Fracking in Sheffield?

[unbeliever]

What's that? The total cost of ownership of an electric vehicle is now below that of a combustion engine vehicle and we get the battery storage and then the reconditioned batteries pretty much as benefit on the side.

 

The costs are going ever downwards; the capacities upwards. Tesla alone are doubling worldwide battery production and knocking 30% off the cost.

 

If you put the car batteries through extra cycles buffering the home electricity you'll wear them out faster. I would have though that was obvious. The total cost of ownership for battery cars is still substantially higher. It is moving in the right direction though.

 

---------- ----------

 

We all seem to want to move to low CO2 energy.

I have grudgingly accepted that it's going to happen even though I'm less convinced than most that it's necessary.

At any rate, thats the accepted consensus.

 

The question is how to do it, ideally without generating masses of fuel poverty or exacerbating our existing housing crisis.

 

Now the matter of Fracking is not directly related. We need gas for a while yet as the nuclear and/or renewables cannot completely take over. The renewables certainly can't as the battery technology (despite impressive and ongoing progress) is not yet ready to deal with the intermittency. So the main question for this thread is do we import gas or dig up our own. Since the dangers of Fracking are, by any reasonably objective measure, rather minimal it seems like a bit of a no brainer to me.

 

Let's all keep our fingers crossed that we can stop burning gas over the next 30 years or so and then all will be well. Let's not pretend that we can get it done in 10. Because that's mad.

The batteries are coming along, nuclear technology is coming along, wind and solar are looking pretty good as well (assuming that the batteries come which is by no means certain). Patience is called for and in the short to medium term it has to be the least worst option.

 

Locally produced natural gas is extremely low pollution and far lower in CO2 than coal, oil products, biomass or imported gas. So let's just agree that whilst aggressively working toward better long term solutions, to dig than damn stuff up and spend some of the vast amount money we shall save doing so on some of the longer-term ideas which aren't quite ready yet.

Edited March 24, 2017 by unbeliever

[Flexo]

If you put the car batteries through extra cycles buffering the home electricity you'll wear them out faster. I would have though that was obvious.

 

It's no big deal as they can stand a lot of cycles.

 

So you'll tell your car that you're not planning to make a big journey so it only need keep, say, 50% for you. Then it can electricity at a low price and sell it at a high price = profit that outweighs the battery wear.

 

We'll want them to always charge when prices are low, except on the minority of journeys where we want a fast charge mid journey.

 

A typical car may only be selling when prices are particularly high for whatever reason, not every day.

 

The total cost of ownership for battery cars is still substantially higher. It is moving in the right direction though.

 

Many manufacturers are premium-pricing them so they can continue selling their combustion engine vehicles.

 

Meanwhile, Tesla's model 3 is on track to enter production this summer. It will be around $30k, needs almost zero servicing and refuels for 85% less cost than a combustion engine vehicle. Here TCO is substantially lower. And we're only at the start of what we can do here; combustion engines have reached their limits after 100 years of evolution. Once people experience the instant torque put out by the electric motors they won't want to go back to the sparky bangy smoky engines.

 

Fracking

 

Ah yes that was the subject...

 

For Stannington I'd give Mr Ecotricity's biogas mills a go, mainly because it fits in so well with the ecology of the surrounding area.

 

In general I have no strong opinion. The public opinion seems to be against fracking (shall we frustrate the will of the people?) largely because the experimental site in Lancashire is blamed for producing two earth tremors.

[unbeliever]

It's no big deal as they can stand a lot of cycles.

 

So you'll tell your car that you're not planning to make a big journey so it only need keep, say, 50% for you. Then it can electricity at a low price and sell it at a high price = profit that outweighs the battery wear.

 

We'll want them to always charge when prices are low, except on the minority of journeys where we want a fast charge mid journey.

 

A typical car may only be selling when prices are particularly high for whatever reason, not every day.

 

 

 

Many manufacturers are premium-pricing them so they can continue selling their combustion engine vehicles.

 

Meanwhile, Tesla's model 3 is on track to enter production this summer. It will be around $30k, needs almost zero servicing and refuels for 85% less cost than a combustion engine vehicle. Here TCO is substantially lower. And we're only at the start of what we can do here; combustion engines have reached their limits after 100 years of evolution. Once people experience the instant torque put out by the electric motors they won't want to go back to the sparky bangy smoky engines.

 

 

 

Ah yes that was the subject...

 

For Stannington I'd give Mr Ecotricity's biogas mills a go, mainly because it fits in so well with the ecology of the surrounding area.

 

In general I have no strong opinion. The public opinion seems to be against fracking (shall we frustrate the will of the people?) largely because the experimental site in Lancashire is blamed for producing two earth tremors.

 

 

Oh gods. This is ridiculous.

The cost of running an electric car is not electricity it's battery wear. Electricity is cheap, batteries storage is expensive. Battery storage is expensive because of battery wear.

 

It's very important, and not necessarily obvious, but I shall give it another go.

Storing electricity in batteries, whether they're dual purpose (also for transport) or not is expensive. It's expensive because of battery wear.

 

Let's take the bleeding edge kit, the Tesla powerwall.

Cost: £5000

Capacity: 13.5 kWh (~£0.67 worth)

Cycles: ~5000

 

So each charge cycle costs £1 in wear.

That means that under ideal conditions your electricity after it comes out of the power wall costs over twice as much as it does going in.

 

Now I grant that progress is being made.

I'd buy a car with thee batteries in it, where as I wouldn't by a Nissan Leaf as the battery wear is too high.

 

Now if they get the cost storing £1 worth of electricity down substantially below the cost of generating it in the first place then we can talk.

