EV Charging

[VicParticipant @vic]

Adding Solar makes sense. Might as well use the space.

https://youtu.be/RGLvxGAE66I?si=V-AZLDi1jIEyMs4A

[noel shelleyParticipant @noelshelley55608]

40′ long 24’max wide , 12 bay charging point ! No mention of the the Kw output, it’s a university so it would not take long to work out the use or otherwise. How well does it work at night when I’m not using the car ? I bet there’s a grant involved somewhere. No mention of what it cost either, but it MIGHT save 6 grand a year in electric.

Do I smell a rat or am I being cynical ? Noel.

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Well at approx 100 kWh / sq foot per year for a solar panel in the UK, thats 96,000 kWh per year total or 8000 kWh per bay (960 sq foot of array). Averaged out that is 21.9 kWh per day.

At 5.5 miles per kWh (Tesla model 3) 22kWh is about 120 miles a day per bay from solar. Not a lot compared to the charging capacity of 264 kWh (1450 miles) per bay at the stated 11kW rate. That is 264 kWh total per day per bay. So 242 from mains and 22 form solar.

That’s 8.3% solar.

Assuming of course that there are always cars charging when the solar is producing or there is storage.

 

[FulmenParticipant @fulmen]

The connection between the solar panels and the charging station is fairly incidental, they are both grid connected. It really doesn’t matter much if the cells are over the parking lot or half a mile up the road, but parking lots are often under utilized area in densely populated areas so it can make sense.

As for solar cells I’m cautiously positive. A quick glance at google tells me the EROI is fairly good, so unless they deplete limited resources I don’t see why we shouldn’t use them. But they cannot be the primary energy source, all grids need reliable sources to provide base load power.

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Robert, I think you may be mixing feet with metres?

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

A bit off topic, but when did that stop me:

Peak UK energy demand is ~60 GW

Current demand is ~24 GW, it’s fairly mild, and a lot of industry will be shut down (it’s 1:00 am)

Even so wind is only producing 6%. Less than we are importing from France. When will we get real and build nuclear, at least you can rely on it whatever the weather.

Obviously, solar is producing nothing.

[derek hall 1Participant @derekhall1]

I always thought that technology will advance sufficiently that a car roof could be integrated into a solar panel.

Better still, the paint used on a car could have properties that act as a solar panel. Therefore the car surface area (minus the windows) is a mobile solar panel.

Obviously this would contribute to the vehicles energy requirements rather than replace it entirely, though wouldn’t contribute much in Finland in Winter!

Trucks have even bigger surface area…..am I on onto something here? Or am i about to be shot down in flames ( smiley face)

[duncan webster 1]

On duncan webster 1 Said:

 

Peak UK energy demand is ~60 GW

 

I look at Gridwatch from time to time and I’ve never seen it go over 40GW?

 

 

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Depends on the weather of course and we haven’t had a really cold winter for some time. However, further googling seems to show peak demand has fallen over the past 20 years or so to about 50 GW. Still twice the figure I quoted above, and when we get a really cold snap there tends to be little wind.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for wind power, but we have to accept that it isn’t the answer to everything. If there is no wind you can have as many wind generators as you like and you won’t get any electricity. Energy storage which will provide power for days rather than hours is extremely challenging.

[noel shelleyParticipant @noelshelley55608]

100Kwh per square foot/ annum REALLY ?

I have a solar panel I bought to play with ! With the panel off the sun it produces a little, bring it towards the sun output goes up, bring it to 90* to the elevation and it increases a bit more, only with auto tracking will solar work well. For wind take the quoted figure and reduce to 60% and that will be a more realistic figure – this from inside the industry and better than some local schemes I have been party to.

I have no problem with wind or solar, I just wish they would stop misleading us, we need a reliable source in this ever increasingly electric world where our weather is unpredictable, at least tidal is predictable, I have the tables for 2025 now ! The Dutch built the Afsluitdijk over 60 years ago, why not a barrier across the Wash, Bristol Chanel Etc ? Noel.

[duncan webster 1]

On duncan webster 1 Said:

However, further googling seems to show peak demand has fallen over the past 20 years or so to about 50 GW.

These are the weekly, monthly and yearly stats from Gridwatch. Peak demand very rarely seems to exceed 40 GW?

[CirclipParticipant @circlip]

“why not a barrier across the Wash, Bristol Chanel Etc ?”

And where is the money for that going to come from? They’ve already stolen the winter fuel allowance.

Regards  Ian.

[bernard towersParticipant @bernardtowers37738]

isn’t there one of those computer controlled tidal turbines in the Wash already

[MacolmParticipant @macolm]

I await a fully credible renewable technology. Everything so far merely works sometimes, needing dispatchable generation for a reliable (feasible?) electricity system. So two or three times the capital cost for the same output as thermal generation can provide, and we are asked to believe this will reduce our electricity bills!

