39 minutes ago, PetrolDave said:

so it is difficult to understand that levels around 10% or less will be so destructive to Earth - humanity maybe but not Earth.

Don't know about you, but I certainly want to do my best so that future generations are not left to clean up behind their previous generation. 

 

18 minutes ago, EnterName said:

Ah! Fair enough.

Of course the big question is how will reducing man-made CO2 globally from 0.04% to what was it, 0.0396%, effect climate change?

And if we don't know the answer to that, what's the rush, given the costs.

As non-scientific community, 0.04% to 0.0386% is meaningless. All I can say is that it feels like a small change in numbers. 

 

We do know there is a direct correlation between increase in CO2 emissions from industrial revolution and global temperature increase. Scientific consensus is that one is caused by the other. 

There is also a consensus (both scientific and political) to limit global temperature increase to 1.5c, the baseline was set a few years ago. They (scientists) say the way to do it is to reduce CO2 emissions. Hence the push for net-zero. 

Therefore, the rush is to reduce CO2 emissions so that we limit our damage to our currently habitable ecosystem. The cost will great, but also comes with creation of new job and more opportunities for innovation. 

1 minute ago, Ttaskmaster said:

Who takes 10 minutes to go for a slash??!!

Most people will take 5 minutes to refuel, then 2-3 minutes to pay for it, before they're off.

A 20-minute quick-charge means you're taking four times longer and, for simplicity's sake, if everyone drives an EV that's then four times the queue during busy times. This also assumes that everyone is quick-charging, rather than the full charge of however long that is - 30 minutes? An hour?

 

 

But until recharging is as quick as refuelling, you'll need several times the number of charge points as pumps, even with some of those drivers charging overnight at home.

The problem is that it will impact the roads as it conflicts with the ever-increasing number of vehicles out and about on other business - Costco round our way opened a fuel station at their place, with nice cheap fuel and pay-at-pump only. The issue is that traffic queueing tails back out onto the roundabout, then down all the roads of the industrial estate, before finally spilling onto the main A33 route into Reading... on a busy Saturday, that can reach all the way back round Junction 11 and onto the M4. 

Now imagine if this were all 20-minute charge-points instead of 5-minute ICE pumps.

So 5min to refuel, 2-3 min to pay for it, 10min for everyone to go to the loo, walk through the service shops and stuff back into the car. Total time out of motorway is probably 20min. 

EV takes 20min to recharge back to 60-80%, 30min to 80+%. During recharge can go to the loo, relaxing stretch, etc. Total time out of motorway is ~ 30min if charge back to ~80%. 

Why would anyone need to do a full recharge? 

 

Yes, need about 8x times the number of charge points as fuel pumps at motorway services. 

Not all cars can go 600 miles in one tank. My parent's Volvo s40 mk2 has about similar range as my T MY LR. But let's say fossil cars have 400 miles range and EV can only do 200 miles between recharge hop. That means double number of motorway service charge points vs fuel pumps. 

Then plus the 4x longer time to occupy the station, that translates to 8x. 

 

Let's examine how many parking spaces are there at motorway services, usually waaaay more than 20x vs service station petrol pumps. If about 1/3 of the parking spaces have rapid charging capability, backed up by local battery storage (that can also make money when not during peak travel season by working with renewables). En-route recharging is a non-issue. 

 

Your costco example is more about local users. Liquid fuel cars rely on public infrastructure 100% of the time. EV's can forego that and charge slowly when parked most of the time. If overnight, every lamp post became a slow trickle charge point. That will be waaaaaay ahead of the adoption curve of EV's for next few years. 

21 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Scientific consensus is that one is caused by the other.

But which is the cause and which the effect?

 

It has been reported, not widely, that some data hidden in the UN reports suggest that temperature started to increase before detectable changes in CO2 levels? Is this 'deniers' finding 'evidence' or just poor analysis by the UN or something else?

Edited 15 June, 20232 yr by PetrolDave

4 minutes ago, PetrolDave said:

But which is the cause and which the effect?

 

It has been reported, not widely, that some data hidden in the UN reports suggest that temperature started to increase before detectable changes in CO2 levels? Is this 'deniers' finding 'evidence' or just poor analysis by the UN or something else?

You know which is the cause and which is the effect. The scientific consensus made that clear. 

 

I don't have the expertise to say one way or another. I know it is advantageous to pay a few person to come up with something that supports something that had previously been profitable. But it is impossible to pay enough scientists to get a wide consensus. 

Several reports say Exxon knew about and predicted climate change in the 1970s but buried the findings. 

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/01/13/exxon-accurately-predicted-climate-change-in-the-70s-which-other-fossil-fuel-giants-knew-t
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research
 

57 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

We do know there is a direct correlation between increase in CO2 emissions from industrial revolution and global temperature increase. Scientific consensus is that one is caused by the other. 

Yes there is a correlation, and yes scientific consensus says one caused the other.

I'd be more convinced by data showing one caused the other rather than consensus, especially when the "consensus" is policed through censorship of dissent.

 

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

There is also a consensus (both scientific and political) to limit global temperature increase to 1.5c, the baseline was set a few years ago. They (scientists) say the way to do it is to reduce CO2 emissions. Hence the push for net-zero. 

That pesky "consensus" without hard data, again. The onus isn't on you to prove or disprove anything, I'm just explaining why I'm sceptical about the push for net zero.

