58 minutes ago, SWBoy said:

Really?

 

The grid has just enough capacity to cope with Winter power surges, but does not have the capacity to cope with millions of EVs being charged at the same time.

 

Not only does the grid need more generating capacity, but also much of the distribution network will need to have its capacity increased to avoid overhead cables overheating and prematurely falling.

 

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

Smart chargers allow EV to smooth out grid load, even putting electricity back onto the grid if demand is high. Same principle can be applied to house batteries, to take advantage of per second (for example) electricity price fluctuation and even get paid by the grid for helping to smooth out demand.

 

 

You plug it in at the end of the day, it only charges when there's excess on the grid. Instead of charging for 3 hours, it spreads that load over 12 hours you are at home. You just need to tell it when you want to unplug in the morning. The smart grid works out the rest.

 

How long do you drive each day? Does a 200 miles EV cover your daily usage? I commute 60 miles each day, I know 100 miles EV of current gen is not enough for me. But I am sure 200 miles EV plus Tesla's well placed superchargers is more than enough for me.

Exactly, look at Australia who are having black-outs just trying to provide power for peoples iPhones.. (they dont even have the large kettle surges during Corrie to make 30million cups of tea).

The UK isnt far behind with most of the current power stations already over the "use-by-date" and the disaster with the French/Chinese contracts for the new ones still not resolved.

 

Then you've got the physical cables for ditribution & local cables which are not designed to provide so much power.

Someone has to pay for all of these upgrades & they wont happen overnight.

Currently Tesla is funding their charging stations themselves.

 

Next, concider, "charging at home" is not possible for many people who live in an appartment with shared garage or in cities where "you park where you can".

 

An electric vehicle is probably suitable for 90% of people commuting (mine included).

However, without the ability to charge on-demand, I will always need a 2nd vehicle (for holidays, trips to see the family, trips to other countries).

Electric vehicles are currently very expensive & buying a 2nd car (or renting another on several occaisons) only adds to the cost.

7 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

The smart grid works out the rest.

 

How long do you drive each day? Does a 200 miles EV cover your daily usage? I commute 60 miles each day, I know 100 miles EV of current gen is not enough for me. But I am sure 200 miles EV plus Tesla's well placed superchargers is more than enough for me.

Smart Grid? Not out here in the rural sticks...

 

How far do I drive each day? On average nothing, but when I do drive it will be around 300 miles.

 

BTW not all of us, especially those of us who are retired, can afford a Tesla.

 

So often proponents of EVs forget that the needs of the wider population are not the same as their needs.

There is nothing revolutionary here. All it takes is a few coordinated (via GSM mobile network, it's everywhere) connected batteries. People should stop thinking the grid is a ridged power station supply and distributed user creating the demand. All the connected EV and house battery packs will enable distributed supply and demand levelling. Putting on your kettle? your neighbour's battery pack can help with this demand. This will all be result of more renewable installations creating huge demand for electricity storage solutions.

 

Once infrastructure is in place (or buy Tesla now), long distance travel with EV is not only feasible, it will also be MUCH MUCH cheaper. Because I think in the very near future, people will realise EV's will not need to be serviced so often, and will probably set service interval according to time: 2 years unlimited miles. The powertrain itself does not actually need any servicing.

 

 

For you, SWBoy, a fossil fuel car is better. There's no claim that EV is suitable for everyone at this current moment in time. Your needs are not the need of wider population, the wider population drives on a daily basis and doesn't drive very far each day.

The "engine" may not need servicing in an EV but that is not going to offset the cost of replacing the battery every few years?  

 

 

 

 

58 minutes ago, juan27 said:

The "engine" may not need servicing in an EV but that is not going to offset the cost of replacing the battery every few years?  

 

 

 

 

Quick google throws this one up: https://www.teslacentral.com/worried-about-tesla-battery-degradation-its-23-miles-every-100000-driven

 

The battery (as long as you don't discharge it to 0%, same as you wouldn't let a diesel run empty) should last over 10 years and well over 100k miles. Even then, at least 80% of the capacity should remain. Daily use of just 30% of its capacity (for example 60 miles for 200 miles car) will not degrade the battery at all. It's the constant deep discharge and always charging to 100% will degrade its capacity.