Into the bargain, the costs have been fudged, with things like grid capacity expansion (and storage?) not attributed to the renewables that cause the need for it. Fifty years ago, the greater overall electricity demand then was handled by a much smaller grid.

Wind is currently supplying about 7% of our needs, despite a ticket capacity that would do for all our current requirements, if only it could be delivered when actually needed.

Solar currently is currently generating 2% (this during Winter but it provides perhaps 10% in Summer when our needs are less). It costs us money to destabilise the grid!

Hydro is dispatchable and nice to have, but the UK potential is only a few percent, even if the environmental concerns could be reconciled.

Tidal has a three to one output variation from spring to neap tides, and needs impounding to smooth hour to hour variations. The typical head is only about one metre, so very large volumes would be necessary to get significant capacity. Capital cost is very high.

I doubt all this will end well.

 

[noel shelleyParticipant @noelshelley55608]

On current form, to quote Malcolm “I doubt all this will end well” How right ! For tidal, IF they get the engineering right whilst the capital cost may be high, the maintenance should be low, unlike wind. All we need is a good hard winter across europe and the lights WILL go out here ! Noel.

 

[Circlip]

On Circlip Said:

…

And where is the money for that going to come from?…

Same place as the money used to fund coal mines, oil rigs, pipelines, railways, 300,000+ ton super-tankers, massive deep-water sea-ports, huge oil refineries and storage tanks, and thousands of road tankers delivering to thousands of petrol stations, each of which has to replace it’s underground storage every 15 years or so.    The infrastructure cost of supplying fossil fuels runs into hundreds of billions, way beyond a putting a few panels on a handy roof!

Dave

[Martin of WickParticipant @martinofwick]

Of course it doesn’t end well.

As Prof. Helm has pointed out many times to politicians, transition costs will be much higher than usual headlines as wider externalities are not fully being taken into account. Politicians know this but find it difficult to sell a message of rising costs and falling living standards. So they simply lie. No use saying that costs will fall as a consequence of transition to renewables in ‘the long term’ even if it were true. In the long term we are all dead anyway.

So what is the alternative? Chose from the following:

Ever rising power costs due to renewables transition and consequent economic decline and fall in living standards for the many.

Or,

Ever rising power costs due increasing costs of fossil fuel extraction and consequent economic decline and fall in living standards for the many.

Or,

Cross your fingers and hope for an energy generating miracle.

All you can hope for is that with option 1, cost of power may reach a ceiling eventually with option 2 it may not.

[SillyOldDuffer]

On SillyOldDuffer Said:

On Circlip Said:

…

And where is the money for that going to come from?…

Same place as the money used to fund coal mines, oil rigs, pipelines, railways, 300,000+ ton super-tankers, massive deep-water sea-ports, huge oil refineries and storage tanks, and thousands of road tankers delivering to thousands of petrol stations, each of which has to replace it’s underground storage every 15 years or so.    The infrastructure cost of supplying fossil fuels runs into hundreds of billions, way beyond a putting a few panels on a handy roof!

 

That expensive infrastructure is to supply existing requirements, so there is less risk of getting no return.

Now take, as an example, hydrogen powered cars.

For the manufacturers, there’s nothing new or different to what they already do. So much so, that Toyota UK will already sell you one. But it’s a massive gamble for you to spend £65,000 when there’s less than a score of fuelling stations in the country.

For the fuel suppliers, there are several problems: the cost of hydrogen production plants, supply chains and delivery equipment has to be done from scratch. Which is insanely expensive even if piggy-backed into tanker and petrol stations. When there is no existing demand for any of that no one is going to spend their own money, or be able to borrow it without external forces. Which is usually government encouragement, backing and legislation. Consider how well the 2030 EV only requirement is going, when the buyers are stepping back from the initial flood of enthusiasm for such things.

Intelligent combinations of EV and ICE vehicles are still the only feasible solution, as the solutions can be built into existing infrastructure development that is required anyway. Anyone who thinks a complex problem will be solved with a single, simple blanket statement of policy has a long career ahead of them as a politician. Some phrases for them to practice: smart motorways, windfarms, heat pumps, send them to Rwanda, take back the Panama canal, let’s go to Mars, we’ll take Ukraine before anyone can stop us, etc.

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

I totally agree with Noel.

We are neglecting tidal power, which, unlike solar or wind, is available twice every day and predictably so.

In Peterborough, Peter Brotherhood were developing an air turbine which rotated in the same direction, no matter in which the air was moving.

It was driven by waves passing into a tapering funnel and driving air before it into the turbine.

The test site was somewhere in Scotland.

It needed no barrages so could be sited almost anywhere.

Being unidirectional, it could drive a DC generator feeding an inverter to deliver AC into national grid.

Somehow, with various changes of ownership, and probably lack of government interest, the project seems to have died, when it should have been vigorously pursued.

