Electric car boom will fuel demand for power, says National Grid

[kzb]

The most recent figures I've found for UK electricity production are from 2015.

Gas 30%, Renewables 25% (includes biomass),  Coal 22%, Nuclear 21%, Other fuels 2.8%.

Coal + Gas = 52%.  The biomass will increase this further, plus the "other fuels" will include fossil fuels (oil probably).

By now coal is probably greatly reduced, but mainly because they've replaced it with wood chips, with a greater carbon emissions than coal.

So I stick with it, 50% is probably an underestimate if anything, and that is not bulls**t.

Then the generation efficiency is about 40%, transmission losses 8%, charging efficiency say 95%, electric drive guessing 85-90%.

So that increases that 50% by 1/0.3, making 167%.  Let's be generous and round that down to 150%.

My conclusion is, using the average UK electricity mix, the Tesla emits roughly 50% more carbon than an equivalent IC car.

 

[Peter Hun]

28 minutes ago, kzb said:

Gas 30%, Renewables 25% (includes biomass),  Coal 22%, Nuclear 21%, Other fuels 2.8%.

Coal 22%?

That's doubtful, that number is from 2015 and several stations have closed down or converted to biomass.

[Peter Hun]

43 minutes ago, kzb said:

My conclusion is, using the average UK electricity mix, the Tesla emits roughly 50% more carbon than an equivalent IC car.

Yeah. ********.

[kzb]

14 hours ago, Peter Hun said:

Coal 22%?

That's doubtful, that number is from 2015 and several stations have closed down or converted to biomass.

So you've completely ignored the discussion upthread, that converting coal stations to biomass (wood chips) has reportedly INCREASED their carbon emissions?

I mean, if you can find some more recent average figures than 2015 I'd like to see them.  I'm willing to be proved wrong but I can only work with the information I have.

[kzb]

14 hours ago, Peter Hun said:

Yeah. ********.

Well that's a well thought out response.  You know,  there is a deliberate mistake there in plain sight but you're not even clever enough to spot it.

[kzb]

I've now found out that UK electricity production emitted 0.26 tonne of CO2 per MW-h in 2016.

A Tesla consumes 340W-h/mile at 70mph.

So basically it is emitting (0.26g CO2/W-h) x 340 W-h/mile = 88.4 gCO2 per mile at 70 mph.  Dividing by 1.609 km/mile is 55 gCO2/km at 70 mph.

This is a commendable figure of course.  A petrol-engine car doing 60mpg emits 113 gCO2/km.

But do notice this comparison is very dependent on that 0.26 tonneCO2/MW-h figure.  As recently as 2012 this was 0.48.

We do not know if the major part of the claimed reduction from 2012 is down to wood chips replacing coal, which, as discussed, is erroneous.

It only takes the real emissions to be 0.54 tonneCO2/MW-h and the 60mpg petrol car does better than the Tesla.  I am not sure how the figure is worked out, for example if nuclear and renewables were rated as zero carbon (plus there's the wood chip question) that would be wrong.

Edited July 18, 2017 by kzb

[Simon Taylor]

I have some experience of driving an EV and how to charge it.

The country has more than enough commercial roof space -  factories,  warehouses,  chilled distribution plants etc -  and car parks over which car ports structures can be easily installed,  to allow solar to make up this shortfall.

Because of the seasonal and intermittent nature of solar,  some battery back up will be needed but for workplace charging,  when most cars are parked all day,  rooftop solar works just fine.  My Tesla was fully charged from electricity produced on the factory roof generated by 1100 this morning.

It's the quickest and cheapest form of new generation -  under 5p/kWh before any of the remaining,  small subsidy is added -  and once installed doesn't require imported energy fuels to keep it going.  That electricity will never increase in price.  There are no hidden clean up/storage/decommissioning costs (see how EdF is having the true scale of the clean up costs for it's ageing nukes dragged out of it)  and with localised generators won't be in thrall to foreign financiers/governments.

[kzb]

2 hours ago, Simon Taylor said:

I have some experience of driving an EV and how to charge it.

The country has more than enough commercial roof space -  factories,  warehouses,  chilled distribution plants etc -  and car parks over which car ports structures can be easily installed,  to allow solar to make up this shortfall.

Because of the seasonal and intermittent nature of solar,  some battery back up will be needed but for workplace charging,  when most cars are parked all day,  rooftop solar works just fine.  My Tesla was fully charged from electricity produced on the factory roof generated by 1100 this morning.

It's the quickest and cheapest form of new generation -  under 5p/kWh before any of the remaining,  small subsidy is added -  and once installed doesn't require imported energy fuels to keep it going.  That electricity will never increase in price.  There are no hidden clean up/storage/decommissioning costs (see how EdF is having the true scale of the clean up costs for it's ageing nukes dragged out of it)  and with localised generators won't be in thrall to foreign financiers/governments.

It's fantastic if employers can provide this service for their employees.  How much solar panel area is needed per vehicle?

Another thing I've been wondering, what is the effect of using heating/aircon/headlights on the range?  Heating is free energy in an IC vehicle and we need it most of the year in the UK.