I'm suspicious of "experts" telling me something that is obviously not true, and relying on their status as an "expert" to give their consensus weight.

(This applies to a lot of issues.)

 

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

Therefore, the rush is to reduce CO2 emissions so that we limit our damage to our currently habitable ecosystem.

I can't see the link between a reduction of X amount of CO2 preventing Y "damage to out currently habitable ecosystem", and therein lies my objection to the push for net zero.

 

My suspicion is that CO2 DOES have an impact on climate change, but that there are other far more significant drivers of climate change that make any tweaking with CO2 futile.

I'm sure it's a complex issue, it just seems to me focussing on CO2 seems to me to be a bit of a red herring, and EVs are an insignificant contribution to a relatively minor factor in controlling climate change. Which is why I don't think we're anywhere near a "tipping point" for people all rushing out to buy them.

 

As I indicated earlier, I'm also incredibly suspicious of any issue that which has advocates who demonise dissenters from the agreed narrative.

2 hours ago, Ttaskmaster said:

Who takes 10 minutes to go for a slash??!!

Most people will take 5 minutes to refuel, then 2-3 minutes to pay for it, before they're off.

A 20-minute quick-charge means you're taking four times longer and, for simplicity's sake, if everyone drives an EV that's then four times the queue during busy times. This also assumes that everyone is quick-charging, rather than the full charge of however long that is - 30 minutes? An hour?

But until recharging is as quick as refuelling, you'll need several times the number of charge points as pumps, even with some of those drivers charging overnight at home.

The problem is that it will impact the roads as it conflicts with the ever-increasing number of vehicles out and about on other business - Costco round our way opened a fuel station at their place, with nice cheap fuel and pay-at-pump only. The issue is that traffic queueing tails back out onto the roundabout, then down all the roads of the industrial estate, before finally spilling onto the main A33 route into Reading... on a busy Saturday, that can reach all the way back round Junction 11 and onto the M4. 

Now imagine if this were all 20-minute charge-points instead of 5-minute ICE pumps.

 

How about the recharge being five times faster than filling up with dinosaur juice ?

(It is the thing that pops out of the top of the bus shelter and waps a million or so joules of energy each poke. 

 

This is what we (Bollore) have been doing for about a decade.  We use a combination of super/ultra capacitors as well, what we use is solid state Lithium metal polyamide batteries......  (Sorry but it is in French as we are a French company).  

 

 

Edited 15 June, 20232 yr by lol-lol

21 minutes ago, EnterName said:

... when the "consensus" is policed through censorship of dissent.

 

I'm suspicious of "experts" telling me something that is obviously not true, and relying on their status as an "expert" to give their consensus weight.

(This applies to a lot of issues.)

 

As I indicated earlier, I'm also incredibly suspicious of any issue that which has advocates who demonise dissenters from the agreed narrative.

I think you got to realise, when you refer to "exports", you are referring to a wide collective that consist of a high percentage of scientists.

Whereas when you are talking of demonised dissenters, you are referring to individuals.

It is true that history has a lot of individuals that were later proven right. Prime example is Galileo and that Earth evolves around the sun.

But it is also true that large industry with a lot to loose, has a remarkable consistent history of paying individuals to advocate their narrative or stir up doubt.

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

 

26 minutes ago, EnterName said:

I'm sure it's a complex issue, it just seems to me focussing on CO2 seems to me to be a bit of a red herring, and EVs are an insignificant contribution to a relatively minor factor in controlling climate change. Which is why I don't think we're anywhere near a "tipping point" for people all rushing out to buy them.

Oh yes it's a complex issue. But end of the day, this is about energy, it is always about energy. From hunter and gatherers arguing over food, all the way to the war US wages in the middle east, all about who has control over energy.

 

Many people feel EV is restricting their freedom. It means being reliant on the charging network.

But how much of people's current fossil fuel derived energy come from exploitation of foreign land/people? Remember, to keep getting the energy, got to keep that drill going and got to keep the area under control.

 

The simple solution? Be self sufficient. Over last 30 days, almost 50% of my driving in the Tesla came straight from my solar panels. Zero cost (my solar panel install ROI is about now).

How do we become self sufficient? By using renewables, by utilising current global industry to do a one-time mine/refine/production/install and be self sufficient for many years to come. The tipping point for EV is when people realise it is a necessary tool in the switch away from constantly mining for fossil fuel to renewable energy.

 

I know it is still early days for technology such as vehicle-2-home/grid. I know not everyone has the capability to benefit from this change. But the sooner we stop thinking EV as cars, I think the sooner we will reach the tipping point.

 

In another words, I think car companies are selling EV's wrong. It's part of our overall energy solution.

2 hours ago, wyx087 said:

So 5min to refuel, 2-3 min to pay for it, 10min for everyone to go to the loo, walk through the service shops and stuff back into the car. Total time out of motorway is probably 20min. 

EV takes 20min to recharge back to 60-80%, 30min to 80+%. During recharge can go to the loo, relaxing stretch, etc. Total time out of motorway is ~ 30min if charge back to ~80%. 

Why would anyone need to do a full recharge? 

That may be true at motorway service stations... But the vast majority of people currently refuelling their car don't drive to motorway services to do so.