 

End of the day, same as diesel engines. You wouldn't want to buy a second hand diesel that's never exceeded 30mph for its previous 50k miles. But better than diesels, you can see the battery capacity and won't be surprised by a DPF replacement bill.

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

Quick google throws this one up: https://www.teslacentral.com/worried-about-tesla-battery-degradation-its-23-miles-every-100000-driven

 

The battery (as long as you don't discharge it to 0%, same as you wouldn't let a diesel run empty) should last over 10 years and well over 100k miles.

 

Fair enough, even with a degree of marketing hyperbole that seems much better than I had assumed. It will be interesting to see how EVs fair in the used market once 5+ years old

 

I also take your point that an EV does address commuting/shopping needs well. 

 

The up front cost is very much still a barrier, with the most basic low range (80 miles real world) Renault Zoe coming in at £19K after the grant (NB if you buy rather than lease the battery) I think most would still would look at a sub £10K petrol city car for a local runaround. 

 

There's no getting away from the fact that a £6K Dacia Sandero could be used at a push to drive to the South of France at the drop of a hat whereas that it wouldn't really be practical in the Zoe.

 

You can say that capability isn't needed for many, but its nice to have.  

 

 

What's exactly what's stopping my household at the moment: the cost of a Model S.

 

 

My plan is to get the Tesla Model 3 in ~3 years and the Skoda will be kept as second car for the wife for a while, until we have had a few family holidays in the EV and happy with the public infrastructure.

 

Well, I think the range capability isn't THAT different to an Octavia. I am comfortable with 400 miles, keeping one day of commute as buffer. At the same time I know I am not physically capable to drive 400 miles in one go. So as long as wherever I stop to rest has quick charging, giving you 50% range in 20-30min, EV actually has unlimited range. Now this comes back to public charging infrastructure, which is why I was saying we only really need (many) quick chargers at major service stations. At street level, we don't need quick chargers, a cheaper, slower smart charger that charges over 10+ hours won't put too much strain on the grid.

 

 

Forgive my ignorance, but do you have to pay for charging at motorway service stations/railway stations etc?  

 

As far as I can see the chargers are few in number so you  may have to factor in queuing for your fast charge? 

 

One problem with setting up the infrastructure I can see is existing petrol stations aren't good places to have EV charging, so its a bit difficult to see where you would put fast chargers away from urban areas and the motorway network.

 

I appreciate its all a bit chicken and egg, but I can't see a justification to install many chargers in very remote areas like the the Scottish Highlands where distances between places of any size can be significant.

 

I'm not saying an EV can't work, but I think there are compromises involved.

6 hours ago, wyx087 said:

All it takes is a few coordinated (via GSM mobile network, it's everywhere) connected batteries.

Via a GSM network that is being phased out by most mobile network operators in order to provide 4G(LTE) and 5G coverage and capacity?

 

Have you proof that "connected batteries" is being rolled out or even seriously proposed? I have yet to see any pubic announcements that contradict the assumption that every EV owner can expect their EV to charge as soon as they plug it in...

3 hours ago, juan27 said:

Forgive my ignorance, but do you have to pay for charging at motorway service stations/railway stations etc?  

 

As far as I can see the chargers are few in number so you  may have to factor in queuing for your fast charge? 

 

One problem with setting up the infrastructure I can see is existing petrol stations aren't good places to have EV charging, so its a bit difficult to see where you would put fast chargers away from urban areas and the motorway network.

 

I appreciate its all a bit chicken and egg, but I can't see a justification to install many chargers in very remote areas like the the Scottish Highlands where distances between places of any size can be significant.

 

I'm not saying an EV can't work, but I think there are compromises involved.

 

Currently, you do need to pay in 30min slots for Ecotricity 50kw quick chargers (IIRC). Tesla's 120kw superchargers you won't need to pay a penny with Model S or X for rest of your life. But in anticipation for Model 3 release, all Tesla bought now you have 400kwh of free supercharging, then you have to pay by energy unit. (remember you should only user those when doing long trips, so it's more than enough)

 

I agree with you, that's why I'm saying the public charging infrastructure is not quite there yet. The best place for quick chargers would be at service station car parks. For example I frequent south mimms service there are 12 superchargers, most of which are empty whenever I visit. So I don't foresee queuing with the rate Tesla is expanding their charging stations according to their vehicles sold.