[Peter Hun]

9 hours ago, kzb said:

So you've completely ignored the discussion upthread, that converting coal stations to biomass (wood chips) has reportedly INCREASED their carbon emissions?

I'm ignoring because you use completely out of date numbers from  2015. Discussing it any further is pointless, you have an axe to grind.

[kzb]

14 hours ago, Peter Hun said:

I'm ignoring because you use completely out of date numbers from  2015. Discussing it any further is pointless, you have an axe to grind.

The only axe I have to grind is getting at the truth.

If you see my last post above you will see I am now satisfied the Tesla will pay back its 1 tonne of extra manufacturing CO2 emissions during its battery lifetime.

But this is predicated on the electricity mix being sufficiently low carbon, as it apparently is in the UK.

The topic of the thread is does the UK have the generation capacity.  That is the next question, if demand increases to charge electric vehicles, how will that extra capacity be provided?  If they simply build more gas generation, the inefficiencies in the system will lead to more carbon emissions due to electric vehicles.

[Peter Hun]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/19/how-coal-lost-power-britain

 

Coal supplies now  2% of UK electricity. NOT 22%

[Confusion of VIs]

On 18/07/2017 at 9:32 AM, kzb said:

I've now found out that UK electricity production emitted 0.26 tonne of CO2 per MW-h in 2016.

A Tesla consumes 340W-h/mile at 70mph.

So basically it is emitting (0.26g CO2/W-h) x 340 W-h/mile = 88.4 gCO2 per mile at 70 mph.  Dividing by 1.609 km/mile is 55 gCO2/km at 70 mph.

This is a commendable figure of course.  A petrol-engine car doing 60mpg emits 113 gCO2/km.

But do notice this comparison is very dependent on that 0.26 tonneCO2/MW-h figure.  As recently as 2012 this was 0.48.

We do not know if the major part of the claimed reduction from 2012 is down to wood chips replacing coal, which, as discussed, is erroneous.

It only takes the real emissions to be 0.54 tonneCO2/MW-h and the 60mpg petrol car does better than the Tesla.  I am not sure how the figure is worked out, for example if nuclear and renewables were rated as zero carbon (plus there's the wood chip question) that would be wrong.

The Tesja is large high performance car you cannot sensibly compare it to a 60mpg car, something like a BMW M5 would be better. I am currently getting about 16 mpg out of mine.

 

[kzb]

10 hours ago, Peter Hun said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/19/how-coal-lost-power-britain

 

Coal supplies now  2% of UK electricity. NOT 22%

Yes, to make the point yet again, the extra carbon payback time of the Tesla is probably quite reasonable if we believe the figures.  The 15% extra CO2 emissions required in its manufacture should be paid back,  in a few thousand miles, given the reportedly much reduced  CO2/MWh of UK electricity generation. 

So having found out that coal is down to 2%, perhaps you could research how much of that coal capacity was replaced with wood chips.  If it's been replaced with wood chips, the carbon emissions have been increased, not decreased, and the 0.26 tonneCO2/MWh figure will be erroneously low.

[kzb]

40 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The Tesja is large high performance car you cannot sensibly compare it to a 60mpg car, something like a BMW M5 would be better. I am currently getting about 16 mpg out of mine.

 

That's true in a way.   The range is probably little affected by the peak power of the motors, so you might as well give it high performance.

I've got 53mpg from my petrol car this week (under far from ideal conditions).  It's official top speed is 120mph, way above the legal limit.  There's no point to this when you think about it, it is way overpowered for requirements.  This is even more true of your BMW.

We should all be tootling around in 800cc cars with max speed of  about 80.  With modern systems it could probably beat the tesla for carbon emissions.  And the range per fill up would be way ahead.  The range on my modest vehicle is over 450 miles according to the computer.

[Riedquat]

22 hours ago, kzb said:

That's true in a way.   The range is probably little affected by the peak power of the motors, so you might as well give it high performance.

I've got 53mpg from my petrol car this week (under far from ideal conditions).  It's official top speed is 120mph, way above the legal limit.  There's no point to this when you think about it, it is way overpowered for requirements.  This is even more true of your BMW.

We should all be tootling around in 800cc cars with max speed of  about 80.  With modern systems it could probably beat the tesla for carbon emissions.  And the range per fill up would be way ahead.  The range on my modest vehicle is over 450 miles according to the computer.

The problem with a pokey car with a top speed of 80 is that whilst it may be able to get up to that (on the level) it'll take forever to get there. Extra power is useful in entirely legal situations, even if a side effect is a higher top speed.

[cock-eyed octopus]

I thought the point of biomass was that there is no net increase in release of carbon into the atmosphere? In which case it is different to burning coal. However, renewables like solar & wind are obviously the way to go.

The rapid advance in solar-electricity conversion & battery technology look like they're providing the answers we need. Technology giveth & technology taketh away.

 

[miggy]

There haven't been rapid advances in battery or solar but we have seen a gradual improvement in efficiency of solar. 

Major battery technology stagnated for decades because it turns out it's a really tough problem. There has been some progress recently from what I understand but still nothing major has made it to market. That would be a real game changer. A family friend worked in the battery powered vehicle sector for a very long time and said it's taken far longer than anyone expected and they still aren't anywhere near where they hoped (commercially speaking).