I'm talking primarily about the local stations, which will certainly need to remain for all those residing in terraces, flats, rented accommodation and anywhere else that lacks home-charging capabilities. Add in all the businesses that can't have charge points on their premises.

 

As for who does a full recharge when they don't need to - I imagine the same ones who leave their car at the pump while using an Express station to do a massive shop, or who burn more fuel leap-frogging from station to station on their way home to keep the tank topped up during a fuel shortage...

 

2 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Your costco example is more about local users. Liquid fuel cars rely on public infrastructure 100% of the time. EV's can forego that and charge slowly when parked most of the time. If overnight, every lamp post became a slow trickle charge point. That will be waaaaaay ahead of the adoption curve of EV's for next few years. 

Yeah, local - Where most people will most commonly need to recharge, especially during a busy life of urban runabout errands. They'll want to recharge on the way home from work, or after a shopping trip, or at sudden moments when they've used more stereo/air-con/window power and batteries are getting lower than expected. Unlike the EV geeks at work, most of us don't live our lives according to a tightly regimented schedule of calculated battery ranges and recharging times - That's a job in itself.

 

If every lamp post...

 

Firstly, that relies on everyone being able to park near a convenient lamp post close to your home. Certainly here that ain't ever gonna happen and your car will often be a good distance away. In many cases, this will impact or even invalidate your insurance.

Secondly, it relies on every lamp post location being suitable for a charge point, whether fast or otherwise - It's not possible at the office where I work, as that was already proposed for our Leccy fleet vehicles. Indeed, we've got more motors than places to put chargers for them.

Thirdly - Vandalism and theft of copper cable. How do you stop that?

 

To expand the idea - If every parking space could charge your car... How much of an undertaking do you imagine it would be to convert such spaces in the UK?

More importantly - Who the heck is going to pay for all this? This would cost an absolute bomb and whoever owns those parking spaces (companies, retailers, landlords, local councils) will simply pass the costs onto whoever parks there.

It's the same argument that gets thrown back at the home-charging eco-warriors at work - Pellet heating, solar panels and all this magical free energy they like to wave around, yet it's cost them so much money that most of us wouldn't be able to afford it... ever.

 

 

33 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

How about the recharge being five times faster than filling up with dinosaur juice ?

(It is the thing that pops out of the top of the bus shelter and waps a million or so joules of energy each poke.

Can it be done for smaller vehicles?

I don't know how fast they said it was in the video and the subtitles aren't available, but that's the sort of thing that's needed before the lifestyle of EVs becomes viable for most people.

25 minutes ago, Ttaskmaster said:

urban runabout errands

No urban errand will ever use more than 100 miles. At average speed of 20 mph (more like 10 mph, but let's be generous) 100 miles is solid 5 hours of driving. 200 miles is 10 hours. Local use is a solved problem for EV from day one. I thought we were talking about driving long distance, like 600 miles a day. 

 

28 minutes ago, Ttaskmaster said:

They'll want to recharge on the way home from work, or after a shopping trip, or at sudden moments when they've used more stereo/air-con/window power and batteries are getting lower than expected.

Recharge at destination. This is the key difference between liquid fuel cars and EV's. There is a difference between en-route rapid charging and destination charging. To take time off to recharge and then leave the car sitting somewhere is absurdly stupid. Key for non-driveway owners to adopt EV is to solve destination charging. 

 

That leads nicely onto your next points. Lamp post charging is just an example, the easy-win to get ahead of EV adoption rate. 

31 minutes ago, Ttaskmaster said:

Firstly, that relies on everyone being able to park near a convenient lamp post close to your home. Certainly here that ain't ever gonna happen and your car will often be a good distance away. In many cases, this will impact or even invalidate your insurance.

Secondly, it relies on every lamp post location being suitable for a charge point, whether fast or otherwise - It's not possible at the office where I work, as that was already proposed for our Leccy fleet vehicles. Indeed, we've got more motors than places to put chargers for them.

Thirdly - Vandalism and theft of copper cable. How do you stop that?

1. It only requires those who currently adopted EV to be near a lamp post. As said, the idea is to get ahead of EV adoption, not to have everyone fighting for the few spots near a lamp post. How far away would invalidate "park at home, on street" insurance anyway? Is there a definition? 

2. The switch from incandescent to LED would have freed up some capacity. Underground capacity upgrades shouldn't be out of question. Charging doesn't need to be fast, 3 kW would be more than enough used overnight, 10 hours. Good for 100 miles per day. Key is that vast majority cost is in the physical hardware, lamp post charging would massively reduce the cost of physical hardware wouldn't be a trip hazard. 

3. Theft of copper cable? What cable? Have you looked at what you are talking about? 

https://ubitricity.com/en/charging-solutions/ac-lamppost/

 

39 minutes ago, Ttaskmaster said:

To expand the idea - If every parking space could charge your car... How much of an undertaking do you imagine it would be to convert such spaces in the UK?

More importantly - Who the heck is going to pay for all this? This would cost an absolute bomb and whoever owns those parking spaces (companies, retailers, landlords, local councils) will simply pass the costs onto whoever parks there.

It's the same argument that gets thrown back at the home-charging eco-warriors at work - Pellet heating, solar panels and all this magical free energy they like to wave around, yet it's cost them so much money that most of us wouldn't be able to afford it... ever.

Truthfully, I don't know how that would work. Not every car parks in a predefined parking space. Anywhere on the road and don't have yellow line, a car will park there. 