 

 

2 hours ago, SWBoy said:

Via a GSM network that is being phased out by most mobile network operators in order to provide 4G(LTE) and 5G coverage and capacity?

 

Have you proof that "connected batteries" is being rolled out or even seriously proposed? I have yet to see any pubic announcements that contradict the assumption that every EV owner can expect their EV to charge as soon as they plug it in...

 

You just need to do a quick google search on smart grid.

 

https://www.smartenergygb.org/en/smart-future/britains-smart-grid

In case you've missed it, the smart meters are just the start of what's possible. You can now use a day of electricity completely free thanks to renewables. Soon cheaper energy will come in shorter and shorter bursts, and a smart car charger will be able to take advantage of that. There are many companies trying to be the first to market with these types of product, a very quick google:

https://www.eocharging.com/

http://www.electricnation.org.uk/2017/02/21/installation-of-free-smart-chargers-gets-underway-for-electric-vehicle-owners/

 

I believe most smart meters installed today are using GSM to report readings. I don't think GSM will be completely phased out, a few bands being auctioned off may be.

http://www.smsmetering.co.uk/smart-meters-overview/

12 hours ago, wyx087 said:

I believe most smart meters installed today are using GSM to report readings. I don't think GSM will be completely phased out, a few bands being auctioned off may be.

http://www.smsmetering.co.uk/smart-meters-overview/

UK smart meters use an entirely separate data network to the mobile phone networks.

 

GSM will be completely phased out, several years ago the UK operators had their licence conditions changed to allow them to use 3G, 4G, etc. on their GSM frequency allocations. Plus industrial users have been strongly advised for several years (since at least 2011 when I was designing smart water meters) NOT to incorporate GSM modules into their new designs.

13 hours ago, wyx087 said:

You just need to do a quick google search on smart grid.

 

https://www.smartenergygb.org/en/smart-future/britains-smart-grid

In case you've missed it, the smart meters are just the start of what's possible. You can now use a day of electricity completely free thanks to renewables. Soon cheaper energy will come in shorter and shorter bursts, and a smart car charger will be able to take advantage of that. There are many companies trying to be the first to market with these types of product, a very quick google:

https://www.eocharging.com/

http://www.electricnation.org.uk/2017/02/21/installation-of-free-smart-chargers-gets-underway-for-electric-vehicle-owners/

That will lead to an "interesting discussion"  with the lady that has just had to give birth in an EV somewhere on a dark road in the middle of nowhere:

 

"I'm sorry you couldn't reach the hospital madam but your EV didn't charge because the Smart Grid had decided that there was higher priorities for their generating capacity at that time.

I'm also sorry that an ambulance didn't attend in time, but yours was not their highest priority life & death case"

 

As they say "Hell hath not fury..."

 

Technology needs to take into account the human factors as well as what is technically possible, and being able to get to hospital when needed will rank higher in most peoples priorities than having to share out inadequate generating capacity caused by politicians failing to make difficult decisions". This is an example of the big picture that deployment of EVs must take into account, but which it appears is not being given adequate attention at present.

2 hours ago, SWBoy said:

UK smart meters use an entirely separate data network to the mobile phone networks.

 

GSM will be completely phased out, several years ago the UK operators had their licence conditions changed to allow them to use 3G, 4G, etc. on their GSM frequency allocations. Plus industrial users have been strongly advised for several years (since at least 2011 when I was designing smart water meters) NOT to incorporate GSM modules into their new designs.

 

Thank you for this information, obviously my knowledge is out of date. Goes to show how out of date data and information are doing more harm than good.

 

Are these smart meters data network able reach your neck of the woods? I don't see why smart chargers wouldn't utilise the same network, once standardised. My point still stands, technology will reach everywhere, just a matter of time. The GSM reference was irrelevant.

 

1 hour ago, SWBoy said:

That will lead to an "interesting discussion"  with the lady that has just had to give birth in an EV somewhere on a dark road in the middle of nowhere:

 

"I'm sorry you couldn't reach the hospital madam but your EV didn't charge because the Smart Grid had decided that there was higher priorities for their generating capacity at that time.

