The EV fact thread

[Bobby Dazzler]

Also, keeping in mind the most people will only top-up rather than charge zero to full - in my use case, had I driven to work even day I would only need to charge once a week, from 50% to 80%.

My daughter is using our Fiat 500e to travel to work every weekday. As you suggest, she pops it on charge when the remaining range is very close to or less than the next day’s journey. If she has to go further afield without notice then she just uses a public charger on the way. She’s not held back by the baggage of driving an ICE car, so she’s quickly adapted to the right mindset. So much so that…

I’m sat with my daughter and Mrs D right now and we were just talking about how much fuel is in the car Mrs D will use tomorrow. Mrs D commented that it’s a shame that we can’t top it up at home (ICE). I replied that it’s only a 40 miles round trip round trip and so it should manage that even if the fuel light is on. My daughter said “What you have 40 miles reserve, that’s half of my range at this time of year, why do you need so much?!”

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

So 35 pumps - let's say 4 minutes per pump at 3 mins plus 1 min get in and out - then that's say 525 cars per hour.

And that right there is the problem with ICE. If everyone refuels at the same time then there aren’t enough pumps, and if we limit the number of cars refuelling at any one time to the number of available pumps then the underpinning infrastructure - oil extraction, pipelines, processing, distribution, storage, etc - simply cannot keep up with demand.

 

[190]

I am not an electrical engineer, but I am assuming that it's similar to how comms network work.

The 'bandwidth' figure that you see is (in most cases) not dedicated. There are things called 'burst mode' and 'dark fibre', managing demand.

Similarly, there's no need to be able to provide full capacity to all chargers at the same time.

I'm sure you are correct about that. No electrical distribution system expects to see maximum demand from all consumers. In designing the system they apply a diversity factor based on experience of the real peak demand.

As a relatable example my house has a 100 amp supply which is 24 kW but if every house fed from the substation was to attempt to draw 24kW the system would collapse long before that level of load was achieved. EV's aside they know that loads are much less even at peak times and they size the distribution system accordingly.

What EV charging will do is change the diversity factor from what it was before the advent of EV charging and the factor they need to use will be something they have to gradually learn from experience.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

I am not an electrical engineer, but I am assuming that it's similar to how comms network work.

The 'bandwidth' figure that you see is (in most cases) not dedicated. There are things called 'burst mode' and 'dark fibre', managing demand.

Similarly, there's no need to be able to provide full capacity to all chargers at the same time.

I would hazard a guess that 20 stalls with 250Kw capacity will not need a 5kW supply. More like around 3-4kW supply will do.

This is because a scenario of 20 cars charging at 250kW is not only unlikely, in fact it's impossible.

Firstly, not all cars are capable of charging at the highest speed. Then, the highest charging speed is only achieved with a warm battery, and so some cars will start slower until the battery has warmed up. Then, cars being charged beyond the 80% limit will slow down the charging. And last, out of 20 cars, some will be at various staging of parking up and getting ready to connect, while others will be busy disconnecting and driving out of the bay. In fact, 20x250kW will never ever happen.

I am willing to bet that the trunk capacity to these charging hubs is less than the total nominal capacity - it just doesn't make sense to design it any other way (unless you over spec the trunk supply in order to support future expansion and future upgrades).

+1

Petrol pumps in the UK have a flow rate up to 50 litres per minute although actual pump speed varies. If all pumps served at their maximum speed there is insufficient infrastructure behind to keep pace. That’s fine though because it’s a theoretical scenario which hardly ever happens - when it does and there’s a run in the pumps, then it’s absolute chaos for days or weeks!

 

[poormansporsche]

Well, I risked the 110 mile round trip "Dog Teeth Cleaning Run" in the Leaf today. I topped up at home for a couple of hours to get the battery to 95% and the car nice and toasty. The range was showing 130 miles which I know is bo££ocks in the cold. The trip is 90 % motorway and as I had the Dogs in the car, I "poodled" (sorry couldn't resist it ) along at 60 mph. Made it to my destination with 49% remaining. I made it home with 10% battery remaining and a range of 10 miles. I would never let a ICE car drop that low but knowing all you have to do is get home and the car will be "full" again next time you get in it is pretty cool, specially as I didn't have to leave the hounds whilst pumping or charging.