 

On cost, it will be the charge point operators for the CapEx, and users pay during charging, as you said. Lamp post charging installation shouldn't cost more than home charge point installation (£800-1000 per install). Dedicated charging posts will cost more. 

 

The thing with solar panels and free energy is that it is truly free. A few years after install, the electricity saving would be equivalent to cost of install. Then any energy generated after that would be free energy. Don't have the money, it makes absolute financial sense to borrow to fund it.

Simple example: system cost £10 including interest, monthly bill decrease from £183 down to £100, stick the £83 into repayment for the loan. 10 years later free energy. It's the lowest risk investment. 

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

I think you got to realise, when you refer to "exports", you are referring to a wide collective that consist of a high percentage of scientists.

Whereas when you are talking of demonised dissenters, you are referring to individuals.

It is true that history has a lot of individuals that were later proven right. Prime example is Galileo and that Earth evolves around the sun.

But it is also true that large industry with a lot to loose, has a remarkable consistent history of paying individuals to advocate their narrative or stir up doubt.

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

Yes and no.

When there are blanket bans on discussing particular topics, then we're not dealing with just individuals, but a policy intended to silence any dissent.

Scientists are driven by data. They come up with a theory that fits the available data. Problems arise when data is distorted or withheld to support an politically motivated narrative.

There are few absolutes in science, because when new information emerges, scientists have to be comfortable ditching a former theory that is now revealed to be incorrect because of the new data.

So the fact that most scientists agree X at time Y is indeed a scientific consensus, but that don't make it so, especially when it is a policed consensus, from which deviation is not permitted.

 

Example: The "scientific consensus" was that transgenderism was a mental illness until very recently. Now the "scientific consensus" says otherwise, and you won't find a scientist who would dare say something like that.

Prof. Richard Dawkins, a well-known and well respected scientist got his backside roundly tanned by the "trans community" for daring to say "sex is pretty damn binary”, and humbly back-pedalled his statement.

Human reproductive biology hasn't changed, but the approved narrative surrounding what defines men and women has changed beyond recognition, and almost all the "scientists" have meekly fallen in line with the new narrative, whatever their genuine opinion on the subject.

 

In before "Oh that's COMPLETELY different!".

Is it really?

 

The sad fact is that some people lie about important stuff.

Sometimes they lie because they are afraid of the consequences if they tell the truth, or lying gives them social credit amongst their peers.

Sometimes they lie because they're onto a nice little earner, as Lee's post shows.

Sometimes they lie because they have been lying for so long they can't escape the lies they've tied themselves up with.

 

Scepticism is not evil. It's healthy.

A blind refusal to accept the bleeding obvious because it conflicts with your view of how the world is or should be, is not scepticism, it's zealotry.

The opinion of a sceptic can be changed, by convincing them with clear information they can understand. A reasonable sceptic will thank you for putting them right.

The opinion of a zealot cannot be changed, and any attempt to change their mind will be treated as an attack.

Sceptics listen to contrary opinions and challenge them.

Zealots seek to silence contrary opinions.

 

To win over EV sceptics, I think the case must be made for EVs.

Climate change isn't gonna do it. Making it too expensive to run an ICE car isn't going to do it. Outlawing ICE cars isn't going to do it.

You can impose your will upon people and force them to do what you want if you have enough power to do so, but you should never forget that what you gained by force, may in turn be taken from you by force. (The force here is political decision back by legal enforcement.)

 

It might be we end up being forced to adopt EVs through an artificial tipping point, created by politically driven legal mandate.

But then that's not really a tipping point, is it?

2 hours ago, Ttaskmaster said:

................Can it be done for smaller vehicles?

I don't know how fast they said it was in the video and the subtitles aren't available, but that's the sort of thing that's needed before the lifestyle of EVs becomes viable for most people.

 

The bus shelter charging is a route we at Bollore took but there are multiple other ways EVs getting charge.  Induction charging pickup from the road is probably the way it will work and there are test projects already working.  So induction loops in the road, which can work whilst moving but also one whilst waiting at the lights or in bays, whilst one is picking up ones Starbucks or Mackie Ds is probably the way forward.  A £1, a fiver on your fast food bill to cover say 10 or 20 kWhs of lecky.

 

One EV just driven 2,000 kms without stopping ,,,,, (only 25% of the track had induction circuit embedded in it).  Different ways of doing the charging either when mometarily stopped or whilst still moving.   https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/toyota-ev-drove-1-200-093000118.html   Or one could take on the Grand Tour methods to come to fruition, video below:-  

A Toyota EV drove 1,200 miles without stopping to charge thanks to electric roads with wireless charging

• Electreon, a startup, drove an electric Toyota for 1,207 miles straight without charging.

• The secret? An innovative wireless charging system embedded under the asphalt.

• Electreon says its electric roads solve range anxiety and the need for huge EV batteries.

Imagine driving an electric car without ever needing to stop and recharge. Sounds like witchcraft, right?

Well, it's possible. And the answer isn't in the car itself — it's in the road.  Electreon, an Israeli startup founded in 2013, is developing electric roadways that can charge moving vehicles wirelessly, potentially eliminating the need for lengthy pit stops or plugging in. To demonstrate the tech's potential, Electreon drove an electric Toyota for 1,207 miles straight on a test track that had its wireless charging coils embedded under the asphalt.