Solar is pretty good now, however. 

Edited July 21, 2017 by miggy

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, ****-eyed octopus said:

I thought the point of biomass was that there is no net increase in release of carbon into the atmosphere? In which case it is different to burning coal. However, renewables like solar & wind are obviously the way to go.

The rapid advance in solar-electricity conversion & battery technology look like they're providing the answers we need. Technology giveth & technology taketh away.

There's the energy involved in shipping biomass, and if it comes from chopping down long-established forests that's effectively a net gain in CO2 released (and more per amount of energy than coal, since coal contains more that reacts to form water as well as CO2). If it's from material planted just for biomass it's just the transport.

I certainly wouldn't say renewables like solar and wind are the way to go. Unreliable and immensely obnoxious. I much prefer nuclear. Still immensely obnoxious where it's built but at least that's a much smaller number of not as intrusive locations, and it's not reliant on the weather. Solar can go on top of all the office blocks, supermarkets, and warehouses though.

[cashinmattress]

On 21/07/2017 at 10:02 AM, miggy said:

it's taken far longer than anyone expected and they still aren't anywhere near where they hoped (commercially speaking).

Solar is pretty good now, however. 

You have to make the market for the common man. We are a long way from there.

The UK's net contribution to global emissions in civilian transport is not really a motivation to undertake a sea change in transport IMO. Tackle big emitters in shipping, aviation, heavy industry, military, perhaps...

But if buying an electric car helps you sleep at night... fill your boots.

[Peter Hun]

On 21/07/2017 at 9:02 AM, miggy said:

There haven't been rapid advances in battery or solar but we have seen a gradual improvement in efficiency of solar. 

Major battery technology stagnated for decades because it turns out it's a really tough problem. There has been some progress recently from what I understand but still nothing major has made it to market. . 

Wow, I guess the news has passed you by.

According to car manufacuturers, the purchase cost of electric cars will be below ICE vehicles by 2025. With vastly lower running and maintenance costs and longer lifetimes, electric cars will dominate sales.

This has been possible because of the incredible reduction in battery cost and increased energy density.

As for solar, prices have fallen 90% making it much cheaper than even coal in large parts of the world. If you don't think reduction in cost to one tenth in five years is not a rapid advance,  then good luck to you.

The world has changed dramatically and there is no stopping it, money talks.

[Riedquat]

23 hours ago, cashinmattress said:

You have to make the market for the common man. We are a long way from there.

The UK's net contribution to global emissions in civilian transport is not really a motivation to undertake a sea change in transport IMO. Tackle big emitters in shipping, aviation, heavy industry, military, perhaps...

But if buying an electric car helps you sleep at night... fill your boots.

Arguably the biggest problem with current cars is local air quality in cities, which electric could make quite a difference to (although just using it for buses would probably solve most of that).

[onlooker]

8 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Arguably the biggest problem with current cars is local air quality in cities, which electric could make quite a difference to (although just using it for buses would probably solve most of that).

The fact that it is the private motorist who is being made to feel guilty for driving a modern diesel car, while buses and coaches continue to churn out out smokey exhaust seemingly with little control, tells me that we are being lied to and manipulated. i live near a grouping of secondary schools (combined with a bus garage and main arterial road) which acts as a transport hub for local bus routes. The buses are biggest offenders when it comes to air pollution - I can see it with my own eyes. Electrify the buses first.

[Peter Hun]

Buses are predicted to electrify quicker than cars.

[kzb]

1 hour ago, onlooker said:

The fact that it is the private motorist who is being made to feel guilty for driving a modern diesel car, while buses and coaches continue to churn out out smokey exhaust seemingly with little control, tells me that we are being lied to and manipulated. i live near a grouping of secondary schools (combined with a bus garage and main arterial road) which acts as a transport hub for local bus routes. The buses are biggest offenders when it comes to air pollution - I can see it with my own eyes. Electrify the buses first.

Only 11% of NOx and particulates in London is due to cars.  Rest of it is buses and taxis.

[kzb]

On ‎21‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 8:47 AM, ****-eyed octopus said:

I thought the point of biomass was that there is no net increase in release of carbon into the atmosphere? In which case it is different to burning coal. However, renewables like solar & wind are obviously the way to go.

The rapid advance in solar-electricity conversion & battery technology look like they're providing the answers we need. Technology giveth & technology taketh away.

 

Depending on the source, it takes between 30 and 90% of the energy content of the wood itself to dry it, convert to chips, and transport it.  Wood chips replacing coal in UK power stations come from N. America and whole trees are cut down to supply them (it's not waste wood).

The CO2 released in burning is not counted as CO2 emissions under current EU accounting method, with the justification in your first sentence.

However the truth is, it takes 90 years for the CO2 released to be taken up again by new growth.  Assuming that is allowed to happen at all (if the trees cut down are replaced by farmland or building developments, that new growth can't happen).

I am therefore sceptical about the reality of the recent reduction to 0.26 tonnes CO2 per MWh in UK electricity production.