PITY

Howard

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

This might raise your spirit a little, Howard:

https://www.gov.scot/policies/renewable-and-low-carbon-energy/marine-energy/

MichaelG.

[FulmenParticipant @fulmen]

Meh. Waves and tidal are low grade sources, makes it hard to get a decent return on investment. I’m sure there are a few places where it makes sense but it’s not going to power the world. I tried to find EROI values for wave and tidal but haven’t been successful so far, that in it self says a lot.

[VicParticipant @vic]

I read online the other week that worldwide, as of 2023, over 30% of our energy needs are being met with renewables. If this doesn’t steadily increase then I expect we could be in trouble when we’ve burnt all the remaining reserves of fossil fuel?

[Vic]

On Vic Said:

I read online the other week that worldwide, as of 2023, over 30% of our energy needs are being met with renewables. If this doesn’t steadily increase then I expect we could be in trouble when we’ve burnt all the remaining reserves of fossil fuel?

If we were to burn all the remaining fossil fuels (a really stupid idea, mind!) the climate changes would likely make continued human life on the planet either extremely uncomfortable or even unviable.  Likely the next mass extinction event for life on the planet.

Most don’t look further than the end of their nose!  One doesn’t even need to be in the ‘less-than-average’ half of the population, it seems, to ignore the outcome of continued usage of fossils for basically heat production.

Retaining the electricity generational capacity, for times of shortages in renewables/nuclear electricity, is one thing, just continuing to burn fossils to make the greenhouse effect even more effective is pure folly.  Most need to wake up to reality.

[Martin of WickParticipant @martinofwick]

Meh. Waves and tidal are low grade sources, makes it hard to get a decent return on investment.

True to some extent, but it does rather depend on the scheme and how the cost benefit calculation is done. The current method of discounted capital and operating costs divided by output disadvantages long life assets with high up front costs.

For example, take a scheme like the Severn Barrage (Cardif – Weston), using current method the levelised cost of energy (that ghastly expression) comes out as anywhere between £150 and £450  per MWh i.e. double or treble the cost of offshore wind at the lower cost bound.

But consider if the barrage had been built when mooted in the 1970s (actually dates back to the 19 C). 50 years later it would now be providing 6% of the nations electricity at relatively low cost. The upfront charges would have been paid with only long run operation and maintenance costs to fund.

This has been the case with the Rance barrage, which just after construction in 1967 was EDf’s highest national marginal cost energy input, but today is their lowest.

Problem is as stated, the private sector will not take the scheme on due to the high risk vs low reward profile.  These massive schemes are just about conceivable with public (ie taxpayer) funding.  However governments rarely have 50 year time horizons and in any case the nation is broke and they fear (with good reason!) an HS2 type debacle.

 

 

[garyashParticipant @garyash]

I didn’t expect to find a discussion about renewables on the ME forum but it’s great to see.  I’ll add some more (renewable) fuel to the fire and correct some inaccuracies that linger from the past. I’ll be brief and  therefore not exhaustive.

The suggestion that renewables are more expensive isn’t correct, renewables produce almost free electricity and we now see that in most countries it is impossible to fund or build fossil thermal plant. The exceptions are places where the standard of living (and per capita energy consumption) are far below western norms.

Tidal barrages require careful modelling as the Severn example shows – the upstream volume is too large compared to the flow so it isn’t possible to use the stored water within the tidal cycle – so yield is poor for the massive capex. Smaller schemes such as Cardiff bay will work but as electricity production is cyclical some balancing is required. Tidal Power (? not sure if this was the name) proposed about 7 sites around the UK and the effect of the different tide times largely smoothed the total output. The funding model was very long term bonds which would suit insurance/corporate investors. Why is it not built – failure to agree a strike price with HMG (unlike Hinkley C).

Wind generation is intermittent but so what – it’s very low cost at the point of production, the technology is mature, and geographical spreading assets helps with intermittency. I made some models (energy and finance) of a large wind turbine for a local business and the payback was less than 2 years and a rate of return over 45%. The CO2 abatement cost (MACC) is negative and one of the best I have ever seen. Why is it not built – “our neighbours won’t like it”.

PV is obviously intermittent but again the electricity is very low cost – and combines usefully with wind assets.

Here we start to see a pattern that grid operators are loading upgrade costs  and constraints on to renewables schemes in a way that is holding back distributed generation. We see they frequently block ‘export’ of surplus electricity from existing buildings with the hypothetical argument that under some circumstances the building may completely cease power use whilst the wind/PV happens to be at maximum  output AND all other local demand has ceased so the export has to be carried by the local distribution system to the national grid!

If you haven’t checked about 40% of your electricity bill isn’t for electricity.

So is there a place for nuclear? – if we as consumers continue to behave in the same way it’s required and will guarantee high electricity prices (in the UK) for the long term – why wouldn’t the electricity industry support that?

Not sure if this is useful but there are some truths worth discussing.

Gary

[Author]

Posts