 

 

 

Edited 15 June, 20232 yr by lol-lol

Just on the subject of street light / lamppost charging...   many street lights are now 'low voltage' and only have 24v or 48v supplies via lower rated cables, rather than the old school 415v three phase ones.  I have no idea but I'd be interested to know if 24v / 48v at a low power rating is sufficient to tap into to charge an EV? 

33 minutes ago, skomaz said:

I have no idea but I'd be interested to know if 24v / 48v at a low power rating is sufficient to tap into to charge an EV? 

 

It could charge my single seater cabriolet EV 👍 (aka mobility scooter)

 

G

57 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

No urban errand will ever use more than 100 miles. At average speed of 20 mph (more like 10 mph, but let's be generous) 100 miles is solid 5 hours of driving. 200 miles is 10 hours. Local use is a solved problem for EV from day one. I thought we were talking about driving long distance, like 600 miles a day. 

We are talking locally.

 

Firstly, people like to push the limits on their vehicles. The fuel gauge might be in the red, it might even have the warning light on, but people will still push their luck and sometimes that luck runs out, along with their fuel.

Secondly, people badly estimate. My car tells you roughly how many miles you have left in the tank, but people will rarely know exactly how far they're going and be able to factor that in. Most refuel before it gets too bad, but plenty of us have had to play Plum Patrol.

Thirdly, people do procrastinate and forget. They clock the Empty light and warning sound, think they'll sort it in a few miles or on the way back from the shops and then forget, or think they can get further than they actually do.

Fourthly, people forget that things like running the a/c uses fuel, especially when unexpectedly stuck in traffic during a baking hot day. The greater disadvantage with EVs is that things like radio, heating, dashboard, windscreen wipers and sometimes things like rear-view cameras, all use more of that primary 'fuel' and it's easy to forget this (ask the guys at my work), so you could end up unexpectedly stuck somewhere and run right out of power even with the 'engine' off... but unlike an ICE, you can't just walk to the nearest station and return with a green plastic rescue can of go-juice. 

 

Cost of fuel is another driving factor, and will remain so once every station charges for charging.

Over 800,000 drivers a year run out of fuel, and already breakdown agencies are having to rescue EVs that have run out of charge.

 

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

Recharge at destination. This is the key difference between liquid fuel cars and EV's. There is a difference between en-route rapid charging and destination charging. To take time off to recharge and then leave the car sitting somewhere is absurdly stupid. Key for non-driveway owners to adopt EV is to solve destination charging. 

At destination takes time, though, and is too much faffing, and the cables are all dirty, and it's just a quick trip to the shops, and I'm already running late, and, and, and.... There will be a plethora of excuses that people trot out, even if there is ample charging wherever they go, and especially if there isn't.

 

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

1. It only requires those who currently adopted EV to be near a lamp post. As said, the idea is to get ahead of EV adoption, not to have everyone fighting for the few spots near a lamp post. How far away would invalidate "park at home, on street" insurance anyway? Is there a definition? 

2. The switch from incandescent to LED would have freed up some capacity. Underground capacity upgrades shouldn't be out of question. Charging doesn't need to be fast, 3 kW would be more than enough used overnight, 10 hours. Good for 100 miles per day. Key is that vast majority cost is in the physical hardware, lamp post charging would massively reduce the cost of physical hardware wouldn't be a trip hazard. 

3. Theft of copper cable? What cable? Have you looked at what you are talking about? 

1/. If it can't supply everyone in the street, it's not going to be sufficiently practical.

1a/. Insurance often states that any vandalism or theft that occurs within 500m of the registered address, if the vehicle is not in the declared location (garage, driveway, designated bay), is not covered under the policy. On-road parking has more leeway, but they will decide if you parked too far from your house. 

2/. It's more about the physical location and how parking a car there or using it for charging would not be a good idea. Many of our lamp posts are on the building-side of the pavement, meaning charging cables trailing across the public footpath.

3/. Your link, first picture - See that nice yellow cable? Not any more, ya don't.... YOINK. Flog that on eBay for, what, £50? £100?

 

2 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Truthfully, I don't know how that would work. Not every car parks in a predefined parking space. Anywhere on the road and don't have yellow line, a car will park there. 

 

On cost, it will be the charge point operators for the CapEx, and users pay during charging, as you said. Lamp post charging installation shouldn't cost more than home charge point installation (£800-1000 per install). Dedicated charging posts will cost more. 

 

The thing with solar panels and free energy is that it is truly free. A few years after install, the electricity saving would be equivalent to cost of install. Then any energy generated after that would be free energy. Don't have the money, it makes absolute financial sense to borrow to fund it.

Simple example: system cost £10 including interest, monthly bill decrease from £183 down to £100, stick the £83 into repayment for the loan. 10 years later free energy. It's the lowest risk investment. 

 

Operators = Customer paying, either directly or through increased prices from the businesses served by that car park. 

Lamp-post = local council = Residents who pay council tax.

In many cases, people couldn't afford the increases - Those in rented accomodation being hit with an £800-1000 supplement to their rent bill would probably be quite upset. 

 

A few years.... Supposedly 7 years, on average, mainly due to increase in energy anyway. However, that only applies to homeowners, so again not rented or those in flats and the like.

That's without including the solar batteries that many people will need if they're not home during the day to run appliances, charge the car, watch TV, etc. What you get may be free, but it's often not enough.

