Electric Car Drivel

Some figures from the article:
26 million EVs by 2050.
90kWh battery in each one
Likely charging at home 11kW for an 8 hour overnight charge

Assuming only 25% of those vehicles are charging on any particular night:
6.5 million EVs, 11kW each, 71500000 kW, 71.5 GW

UK electricity demand is currently in the 20-40 GW range.
 
Sponsored Links
A litre of petrol contains about 9 kWh

So you don't need to make assumptions about how many vehicles will be charging per night.

You can work out an equivalent figure from the petrol sales

For example, if I use 50 litres/week, that's 450kWh I need. Let's say six nights at 75kWh each. Maybe at 6kW current. If you were charging at 11kW, it would only take 7 hours.

Deduct for the people who don't drive to work every day so don't need to recharge at night.

There will be adjustments for energy effeciency, and for weight/economy of the vehicles.

But if batteries become light enough and cheap enough to be swappable, or if petrol stations turn into fast charging stations, the whole process changes.
 
A 100 horse power car at full power would consume 76Kw of power from the battery.

An over night charge of 75kWh would provide about an hour of full "throttle" ( at 100 Hp )

Regenerative braking would return a small amout of energy to the battery
 
A 100 horse power car at full power would consume 76Kw of power from the battery.

An over night charge of 75kWh would provide about an hour of full "throttle" ( at 100 Hp )

Regenerative braking would return a small amout of energy to the battery

Yes, but you very rarely use anywhere near the full power of a car engine, and many, if not most, people's daily mileage is such that they won't need to charge every night.
 
Sponsored Links
There'll be fighting in the streets for access to the charging points. 57 properties in my road and only 3 with driveway parking. Not sure if the power supply to my garage would support a fastcharger.
 
Yes, but you very rarely use anywhere near the full power of a car engine, and many, if not most, people's daily mileage is such that they won't need to charge every night.
This is a good point, I have had jobs where the vehicle needed filling every day, but other than use for work, more normal to fill up once a week and even then not a full tank.

In fact this is the whole thing against electric cars, at the moment in the main you buy the car but rent the batteries, so you have a fixed amount you pay for batteries and it does not matter if you use them or not, so for the milkman who lives across the road with the electric Kango that's OK, van used every day, so battery rental costs are a small proportion of total cost.

However for me, who fills his Kango up every three weeks, that rental cost is silly, so at the moment people who only use the car once or twice a week, it would be uneconomic to use electric due to battery rental costs, so we don't really know what power the average street would require.

I have a bus pass, however at the moment the buses don't start early enough or end late enough to use, I looked at the bus to go to hospital, and I would need to go the night before my appointment and stop over night. So no real option have to use a car, however in the future that may change, when working in Hong Kong I would not have dreamed of buying a car, it was so much faster using the MTR and buses and taxi's.

So may be by time we have all electric cars, we will also have public transport? I have worked for firms who ran pick-up buses so you did not need to drive car all the way to work, what I think is a problem is the speed of change. Once I buy a car I am going to use it. So once we have public transport it will take about 40 years for people not to buy cars.

As a bus pass user the bus does have advantages, I would not have used it if not free, but once I started I realised catching a bus to town means I arrive at the town centre, not some car park with some steep hill left to climb, (I do live in Wales) so it takes me around 30 minutes round trip town and back with enough time for a couple of shops, into local city takes longer, around 2 hours round trip, but again I arrive and depart from city centre.

Where it all fails, is where there is no direct route, my house to mothers, in car 15 minutes, on bike 12 minutes however return takes an hour, by bus an hour because I have to catch two buses or a bus and train, and I have 1/2 hour wait some where between the two vehicles. It would not take that much to arrange hand shaking so the two buses stop at some point along the parallel route and allow passengers to transfer, once this is done then we will start to use the buses and trains more. Once this happens many will not need cars, so it's catch 21, until people use buses the bus is too expensive, and since the bus is so expensive people do not use buses.

If we really want to reduce CO² then we need to subsidise public transport to get people to use it. The electric car is not saving CO² it is just a way to make more money.

As to if CO² levels follow globule warming or if globule warming is caused by CO² seems to be the big question? From all I read CO² follows globule warming and globule warming is caused by the sun, man has no control over globule warming it is just natural, by 2040 likely we will realise that, and all this CO² emissions rubbish will be history.
 
Last edited:
As to if CO² levels follow globule warming or if globule warming is caused by CO² seems to be the big question? From all I read CO² follows globule warming and globule warming is caused by the sun, man has no control over globule warming it is just natural, by 2040 likely we will realise that, and all this CO² emissions rubbish will be history.
Utter nonsense.
 
Utter nonsense.
Indeed.

However, I think the one slightly true part of what he wrote was that a degree of increase in CO2 can be the result, as well as the cause, of global warming - hence a potential 'snowballing effect'. As I understand it, an increase in temperature will increase the rate of release of CO2 from carbonate rocks and also, to some extent, the amount of biologically-released CO2.

