post (every 200 yards),  I can just imagine the sh!tfights that will happen about people 'hogging' the chargers every night and the neighbours can't get a look-in when they want to hook up - city streets are already lined with cars with no parking spaces, a charge point every streetlamp doesn't even begin to make a dent in the charging requirements.  Desperate people will be charging their cars from petrol powered generators running all night - lovely !
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: Jocko on September 08, 2017, 08:13:59 PM
They are doing this in Hounslow now. ubertricity are installing them. How it will work when there are loads of EVs is anyone's guess. You'll be okay, culzean. You won't even have to queue at the filling station when you go to fill up!
Of course, eventually there will be little call for filling stations and you may have to order your petrol on the internet and have it delivered from UAE.  ;D
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: culzean on September 08, 2017, 08:18:19 PM
They are doing this in Hounslow now. ubertricity are installing them. How it will work when there are loads of EVs is anyone's guess. You'll be okay, culzean. You won't even have to queue at the filling station when you go to fill up!
Of course, eventually there will be little call for filling stations and you may have to order your petrol on the internet and have it delivered from UAE.  ;D

I will be finished with driving long before EV's replace ICE - enough stresses without adding range anxiety to them.
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: Jocko on September 08, 2017, 08:30:02 PM
Me too. Had my eyes tested today and the Optometrist said my eyes are still fit for driving. Just the knees and the brain I need worry about now!
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: guest1372 on September 09, 2017, 02:58:09 PM
This is what Daimler said, but that does not look like a particularly high current plug.  Note 'up to'.

"The network will be based on Combined Charging System (CCS) standard technology. The planned charging infrastructure expands the existing technical standard for AC- and DC charging of electric vehicles to the next level of capacity for DC fast charging with up to 350 kW. BEVs that are engineered to accept this full power of the charge stations can recharge brand-independently in a fraction of the time of today’s BEVs."
(https://www.daimler.com/bilder/innovation/effizienz/jointventure-ladeinfrastruktur/16c1093-1-d334401-w900xh360-cutout.jpg)
https://www.daimler.com/innovation/efficiency/ultra-fast-charging-of-electric-vehicles.html

The FT seems to have digested it a little better.
"The proposed new charge points will have capacity of 350kW, allowing cars in future to charge more than twice as fast."
https://www.ft.com/content/1db52960-b62d-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d

For reference a Tesla Supercharger provides up to DC 120kW per car.
--
TG
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: Jocko on September 09, 2017, 04:22:29 PM
I take it these numbers are per hour? Has someone, some time in the past, decided that you can just quote a number and Joe public will understand it means per hour. It is like saying a car will do 120 miles and everyone knows it means 120 mph!
After all, a phone charger will give you 350kW. It will just take forever to do so.
Charging rates should be quoted in kW-h to seriously mean something. I obviously missed out somewhere.
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: culzean on September 09, 2017, 05:07:26 PM
350kW without any suffix means an instantaneous value, (like 'an electric shower is rated at 9kW' ) but to run the shower for one hour it would take 9kW hours, for two hours 18kWh etc  - which is the total of power used or supplied over a time period.

They state 'For reference a Tesla Supercharger provides up to DC 120kW per car' -  but each supercharger allows two cars to charge at same time, and if you plug two cars in it can only supply 60kW per car.

A kw is current (amperes) x voltage - which is why pylon conductors, even though they don't look very big and are made of aluminium (a worse conductor than copper) with a stranded steel core can carry a lot of power because voltage is so high (400,000 volts) the current for each KW carried becomes very low (and the insulation ie. air is free, unlike buried HV cables which are extremely complex and maintenance intensive and like a bomb waiting to go off).

Journalists are normally useless at anything technical,  and when it comes to statistics they are dire,  they will happily tell the public that 'this drug will double your chances of having a heart attack' which would scare most people silly, when they should say 'chance of a heart attack is 1 in 10,000  - this drug raises it to 2 in 10,000'  - which clarifies the risk much better.
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: Jocko on September 09, 2017, 06:15:25 PM
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: John Ratsey on September 09, 2017, 08:58:30 PM
This article https://www.siemens.com/innovation/en/home/pictures-of-the-future/mobility-and-motors/electromobility-electric-ferries.html (https://www.siemens.com/innovation/en/home/pictures-of-the-future/mobility-and-motors/electromobility-electric-ferries.html) highlights the problem of local grid capacity and gives a solution which could be replicated for vehicle charging (and substantially increase the cost).
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: culzean on September 09, 2017, 09:17:50 PM
This article https://www.siemens.com/innovation/en/home/pictures-of-the-future/mobility-and-motors/electromobility-electric-ferries.html (https://www.siemens.com/innovation/en/home/pictures-of-the-future/mobility-and-motors/electromobility-electric-ferries.html) highlights the problem of local grid capacity and gives a solution which could be replicated for vehicle charging (and substantially increase the cost).

That is the same concept as the phys.org link I posted earlier in thread,

https://phys.org/news/2016-01-electric-car-fast-tank-gas.html

 but that was for road EV - batteries the size of shipping containers act as a buffer to lessen instantaneous demand on local electricity supply.
Title: Re: SNP stance on EV's.
Post by: Jocko on September 11, 2017, 10:26:15 AM
Photographed this shale oil tanker with a delivery from Wilmingham for the refinery at Grangemouth. I think Scotland imports as much oil as it exports these days!
(https://i.imgur.com/X1oiLAz.jpg)