I'm also sorry that an ambulance didn't attend in time, but yours was not their highest priority life & death case"

 

As they say "Hell hath not fury..."

 

Technology needs to take into account the human factors as well as what is technically possible, and being able to get to hospital when needed will rank higher in most peoples priorities than having to share out inadequate generating capacity caused by politicians failing to make difficult decisions". This is an example of the big picture that deployment of EVs must take into account, but which it appears is not being given adequate attention at present.

 

Human need to take into account of human factors. In that example you've mentioned, the same could be said why the husband didn't set the EV to be always available. Software are configurable, you shouldn't assume the smart charger example I gave is the ONLY way to use it. It will give incentives to charge your EV at a cheaper rate if you set it to do so, but if you need your EV to be on stand-by, then you should charge as soon as plugged in.

 

You keep mentioning the big picture, greater population. But you are also forgetting most people drive a short distance on a daily basis. Your use case and the above example are not good examples of the greater population. Besides, in the wonderful world of capitalism, you still have the choice to buy petrol/diesel for many years to come, no one is taking them away. Only difference now is that, there will be less smog filled cities, neighbourhoods will be quieter and CO2 emissions will be less with more and more EV's on the road.

I don't give rat's arse about charging networks, National Grid capabilities or Smart meters, EV don't sound or sound right

 

& for that reason, I'M OUT

On 7/21/2017 at 09:25, SWBoy said:

Really?

 

The grid has just enough capacity to cope with Winter power surges, but does not have the capacity to cope with millions of EVs being charged at the same time.

 

Not only does the grid need more generating capacity, but also much of the distribution network will need to have its capacity increased to avoid overhead cables overheating and prematurely falling.

Yes I'd agree with this after all we are talking about predominantly coal (fossil fuel) powered cars here 

On ‎23‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 01:46, ChrisHooligan said:

Yes I'd agree with this after all we are talking about predominantly coal (fossil fuel) powered cars here 

Coal is only 22%, in the same year, renewable generation is at 25% and will be rising to 30% in 2020.

http://www.energy-uk.org.uk/energy-industry/electricity-generation.html

 

When you buy an EV, you can easily switch to greener supplier support renewable energy while you charge. I'm with Tonik, essentially pay them to supply the grid using renewable energy the same amount I use.

 

 

 

The lack of sound issue can be solved by engine noise generators, just like in the VRS version people are so fond of No sound pollution for other people, win-win. EV will also perform much better thanks to instant torque of electric motors. Just take a test drive in a Tesla (not a hamstrung EV by other marques)

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

When you buy an EV, you can easily switch to greener supplier support renewable energy while you charge.

Ahh that old herring...

 

Switching to a greener supplier doesn't mean you USE energy generated by "green" methods, just that you pay for "green" generation to be put into the grid.

 

What you actually use depends on the path of lowest resistance between you and the nearest generator(s) - so if you live near a coal or gas powered station that's the energy you will be using, not the more expensive green energy that you're paying for.

6 minutes ago, SWBoy said:

Ahh that old herring...

 

Switching to a greener supplier doesn't mean you USE energy generated by "green" methods, just that you pay for "green" generation to be put into the grid.

 

What you actually use depends on the path of lowest resistance between you and the nearest generator(s) - so if you live near a coal or gas powered station that's the energy you will be using, not the more expensive green energy that you're paying for.

 

No axe to grind here, but it must skew the market? If more people are willing to pay extra for green electricity then it becomes more attractive to generate green electricity and the balance of supply shifts in that direction. Not something I do myself but I can see how it works.

 

Its kind of a feature of the national grid that none of us can say for sure where the electricity for any given boil of the kettle comes from.  

 

I'm no evangelist for EVs. I still think they are niche products that are compromised, expensive and still for the dedicated early adopters. 

 

Tesla seem to have moved the game on, but the fact remains there is no EV offering anything like the package represented by a petrol Skoda Octavia at a price in the same ballpark.    

3 hours ago, SWBoy said:

Ahh that old herring...