So a little bit more awkward than ice but not massively so.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Nissan started manufacturing in Europe for this reason, and specifically Sunderland as it came with the greatest incentives. A few decades later and Nissan in Sunderland is considered domestic in the context of this thread, despite having started out as a threat.

(Cough) Domestic: maybe. But Sunderland exports 80% of its production,

with only 20% remaining in the UK.

Your point is sound, but lets not understate how much Sunderland exports.

(We killed British car corporations with tax on their Headquarters. German and Japanese car manufacturers aren't so..... encumbered.)

 

[Dryce]

You’re a resourceful fellow so I bet you’ll be able to find out how long on average a car is parked in a park & ride car park.

My guess would be most of the working day. If my guess is even close to reality then would those cars need to be charged at more than a snail’s pace?

The journey pattern to/from a park and ride is likely to be on of multiple short journeys - not the sort that would necessarily use large service stations.

There isn't one size fits all to the pros and cons.

And charging at a snail's pace probably makes sense for a large number of potential EV users of park and ride facilities.

The problem is perhaps that fitting out a high proportion of parking bays - or even all bays - at P&R car parks with cheap slow speed charging infrastructure isn't as sexy as declaring that a token few parking bays have very high speed charging.

 

[Dryce]

And that right there is the problem with ICE. If everyone refuels at the same time then there aren’t enough pumps, and if we limit the number of cars refuelling at any one time to the number of available pumps then the underpinning infrastructure - oil extraction, pipelines, processing, distribution, storage, etc - simply cannot keep up with demand.

That's a different issue.

We have seen what happens if there is a fuel availability scare. All those parked up vehicles in the suburbs that sit with part full tanks all day suddenly have owners with the urge to fill them up 'just in case' and within a day or two the fuel distribution system gets messed up and there are queues at filling stations. And the reality is there is no actual real shortage- just a savage burst of intense purchase for the purpose of storage in parked cars.

But then we have an electricity generation system that is - on the back of the envelop - just about able to keep up with day to day weather shifts with cover from foreign supplies. Massive expensive investment in new reliable generation isn't going to be on tap for another few years and will be offset be decommissioning of power generation capacity that is being life extended as I type this.

Everything is fragile.

But mass switchover to EVs obsoletes one established vehicle energy distribution setup and expects on that needs years of construction that is not yet started to magically be available to take over.

 

[markjay]

That's a different issue.

We have seen what happens if there is a fuel availability scare. All those parked up vehicles in the suburbs that sit with part full tanks all day suddenly have owners with the urge to fill them up 'just in case' and within a day or two the fuel distribution system gets messed up and there are queues at filling stations. And the reality is there is no actual real shortage- just a savage burst of intense purchase for the purpose of storage in parked cars.

But then we have an electricity generation system that is - on the back of the envelop - just about able to keep up with day to day weather shifts with cover from foreign supplies. Massive expensive investment in new reliable generation isn't going to be on tap for another few years and will be offset be decommissioning of power generation capacity that is being life extended as I type this.

Everything is fragile.

But mass switchover to EVs obsoletes one established vehicle energy distribution setup and expects on that needs years of construction that is not yet started to magically be available to take over.

Energy companies have repeatedly said that there's no issue with electricity production for EVs, and that there's ample capacity.

The issues are further down the line from the power plants.

Firstly, distribution - not all areas have the required infrastructure to handle additional capacity from the power plants.

Then, chargers - these need to be installed, either at people's homes or in public areas (or both), and there are obvious commercial issues involved beyond the remit of the energy producers.

 

[Dryce]

The issues are further down the line from the power plants.

It starts with the generation. We have a lot of wind power. But when the wind doesn't blow we now have very little contingency. We are dependent on foreign interlinks.

And that is without the sort of EV demand that can reasonably being expected.

We have the last of the nuclear stations that were built being life extended. And we have hugely expensive new nuclear power station that will take years to complete - while the conventional and nuclear stations are going to depart.

So when the wind doesn't blow ....

Oh yes - and meanwhile the policymakers are trying to push us to electric domestic heating.

But officially it's all OK until you add up what is being generated on a calm winter's day, what is left as contingency, and what is needed from the EU. And then you wonder where the power to charge EVs and heat houses is actually going to come from.