 

EVs are a nice idea, but they're a long way off being practical and affordable (and good-looking) enough for the widespread adoption that would end ICEs.

 

Surely it's not beyond the wit of man to develop a cable that's registered to the car is it? Even my Pixel phone charger knows that my Pixel phone is connected and not another brand so it'll only rapid charge my phone. My phone won't rapid charge using a non Pixel charger. 

 

Some more on the unlikely theft of cables: 

 

https://www.smarthomecharge.co.uk/features/electric-vehicle-charging-cable-theft/

4 hours ago, EnterName said:

Scientists are driven by data. They come up with a theory that fits the available data. Problems arise when data is distorted or withheld to support an politically motivated narrative.

There are few absolutes in science, because when new information emerges, scientists have to be comfortable ditching a former theory that is now revealed to be incorrect because of the new data.

So the fact that most scientists agree X at time Y is indeed a scientific consensus, but that don't make it so, especially when it is a policed consensus, from which deviation is not permitted.

Got any good sources on those 2 underlined parts? It's a very slippery slop to go from scepticism to conspiracy.

 

The data has always been widely available. There are outliers but never been withheld. 

Policing is done within scientific community via peer review. This practice of paper publishing is well established. To say aim of this is to not allow deviation would be gross misunderstanding of the process.

 

As mentioned, it is not impossible for radical ideas to be shut down initially. Consensus takes time to change. But it is clear we don't have the time to wait. Besides, why can't changes happen multiple times? Don't let perfection get in the way of progress.

 

 

2 hours ago, skomaz said:

Just on the subject of street light / lamppost charging...   many street lights are now 'low voltage' and only have 24v or 48v supplies via lower rated cables, rather than the old school 415v three phase ones.  I have no idea but I'd be interested to know if 24v / 48v at a low power rating is sufficient to tap into to charge an EV? 

I guess if the area is newly developed, it would be low power lighting. Then no, it wouldn't support EV charging.

But one could argue newly developed area should have EV charging provisions from day one.

 

Older converted lamp posts may run on low voltage, but the power is still delivered to the posts using the original method. It is not cost effective to replace underground wiring or deliver power long distance using DC.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Ttaskmaster said:

Firstly, people like to push the limits on their vehicles. The fuel gauge might be in the red, it might even have the warning light on, but people will still push their luck and sometimes that luck runs out, along with their fuel.

Secondly, people badly estimate. My car tells you roughly how many miles you have left in the tank, but people will rarely know exactly how far they're going and be able to factor that in. Most refuel before it gets too bad, but plenty of us have had to play Plum Patrol.

Thirdly, people do procrastinate and forget. They clock the Empty light and warning sound, think they'll sort it in a few miles or on the way back from the shops and then forget, or think they can get further than they actually do.

Fourthly, people forget that things like running the a/c uses fuel, especially when unexpectedly stuck in traffic during a baking hot day. The greater disadvantage with EVs is that things like radio, heating, dashboard, windscreen wipers and sometimes things like rear-view cameras, all use more of that primary 'fuel' and it's easy to forget this (ask the guys at my work), so you could end up unexpectedly stuck somewhere and run right out of power even with the 'engine' off... but unlike an ICE, you can't just walk to the nearest station and return with a green plastic rescue can of go-juice. 

1 & 2. it is pretty hard to push limits in an accurately reporting EV. You cannot compare the guess-o-meter with modern EV's that can accurately predict arrival State of Charge.

3. Again, you are thinking with petrol station mentality. The idea is not to remember to recharge, the idea is to hook up the car whenever the car is parked. Make plugging in EV's a part of parking process. Especially anything parked overnight.

4. I really think you need to drive an EV. Things like lights, radio, dashboard, wipers and cameras use negligible amount of power. Only heating uses noticeable amount, again, a good car takes it into account when accurately predict arrival SoC.

4a. Even if in very slow traffic in winter, only running heating will still use less % of stored energy (eg. vs petrol in the tank) than a petrol engine ticking over. A good EV is extremely efficient.

 

1 hour ago, Ttaskmaster said:

3/. Your link, first picture - See that nice yellow cable? Not any more, ya don't.... YOINK. Flog that on eBay for, what, £50? £100?

1 & 2. Not all lamp posts are suitable. Agree. But again, it was an example to explain how we can get ahead of EV adoption curve. Doesn't need 100% coverage of all parking spaces.

3. Cables don't belong to charge point, not there when no one is using it, it's just a single port hidden in the lamp post. When connected, the cable is locked to the car and the post locks the cable. It cannot be removed unless it is cut using heavy duty tools, and cutting risks being electrocuted. Just the cables, it's worth probably £20. The plugs are £60+ a piece when brand new. But it is impossible to get the plugs out undamaged.

 

Again, do consider try out a good EV, live with it for a few days, keeping in mind home charging is much simpler with a home charger. It would help you gain a better understanding.

 

1 hour ago, Ttaskmaster said:

Operators = Customer paying, either directly or through increased prices from the businesses served by that car park. 

Lamp-post = local council = Residents who pay council tax.

In many cases, people couldn't afford the increases - Those in rented accomodation being hit with an £800-1000 supplement to their rent bill would probably be quite upset. 

 

A few years.... Supposedly 7 years, on average, mainly due to increase in energy anyway. However, that only applies to homeowners, so again not rented or those in flats and the like.