 

Switching to a greener supplier doesn't mean you USE energy generated by "green" methods, just that you pay for "green" generation to be put into the grid.

 

What you actually use depends on the path of lowest resistance between you and the nearest generator(s) - so if you live near a coal or gas powered station that's the energy you will be using, not the more expensive green energy that you're paying for.

 

You are right, the actual energy flowing into the EV is highly likely not green. But I never said I USE green energy. What Juan explained is exactly what I was going to reply. Vote with your wallet and all that.

 

(Tonik was actually the second cheapest for me, so it's not like I'm paying through my teeth for renewable energy)

 

3 hours ago, juan27 said:

Tesla seem to have moved the game on, but the fact remains there is no EV offering anything like the package represented by a petrol Skoda Octavia at a price in the same ballpark.    

 

You are right, that's why I'm driving an Octy3 rather than a Tesla.  

 

Luckily by becoming Octavia 3 owner a few months ago, I had saved a bit of money to put towards my Model 3 fund. I was going to spend a bit more (Instead of 9k in one go, 3 years 12k lease for Hyundai Ioniq hybrid), but saw the Octy3 and it fitted my needs well, after all, it's only a stop-gap car before going full EV. I would have continued driving my 11 year old Merc C coupe, but I needed a bigger car now and Model S was waaay out of price range. :(

5 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Coal is only 22%, in the same year, renewable generation is at 25% and will be rising to 30% in 2020.

http://www.energy-uk.org.uk/energy-industry/electricity-generation.html

 

When you buy an EV, you can easily switch to greener supplier support renewable energy while you charge. I'm with Tonik, essentially pay them to supply the grid using renewable energy the same amount I use.

 

 

 

The lack of sound issue can be solved by engine noise generators, just like in the VRS version people are so fond of No sound pollution for other people, win-win. EV will also perform much better thanks to instant torque of electric motors. Just take a test drive in a Tesla (not a hamstrung EV by other marques)

So at the most by 2020 fossil/nuclear fuels will account for 70% of the grid production. However, if there is a significant increase in EV usage then we must create additional capacity. The big sell on EV cars is that they have zero emissions but this fails to account for the power generation emissions and the greater production/disposal impact of EV cars. This needs to looked at as a whole, notwithstanding the fact of government financial incentives and lower tax.

6 minutes ago, ChrisHooligan said:

The big sell on EV cars is that they have zero emissions but this fails to account for the power generation emissions and the greater production/disposal impact of EV cars. 

 

On the Tesla forums several links have been posted which prove that even taking the production and power generation into account a pure EV is still much less polluting than any ICE car.

 

 

6 hours ago, wyx087 said:

 

The lack of sound issue can be solved by engine noise generators, just like in the VRS version people are so fond of No sound pollution for other people, win-win. EV will also perform much better thanks to instant torque of electric motors. Just take a test drive in a Tesla (not a hamstrung EV by other marques)

No you misunderstood me, I'm a postman & hearing cars is as if not more important than seeing them for my personal saftey, EV's silent/near silent cars are Fn dangerous for people that need to cross roads especially, in residential areas.

 

I have also have all my internal organs distressed & disturbed by a Model S & whilst extremely impressive, with the lack of noise, its just "a wrongen"

25 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

 a pure EV is still much less polluting than any ICE car.

 

 

 

At the very least it removes the pollution from the point of use (like in the city) to wherever the electrical power plant is situated. 

Don't forget EV battery can also be recycled to be stationary renewable battery for time restricted renewable resources like solar power.

 

Many of the "analysis" between fossil fuel car and EV don't take into account of battery re-use. There is also the massive amount of electricity used to refine oil into usable variants which are often "forgotten".

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, themanwithnoaim said:

No you misunderstood me, I'm a postman & hearing cars is as if not more important than seeing them for my personal saftey, EV's silent/near silent cars are Fn dangerous for people that need to cross roads especially, in residential areas.

 

I have also have all my internal organs distressed & disturbed by a Model S & whilst extremely impressive, with the lack of noise, its just "a wrongen"

 

Sorry, my bad. I completely misunderstood you.

What you've mentioned is indeed very dangerous aspect of EV. But it is being looked at and will be addressed via government regulation in very near future:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_warning_sounds