I've given up on LPG - the future is Electric.

[Amp34]

The problem with wind isn't really cost. Install cost is in the same ballpark as nuclear, but with significantly lower ongoing costs. The difficulty is delivering wind power on demand. Nuclear, Coal and Gas can be cycled to meet grid demand. Wind just happens. Same goes for Solar; it's either a sunny day and you get a good amount of electricity, or it isn't, and production is negligible.

Ultimately, it's difficult to meet the country's energy needs with renewables as we need to be able to store days worth of energy just in case it's cloudy and dry with no wind. Combining renewables with nuclear is far more sensible. It's still 'green', but you've got more flexibility in the grid, don't need crazy amounts of battery banks, and you can guarantee a minimum amount of energy will always be available even if the sun stops shining, the rain stops falling, and the wind stops blowing for an extended time.

I await the political fallout when they install 7GWs of onshore wind, instead of a single 3GW of nuclear power station...

Interesting to note the cost of the solar though. That's good to hear. As you say though we need a multi pronged approach to power generation, unclear quite possibly being one of them.

Edit: actually I assume those costs do t take into account the cost of storage, which was the big killer in my example in the other thread. If you want to store that renewable energy then it stated so get prohibitive. - part of that issue would be solved by having base loads with other tech and then a mix of renewables, including more consistent systems like tidal and current based generation (and to a lesser extent micro hydro.

In a way the days of huge projects are dead. Small local projects need to be more prevelant. There's less of a transportation issue and a smaller environmental impact in many ways - rather than a field of solar, install solar on roofs instead (as an example). Rather than large dams (which have in the past invariably cost more and produced less than anticipated, while causing more environmental damage), have micro hydro - small plants located round the country on small rivers, using a small amount of the total water flow. There's no point in having renewables if they damage the environment anyway. Climate change isn't the only factor we need to be considering.

 

[Amp34]

What about tidal, I'd of thought that would be more consistent (yes the Swansea thing on the news reminded me ).

The huge scale lagoons are just hugely environmentally damaging, and IMO will end up as white elephants like large scale hydro invariably do. Smaller tidal projects will hopefully take off though.

 

[joeyjojo]

I asked this in the thread in SC but didn't get a reply to glaucus, but are renewables actually cheaper than nuclear t the moment?

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=30353250&postcount=68

The projected cost for Hinkley C is cheaper than the equivalent offshore wind for example. There is really little untapped hydro left in the UK, and onshore wind at that scale would be politically infeasable, so that basically leaves solar, which TBH I don't know the cost for that sort of scale.

I'm certainly not against renewables, but arguing that they are cheaper doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. I'm happy to be proved wrong with some accurate figures though.

I can't answer that with authority, but this report from the WEC has a lovely chart that might help (Fig 3)

https://www.worldenergy.org/wp-cont...J1143_CostofTECHNOLOGIES_021013_WEB_Final.pdf

Chart shows levelised costs. Taking the central estimates:
Nuclear looks to be around the 100 USD/MWh mark.
Geothermal, onshore wind, and hydro are the same or cheaper (50-100). Indeed, same or cheaper than coal!
Photovoltaic are more expensive (125 ish).
Offshore wind is more expensive still (220 ish?)
Tidal is very expensive (450).

It's an interesting report actually. It's a few years old and they seem to be suggesting offshore wind will get (has got?) cheaper now that China and South Korea are building more.

Also their solar numbers are out of date as that keeps getting cheaper and cheaper. Just look at Fig 6, that kept going down AFAIK. Even in 2013 Solar was about the same cost as Nuclear in China and India (Fig 7).

 

[Nasher]

The huge scale lagoons are just hugely environmentally damaging, and IMO will end up as white elephants like large scale hydro invariably do. Smaller tidal projects will hopefully take off though.

Not all designs need huge lagoons. But they aren't willing to pay for alternatives.

 

[Randomface74]

I'll be getting an EV for my next car - once I've finished driving the Astra into the ground and there's a bit more choice.

I test drove a Leaf and it's amazing how smooth and quiet the driving experience is, much less stressful, which is exactly what I want before/after work.

I will charge it at home on my drive and it will cost about 1/4 what I currently spend on petrol. It also won't require all the maintenance associated with a combustion engine. And VED will be £0.

I've been using the Speak EV forums to get experience from people who already have electric cars. There's a huge amount of mis-information in this thread. If most of your driving is a short commute, seek out the truth about EVs, they probably would be good for you. If you drive further, maybe not yet.

 

[Amp34]

I can't answer that with authority, but this report from the WEC has a lovely chart that might help (Fig 3)

https://www.worldenergy.org/wp-cont...J1143_CostofTECHNOLOGIES_021013_WEB_Final.pdf

Chart shows levelised costs. Taking the central estimates:
Nuclear looks to be around the 100 USD/MWh mark.
Geothermal, onshore wind, and hydro are the same or cheaper (50-100). Indeed, same or cheaper than coal!
Photovoltaic are more expensive (125 ish).
Offshore wind is more expensive still (220 ish?)
Tidal is very expensive (450).

It's an interesting report actually. It's a few years old and they seem to be suggesting offshore wind will get (has got?) cheaper now that China and South Korea are building more.

Also their solar numbers are out of date as that keeps getting cheaper and cheaper. Just look at Fig 6, that kept going down AFAIK. Even in 2013 Solar was about the same cost as Nuclear in China and India (Fig 7).

Yeah, I think those numbers are a little off, but broadly accurate. As you say solar is probably cheaper now, so also is offshore wind according to this - http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1380738/global-costs-analysis-year-offshore-wind-costs-fell, which says $194 per MWh. As I said in my edit above I forgot I was including storage in the comparison in the other thread, the actual generating cost isn't much different.