That's without including the solar batteries that many people will need if they're not home during the day to run appliances, charge the car, watch TV, etc. What you get may be free, but it's often not enough.

How is £800-1000 calculated? Why does bill  (recurring payment) need to increase by this much? It's a one-off cost that the property owner/charge point operator pay. Local council only need to get involved if they wish to fund charge point operator.

Charging at home using domestic rates is as cheap as 7.5p/kWh, 2.5p/mi. So running cost will be lower than refuelling petrol, thus even if property owner increased rent by £36 a month for 3 year ROI (no sane landlord will increase by £800), overall cost of living for tenant shouldn't increase.

 

A small some battery and solar can be installed for less than £9000 if house is suitable, hence £10k inc. interest I mentioned earlier. I had my solar installed on not suitable house (W-E surfaces, complex roof, difficult scaffolding) for £7000. I'm about to spend £1600 for vehicle-2-home, turning my Nissan Leaf into a large home battery. Total less than £9000 for a large home battery and solar on a not suitable house.

Average UK household uses 8 kWh per day. Just need a 3 kWh battery to tide over evening. Said household can switch to off-peak tariff and use the battery to tide over morning use as well, essentially never pay higher peak electric price ever again. Let me re-iterate, safest investment ever.

6 hours ago, Ttaskmaster said:

Can it be done for smaller vehicles?

I don't know how fast they said it was in the video

Without going back through it again I'm pretty sure it was claimed that in the time that it took for the passengers to embark, and you can bet your life that will be an exaggerated time ie a full busload disembarking and a full busload embarking, that enough energy would be taken on board for the next 2km.

 

Practically whatever charge can be taken on to augment the existing autonomy the further these bus routes can go from the depot or main charging point.

 

I think the video was a Deepfake though, the charging probes were the Penisouruses from the film Flesh Gordon!

How many hours a night do you get at the 7.5p rate?

 

How many amps can you pull during that time?

 

Deduct electric heating and hot water load how many amps does that leave and crucially what range would that give an average EV?

 

Perhaps answer for the average household to make it more meaningfull

 

And finally how long do you believe you are going to get X hours per 24 hours cheap rate at 7.5p per kwh? Most people wont have that tariff available to them, is it available to new customers?

 

And I bet by getting that tarif you are paying significantly more for the already very expensive by EU comparison daytime electricity. Is the standing charge any higher?

 

I have read all your postings with interest and I know you have done your utmost to minimise your daytime consumption but could Mr & Mrs Average achieve the same thing with a 2.4 car household heated by say an air to air heat pump given the maximum current rating of a domestic supply?

23 minutes ago, J.R. said:

How many hours a night do you get at the 7.5p rate?

 

How many amps can you pull during that time?

 

Deduct electric heating and hot water load how many amps does that leave and crucially what range would that give an average EV?

 

Perhaps answer for the average household to make it more meaningfull

 

And finally how long do you believe you are going to get X hours per 24 hours cheap rate at 7.5p per kwh? Most people wont have that tariff available to them, is it available to new customers?

 

And I bet by getting that tarif you are paying significantly more for the already very expensive by EU comparison daytime electricity. Is the standing charge any higher?

 

I have read all your postings with interest and I know you have done your utmost to minimise your daytime consumption but could Mr & Mrs Average achieve the same thing with a 2.4 car household heated by say an air to air heat pump given the maximum current rating of a domestic supply?

6 hours of guaranteed 7.5p/kWh with a compatible car or charge point, if need more hours, more is allocated with Intelligent Octopus.

Otherwise it's flat 4 hours at 9.5p/kWh Octopus Go, available to everyone, old and new customers.

 

House fuse are typically 100 amps, there are 60 amps if on old looped supply. Taken to extreme, 100 amp could continuously pull 64 amps no problem, I've double checked with charge point installer. That's what I plan to do when I get V2H: charge V2H car battery and larger car battery at same time.

 

Not sure about electric heating and hot water. If heat pump, it'll be a constant low of 1-3 kW 24/7. So 13 amps at most. Storage heaters will use a lot more though.

 

Average household uses 8 kWh of electricity. That translates to 2 kW charge rate over 4 hours if we are pessimistic and assume all uses are done outside off-peak and no solar panels to reduce load on battery.

 

The idea is to use battery to off-set majority of home uses to ultra-cheap off-peak times. So there should be less than 5% use on peak price, therefore peak time price is irrelevant.

Go standing charge: 42.01p / day  https://octopus.energy/smart/go/

IO standing charge: 42.01p / day  https://octopus.energy/smart/intelligent-octopus/

Regular Octopus standing charge: 42.01p /day

 

Charging cars will be done one at a time, or one at 16 amps and the other at full 32 amps. House would only need the other 16 amps for heat pump. Could stop the car half hour early to run other home appliances. Of course, put the car that integrates with IO on the slower 16 amps charger to get more allocated cheap hours.

Edited 15 June, 20232 yr by wyx087
typo

The average household figure of 8kw a day sounds low given you estimate a heat pump heating system at between 24 and 72kwh per day, winter months only of course.

 

The 8kw will be the households with a gas supply, the very thing that is being phased out (new gas boilers etc) in favour of heat pumps and thermodynamic hot water cylinders.