Then all you have to do is deal with the scale up problem as the UK would need a facility or combination of facilities containing about 50 million Tesla power walls to cope with the intermittency of a renewables dominated electricity generation system. Right now that would cost about £250bn.

Assuming you have £250bn, perhaps you'd like to ask Tesla how long it would take them to fill and order for 50 million units.

[Flexo]

You only pay 4p per kWh?

 

Buying batteries specifically for grid storage at this time is too expensive.

 

Buying batteries for transportation is at the cross over point where total cost of ownership is below that of combustion engine vehicles. Here we can have our cars make us some money by buying low and selling high.

 

Battery wear is not a big deal any more. When a manufacturer quotes 5,000 cycles, that is the number until capacity is predicted to decline to 80% but the battery is still usable long beyond.

 

And there will eventually be a waste stream of batteries from redundant vehicles that can find a second life as home or grid storage.

[unbeliever]

You only pay 4p per kWh?

 

Buying batteries specifically for grid storage at this time is too expensive.

 

Buying batteries for transportation is at the cross over point where total cost of ownership is below that of combustion engine vehicles. Here we can have our cars make us some money by buying low and selling high.

 

And there will eventually be a waste stream of batteries from redundant vehicles that can find a second life as home or grid storage.

 

 

Once the batteries have been worn out, you can't use them. You can extract the Lithium to save on mining and use it to build a new battery. If you extract the Lithium from a Tesla powerwall and use it to build batteries for another Tesla powerwall, the new one still costs you another £5000.

Surely you understand this. Please tell me you understand that a battery that doesn't hold charge is not useful as a battery.

 

When talking of national infrastructure and energy policy what matters is the wholesale price of electricity. In the UK this is around £40 per MWh or 4p per kWh.

Edited March 24, 2017 by unbeliever

[Flexo]

If my car does 100 miles range and has a quoted 5,000 cycles then it can do 500,000 miles before my batteries decline to 80% capacity (and we are finding that they are not wearing as much as expected),

 

The batteries remain usable beyond that for less stressful use, e.g. grid storage. The battery management systems can be clever enough to detect the wear of each cell and charge/discharge accordingly.

 

Then eventually it wears out and we reclaim the lithium and start again.

[unbeliever]

If my car does 100 miles range and has a quoted 5,000 cycles then it can do 500,000 miles before my batteries decline to 80% capacity (and we are finding that they are not wearing as much as expected),

 

The batteries remain usable beyond that for less stressful use, e.g. grid storage. The battery management systems can be clever enough to detect the wear of each cell and charge/discharge accordingly.

 

Then eventually it wears out and we reclaim the lithium and start again.

 

 

The Renault Zoe costs £18k.

The battery lease costs £120 per year per 1000 miles.

So it costs 12p/mile in battery wear. The electricity itself costs around 2p/mile if you charge it at home.

 

A Peugeot 208 costs £12k.

The fuel consumption is 17 miles per litre or 7p/mile. That's about half as much plus you saved £6k when you bought the car. That's also with fuel that's taxed all to hell before you start.

 

There's a simple explanation for this.

The batteries will only do 1000 or more cycles if you charge them very slowly. People don't want to wait 8 hours at the refuelling station to fill their car, so the chargers try to ram as much electricity in as possible in half a hour. People don't want to wait half an hour either, but it's not as bad as waiting all day. This fast charging knackers the batteries.

 

And here is the real world stomping all over your ideas again. The batteries only last a long time if they can dictate how fast they're charged. That means you have to deal with massively increased battery wear, or bin discard whatever electricity the batteries are disinclined to accept. Oops!

Edited March 24, 2017 by unbeliever

[Flexo]

Yeah, back to my point about the legacy manufacturers! As it happens, we don't need to lease the batteries because they last so long.

 

Tesla Motors do an 8-year unlimited mile warranty on theirs. "What happens if it dies after that?"... I don't know, but would think it compares well with a combustion engine that needs replacing.

[Obelix]

You only pay 4p per kWh?

 

Buying batteries specifically for grid storage at this time is too expensive.

 

Buying batteries for transportation is at the cross over point where total cost of ownership is below that of combustion engine vehicles. Here we can have our cars make us some money by buying low and selling high.

 

Battery wear is not a big deal any more. When a manufacturer quotes 5,000 cycles, that is the number until capacity is predicted to decline to 80% but the battery is still usable long beyond.

 

And there will eventually be a waste stream of batteries from redundant vehicles that can find a second life as home or grid storage.

 

Teslas wall battery unit may have a 5000 cycle limit, but the same wont be true for a vehicle unit as the current demands are going to be considerably different.

 

---------- Post added 24-03-2017 at 16:19 ----------

 

Yeah, back to my point about the legacy manufacturers! As it happens, we don't need to lease the batteries because they last so long.

 

Tesla Motors do an 8-year unlimited mile warranty on theirs. "What happens if it dies after that?"... I don't know, but would think it compares well with a combustion engine that needs replacing.

 

8 years is a pitiful life for an engine. One of mine is pushing 25 years old now and has 690,000 miles on it....

[Flexo]

Teslas wall battery unit may have a 5000 cycle limit, but the same wont be true for a vehicle unit as the current demands are going to be considerably different.

 

Great point, yes they put out some stonking current. From a quick look at some EV specs, 2000 or so quoted cycles seems around standard til 80% capacity.

 

8 years is a pitiful life for an engine. One of mine is pushing 25 years old now and has 690,000 miles on it....

 

Wow that's bloomin good going! With EVs we may want to replace the batteries but the motors should be good as new; there's no carbon running through the things. Or maybe it's become a loved classic car for the weekend and I only need a lower range.

 

We gone so off topic...