However, there is still a lot we don't understand about global temperature changes, which results in the existence of some 'sceptics'. In the very ('geologically') distant past, there have been periods of 'global warning' clearly unrelated to human activity or industrialisation which are largely unexplained. Direct or indirect results of vulcanism could be one factor.

Kind Regards, John
 
A litre of petrol contains about 9 kWh

So you don't need to make assumptions about how many vehicles will be charging per night.

You can work out an equivalent figure from the petrol sales
https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/discreet-ev-charging-point.485455/page-2#post-3947139
https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/car-ev-charging-point-advice.479838/page-2#post-3875440


...if petrol stations turn into fast charging stations, the whole process changes.
1l of petrol is 9.5kWh, 1l of diesel is 9.9 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_density_in_energy_storage_and_in_fuel).

If we use the less onerous petrol figure, and assume that a pump transfers 1l/s, , that makes each pump a 9.5kWh/s, i.e. 34.2MW appliance. If you want to use a 30% efficiency factor, then it's a 10.26MW one.

Even small filling stations have at least 4 double-sided pumps, it doesn't take much for a filing station to get into the 100MW range.
 
However, I think the one slightly true part of what he wrote was that a degree of increase in CO2 can be the result, as well as the cause, of global warming - hence a potential 'snowballing effect'. As I understand it, an increase in temperature will increase the rate of release of CO2 from carbonate rocks and also, to some extent, the amount of biologically-released CO2.
And, more worryingly, methane


However, there is still a lot we don't understand about global temperature changes, which results in the existence of some 'sceptics'.
Please don't use that word, even in quotes.

We don't talk about "round Earth sceptics", or "Holocaust sceptics".
 
Indeed.

However, I think the one slightly true part of what he wrote was that a degree of increase in CO2 can be the result, as well as the cause, of global warming - hence a potential 'snowballing effect'. As I understand it, an increase in temperature will increase the rate of release of CO2 from carbonate rocks and also, to some extent, the amount of biologically-released CO2.

However, there is still a lot we don't understand about global temperature changes, which results in the existence of some 'sceptics'. In the very ('geologically') distant past, there have been periods of 'global warning' clearly unrelated to human activity or industrialisation which are largely unexplained. Direct or indirect results of vulcanism could be one factor.

Kind Regards, John
I think the idea is if not sure then no harm in assuming CO² release can cause problems so reduce it's release. However for those who live in Africa with no electric and as a result poor living conditions the problem is not producing more CO² is in real terms causing deaths. So the idea of don't release just in case does not work. There is harm in getting it wrong, and if seems USA has accepted there is no need to worry about CO² and China only pays lip service so with over half the world still pumping it out like there is no tomorrow, why in such a little island are we worried? All we will do is shoot our selves in the foot.
 
Please don't use that word, even in quotes. We don't talk about "round Earth sceptics", or "Holocaust sceptics".
We don't, but there is absolutely no doubt about the truth in relation to 'round earth' or the Holocaust.

We understand far less about global temperature changes. Anyone who believes that human activities have (via increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases) played NO part in the increase in global temperatures are probably in the same category as round earth and Holocaust 'denyers' (or is it 'deniers'??). However, those who believe that those human activities may not be the sole cause of the temperature changes are very probably right. Even those who believe that human activity has not even been the predominant cause might conceivably be right.

Kind Regards, John
 
I think the idea is if not sure then no harm in assuming CO² release can cause problems so reduce it's release.
That's true, provided we are very sure that whatever actions we take do not result in any 'harm' - and that is far from a trivial or straightforward question.

As an example, although my concerns have seemingly proved to be unfounded, I was concerned back in the 70s when 'they' brought about dramatic changes in fat consumption. We had established that diets high in saturated fat were bad for health, so it was reasonable to encourage a reduction. However, what actually happened was a very dramatic increase in the consumption of polyunsaturated fat (e.g. sunflower oil) as a substitute for the saturated fat and my concern was that, a few decades down the road, we might discover that this increase had resulted in some serious long-term consequences to health. We engineered that change pretty blindly but, fortunately, seem to have got away with it!

... so, back to topic, it all depends on what we do to decrease CO2 levels and whether we know enough to be sure that that 'something' will not have undesirable long-term consequences.

Kind Regards, John
 
"Expert credibility in climate change", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 2010: "the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

"Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change", Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 2009: "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."
 
We don't, but there is absolutely no doubt about the truth in relation to 'round earth' or the Holocaust.

We understand far less about global temperature changes. Anyone who believes that human activities have (via increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases) played NO part in the increase in global temperatures are probably in the same category as round earth and Holocaust 'denyers' (or is it 'deniers'??). However, those who believe that those human activities may not be the sole cause of the temperature changes are very probably right. Even those who believe that human activity has not even been the predominant cause might conceivably be right.

Kind Regards, John
I believe in a discworld, where there is magic, pity he died, he did seem to have a good outlook on life, he said the discworld novels were more truthful than what he wrote before when working for nuclear electric!
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top