 

[Dryce]

Correct, assuming that in 2050 the UK energy production and distribution system will still be exactly the same as it is today... and that EV charging technology has already peaked

I suppose it could have been predicted back in 1995 that the Internet won't work, because if every business and household bought a Hayes 56k modem, then we'll need to double the number of analogue PSTN copper lines in the UK, and BT would say that it couldn't be done. Who could have predicted back in 1995 the emergence of new technologies such as ADSL, FTTC, and FTTP? Let alone Starlink?

Again, there are two mistakes being made here: the first is extrapolating on current technology decades ahead into the future, and the second is assuming that EVs are driven and charged like ICE cars.

Ominously you might consider what the total electricity generating capacity was in the UK 1995 - and whether the wind blew or not wasn't really factor.

But now ....

The comparison with broadband involves infrastructure that did not require people to make a capital purchase such as car - and did not involve having to load the modem with loads of energy.

It took 30 years to get from the early 90s until today - a third of century.

Yet the likes of the UK and EU policymakers are trying to dogmatically drive through change which involves much more in the way of resources in a decade.

 

[BTB 500]

Correct, assuming that in 2050 the UK energy production and distribution system will still be exactly the same as it is today... and that EV charging technology has already peaked

Moving a vehicle around takes energy. Electric drive systems are already very efficient. Batteries are already very efficient (although heavy). Charging is already very efficient (although parasitic losses make slow charging less so). Unless someone can come up with a way of moving EVs that uses even less energy the future power requirement per vehicle is probably going to be pretty similar to now. Better battery tech. is likely to reduce charging times, but that won't reduce the actual amount of power needed from the grid. The difference is that there will eventually be around 30 times more EVs than there are now.

Again... EVs are not typically charged from zero to full, like you might do with an ICE car.

Those people who do work 9-5, every day, and commute to work using their EV, every day, will either top up 10-20kW (that's 30-60 miles in average conditions) at night every day.

Even if they do insist on driving their EV like a petrol car, they'll still only need to 'fill-up' every weekend at most.

Those driving only to the nearest train station car park will probably top-up single-digit kW every night (or zero to full every 3-4 weeks).

The scenario where a car needs 70kW of charge every night is only applicable to cars driven 200 miles every day. Sure, some do that... but most don't.

I get all of that, honestly.

The point is just that - overall - most EV charging is likely to be done overnight, when the majority of cars are parked at home and sitting idle. When we have many millions of EVs that's when the load on the grid will be at its highest, so it will be more expensive. The minority who are able to charge at home during the day will be encouraged to do so via lower 'off peak' rates (and this may well be software driven).

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

That's a different issue.

We have seen what happens if there is a fuel availability scare. All those parked up vehicles in the suburbs that sit with part full tanks all day suddenly have owners with the urge to fill them up 'just in case' and within a day or two the fuel distribution system gets messed up and there are queues at filling stations. And the reality is there is no actual real shortage- just a savage burst of intense purchase for the purpose of storage in parked cars.

But then we have an electricity generation system that is - on the back of the envelop - just about able to keep up with day to day weather shifts with cover from foreign supplies. Massive expensive investment in new reliable generation isn't going to be on tap for another few years and will be offset be decommissioning of power generation capacity that is being life extended as I type this.

Everything is fragile.

But mass switchover to EVs obsoletes one established vehicle energy distribution setup and expects on that needs years of construction that is not yet started to magically be available to take over.

My post which you quoted was very much tongue in cheek.

The argument that there’s insufficient infrastructure capacity for EVs can be applied to ICE. The argument that it doesn’t apply to ICE because everyone doesn’t refill at the same time can be applied to EVs not all being charged at all times.

That irony is lost on some. In both cases the infrastructure is not designed to satisfy simultaneous maximum demand, nor does it need to.

 

[ChipChop]

The famous 'kettle' scenario during the TV football match break simply does not apply to EVs.

I dare say you would say the same for the rise of the data center. Yet there has already been instances of power crunch's in the Republic of Ireland, land of the data center. Only set to get worse as data centers gobble up an ever increasing percentage of overall power from EirGrid. Forecast next year to be 32% of all electricity used in Ireland. Yet more pressure on the grid.