 

How many hours will it take to charge your Zoe battery on wheels which is going to heat your house? I suppose you wont be able to drive anywhere in it during winter without your house getting cold and using peak rate electricity, will we see scrap EV's littering peoples driveways and front gardens in future being used as energy stores? - The doasyoulikeys will soon thin those out!!!!

@J.R. are you confusing @wyx087 with @lol-lol? Wyx doesn't drive a Zoe. His listed cars are a Tesla and a Nissan Leaf.

4 hours ago, J.R. said:

The average household figure of 8kw a day sounds low given you estimate a heat pump heating system at between 24 and 72kwh per day, winter months only of course.

The 8kw will be the households with a gas supply, the very thing that is being phased out (new gas boilers etc) in favour of heat pumps and thermodynamic hot water cylinders.

How many hours will it take to charge your Zoe battery on wheels which is going to heat your house? I suppose you wont be able to drive anywhere in it during winter without your house getting cold and using peak rate electricity, will we see scrap EV's littering peoples driveways and front gardens in future being used as energy stores? - The doasyoulikeys will soon thin those out!!!!

 

The Zoe is not one of the cars that can be used to electrically power a house, I use banks of solar generators to do which fulfill the function of taking in the solar power from the panels and store it for the night time and via dc/ac invertors I then have most of the AC I need for the daytime use ie fridge-freezer, laptop, lighting. 

 

With the thousands of EVs that my company ran in the Paris Blue Solutions scheme the end of life car batteries where mounted in to racks in container like shells and then oft used in moving those battery boxes out to African villages who had no grid electricity.

 

As you probably know TESLA and other megapacks are being used all over the world and I do not expect batteries from the cars which are at the end of their life to be used in such megapacks as these are being built by the thousands with capacities of hundreds of megawatts hours and some installs now in excess of over a gigawatt hour.  Very large install with dozens of mega packs, which look to me to be sized as TEUs ie Twenty Foot Equivalent container size ie 8 x 8 x 20 foot so they easily go no a truck and are lifted off and dropped where needed.  Such places as where there are banks of EV chargers so they can both cope with peak demand but also buy cheap electricity off the grid ie 5p per kWh or whatever, and then sell it to EV drivers at 49p per kWh or similar, great business model.

 

SO a healthy EV battery, even if it has dropped below 90% original state of charge level is still a useful item.  Probably unlike an ICE which has 100k miles plus on it which may only be producing 75, 80, 85% of original power and its emissions are far worse than when new with working cylinder barrels, piston rings etc, smoking like a bars-steward like we have all seen.  EVs have about a 90% efficiency of energy to motion, a diesel maybe 50% in ideal conditions, a petrol engine more like 40% efficiency. Only thee early LEAF batteries are ones I have heard that were losing more than expected recharge capacity.  Renault EV batteries, and TESLA that I  have heard, are showing less than expected degradation even with those rapid DC charging, which I never do, always AC for me between 3.6 to 22 kWh and Renault will replace the battery if it drops below 80% SOC capacity in its 8 years I understand and it is rare that they have had to do so in the hundreds of thousands of pure EVs they have supplied hence even the earliest 22 kWh Zoes are mostly still running around, same as LEAFs, TESLA Models S etc ten years after launch and some with hundreds of thousands of miles on the clock.  Repairers who take old EVs and swap out dead cells are popping up but it is not a big deal in comparison to ICE cars that run low or out of oil and seize, turbo blows or gearbox fails and costs thousands. EVs are relatively simple, little to go wrong, cheap to service and even fix if one of the few components goes wrong.   

 

I’m not yet convinced we’re at a tipping point, there is a huge way to go before an EV is practical for many. Infrastructure is the primary limiting factor, followed by charge time.

 

A significant proportion of car owners have only street parking, and from my experience little chance of parking anywhere near their own front door. This makes them totally dependent on public charging stations with no option for a low rate domestic tariff of [their own] solar charging. And not everyone has an option to charge at work, again forcing charging at public stations. And if those are in the Park and Ride, then it’ll need to be there all day so others can’t access the charger.

There is much noise made about fast charging from high power outlets, but my understanding is that fast charging is detrimental to battery life and in-car systems restrict the number of sequential fast charges.

 

As yet, I haven’t found a non biased (without vested interest) assessment of how green or environment friendly an EV is compared to ICE vehicles are. Yes, at the exhaust/emissions level on the road an EV will be cleaner, but what about whole life, from raw materials to scrap/recycling?

 

At some point in the future (not too distant I hope) the offshore grid will be commissioned enabling the wind generated power from the north, west, and offshore to be distributed across the whole of the UK. This is essential for the increase in demand for electricity from EVs and the switch from gas heating.

 

I also wonder if the political drive would be better directed at massive investment in affordable and accessible public transport, reducing the demand for private vehicles. Surely we shouldn’t need as many cars (ICE or EV) in the UK.

 

 

9 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Got any good sources on those 2 underlined parts? It's a very slippery slop to go from scepticism to conspiracy.

I'll assume you're operating in good faith, but my gut reaction is "Are you kidding me!?"

 

To fully answer your question will take this thread way off topic. But to address "Problems arise when data is distorted or withheld" I'll simply point you to the claims for vaccine efficacy, and happily that same issue covers the second point "a policed consensus, from which deviation is not permitted", to which I'll refer you to the screenshot I DM'd you some time ago.