Ireland also has the most expensive net electricity prices in the EU. 30% above the EU average.

The solution? The "small" modular nuclear reactor. Being developed by Rolls Royce SMR Ltd. Made in the UK. In a similar vein i read that in the US Amazon Web Services has secured a new site next to an existing nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania.

 

[Bellow]

My daughter is using our Fiat 500e to travel to work every weekday. As you suggest, she pops it on charge when the remaining range is very close to or less than the next day’s journey. If she has to go further afield without notice then she just uses a public charger on the way. She’s not held back by the baggage of driving an ICE car, so she’s quickly adapted to the right mindset. So much so that…

ICE baggage? The ability to refuel for 600+ mile range in mere minutes is baggage?

I’m sat with my daughter and Mrs D right now and we were just talking about how much fuel is in the car Mrs D will use tomorrow. Mrs D commented that it’s a shame that we can’t top it up at home (ICE). I replied that it’s only a 40 miles round trip round trip and so it should manage that even if the fuel light is on. My daughter said “What you have 40 miles reserve, that’s half of my range at this time of year, why do you need so much?!”

An other view is that said daughter has been gaslighted into believing a range of 80 miles is acceptable. I'm guessing she's never owned a phone that the battery lasted a week before needing recharging. For sure, today's phones are infinitely more capable but not once have I heard anyone say the reduced battery life is better than what went before. Compromises, yes, but don't try and celebrate them as virtues.

 

[Dryce]

The solution? The "small" modular nuclear reactor. Being developed by Rolls Royce SMR Ltd. Made in the UK. In a similar vein i read that in the US Amazon Web Services has secured a new site next to an existing nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania.

Given that the servers consuming all this power need cooling then it would perhaps make more ecological sense to locate the servers where the waste heat can be reused for domestic or office or communal facilities heating

So maybe Siberia or Alaska. Perhaps run the workloads seasonally so in northern hemisphere winter you run mainly in Alaska and Canada - and in winter use the southern hemisphere servers,

Or distribute the data centres so that people can install a heating unit that consists of a self contained server pack (or - alterbatively designated am AI silicon heating block) as a domestic heater. The likes of Amazon pay for the electricity for the server pack and then take a charge from the consumer for providing heat from it.

 

[Dryce]

An other view is that said daughter has been gaslighted into believing a range of 80 miles is acceptable. I'm guessing she's never owned a phone that the battery lasted a week before needing recharging. For sure, today's phones are infinitely more capable but not once have I heard anyone say the reduced battery life is better than what went before. Compromises, yes, but don't try and celebrate them as virtues.

I think if people just stand back and accept that there are several different usage patterns then things would be better.

If we were buying a second car today then it would be a EV - and a range of about 100 miles would be sufficient - as long as it was a second car.

Dacia Spring has come - and is £15K for the short range version and £17K for the 'long' range version.

I think this sort of vehicle makes sense for many people if you have the facility to keep it charged.

 

[ALFAitalia]

80 miles is more than acceptable to very many drivers. That's 29200 miles a year at 80 per day. Who does that? If she regularly did more miles in a day then she would have bought something else. Horses for courses. I do more than 80 miles quite often.....but rarely more than 150......so a 200 mile range EV would be fine for me and apart from a few times Im away from home Id only ever charge on the drive or when I go longer distance....certainly would be no trouble for me....same as an 80 mile range would be no issue for probably 50% plus of the population.

 

[Will]

Isn’t this thread going through the phase of people trying to convince others that things won’t work in theory, when they already are in practice?

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

ICE baggage? The ability to refuel for 600+ mile range in mere minutes is baggage?

An other view is that said daughter has been gaslighted into believing a range of 80 miles is acceptable. I'm guessing she's never owned a phone that the battery lasted a week before needing recharging. For sure, today's phones are infinitely more capable but not once have I heard anyone say the reduced battery life is better than what went before. Compromises, yes, but don't try and celebrate them as virtues.

I suspect that the aforesaid daughter would say that she's been gaslit into

avoiding paying £7 for a 40 mile round trip,

and nudged her parents into paying £1.20 for electricity instead.

£7 in your pocket is £7 in your pocket.