It's interesting to see though that nuclear in South Korea is around a quarter of the cost of Hinkley, for whatever reason!

Coal is dead, no matter what Trump likes to think. It'll be interesting to see if/when the main renewables become cheaper than gas. The big issue is just making sure other environmental factors are taken into account when considering alternatives!

Not all designs need huge lagoons. But they aren't willing to pay for alternatives.

That, unfortunately, is the problem. There are plenty of viable alternatives, it's just cost that is the issue. There's also probably a little of the "vanity project" syndrome in there as well.

 

[Orionaut]

Possible silly question.

But, How do EV's keep De-frosted, De-Misted and internally warm under current weather conditions?

 

[Hawk Tuah]

Possible silly question.

But, How do EV's keep De-frosted, De-Misted and internally warm under current weather conditions?

Heating and AC, same as other cars. In fact it's quicker than an ICE as you dont have to wait for the engine to warm up. However the heating uses energy. Hence why range is worse in cold weather.

 

[McPhee]

I await the political fallout when they install 7GWs of onshore wind, instead of a single 3GW of nuclear power station...

Interesting to note the cost of the solar though. That's good to hear. As you say though we need a multi pronged approach to power generation, unclear quite possibly being one of them.

Edit: actually I assume those costs do t take into account the cost of storage, which was the big killer in my example in the other thread. If you want to store that renewable energy then it stated so get prohibitive. - part of that issue would be solved by having base loads with other tech and then a mix of renewables, including more consistent systems like tidal and current based generation (and to a lesser extent micro hydro.

In a way the days of huge projects are dead. Small local projects need to be more prevelant. There's less of a transportation issue and a smaller environmental impact in many ways - rather than a field of solar, install solar on roofs instead (as an example). Rather than large dams (which have in the past invariably cost more and produced less than anticipated, while causing more environmental damage), have micro hydro - small plants located round the country on small rivers, using a small amount of the total water flow. There's no point in having renewables if they damage the environment anyway. Climate change isn't the only factor we need to be considering.

We don't rely on energy storage in the UK, and we have no current plans to become reliant upon it. National Grid are currently testing the effectiveness of battery banks, while considering other solutions (like distributed storage).

As such, we don't need to include storage in assessments of the cost of renewables. It isn't a necessity; we can assume a baseline and ensure other sources can scale on demand. But it might be that storage does pay; that the value of the energy we are wasting during periods of low demand is worth more than the costs of storing that energy. It's a hot topic in the industry right now.

 

[Amp34]

I agree, it shouldn't be necessary is we have a good broad range of renewables and base load, just some people believe that it will be important. If it does become important then the cost of renewables will increase significantly and ecomoic arguments may change.

 

[McPhee]

Possible silly question.

But, How do EV's keep De-frosted, De-Misted and internally warm under current weather conditions?

They use a heat pump powered by the battery.

Heating and AC, same as other cars. In fact it's quicker than an ICE as you dont have to wait for the engine to warm up. However the heating uses energy. Hence why range is worse in cold weather.

Range is worse in cold weather because the battery holds less charge when it's cold. Turn AC off in winter and range doesn't improve by much; the actual power used by the AC system is fairly negligible in the context of the size of these batteries. Many models now have AC for the battery as it has an overall positive effect on range.

If it was the AC system dropping range by a third then you'd expect a similar drop during hot weather, as the AC system will be working just as hard (of not harder) to keep the cabin cool. The real impact is <5 miles on my 22kWh Zoe.

 

[Del Lardo]

Del Lardo,

How do you rate the Zoe?

My wife wants one!

As a city car I think it's brilliant. Easy and fun to drive, slightly higher driving position so visibility is good, decent boot & interior space and lots of toys including automatic climate, cruise, automatic central locking, touchscreen satnav.

Best thing is that at the moment you can set the car to preheat for a certain time so whilst the neighbours are deicing their car and waiting for the engine to get warm enough to heat the interior, my wife walks out to a deiced car thats 22c inside

Only real negative is the interior which is a bit low rent compared to other superminis as the plastics feel very cheap. The things you touch on a regular basis (steering wheel, door handles, gear stick) all feel fine though.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

They use a heat pump powered by the battery.



Range is worse in cold weather because the battery holds less charge when it's cold. Turn AC off in winter and range doesn't improve by much; the actual power used by the AC system is fairly negligible in the context of the size of these batteries. Many models now have AC for the battery as it has an overall positive effect on range.

If it was the AC system dropping range by a third then you'd expect a similar drop during hot weather, as the AC system will be working just as hard (of not harder) to keep the cabin cool. The real impact is <5 miles on my 22kWh Zoe.

My app says <5 miles, however in car it usually says ~8 miles on a full charge.

Either way, it comes from battery power.

 

[Jonnycoupe]

Not all cars have heat pumps either, cheaper is a typical resistive heater which is what the leaf launched with. Uses about 3 times the power to provide similar cabin heat compared to a heat pump.

Can be up to 4.5kW but obviously doesn't run at full load for long.

 

[Joe T]

This is true but currently a pure electric is just too much of a compromise. It would be absolutely ideal for my daily commute which I could conduct entirely on battery power even on a plug-in hybrid let alone a proper electric car, but my leisure usage mostly involves quite long road trips which is where the EV issue falls down to me.

Late last year for example we did about 2500 miles up to and around the Far North of Scotland - this would have been a nuisance in a pure EV.

I think EV's work best really as part of a two-car solution - EV for local, ICE for longer trips. And I think this is where the market is mostly focused hence most EV's being smaller city cars rather than larger executive cars, the Tesla being pretty much the only exception.

I think a modest increase in range to say 300 miles (which is coming), coupled with destination chargers (which are being rolled out) should make the long road trips possible.

Also, you could rent a long range car for the 2-3 times a year you need one.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Renting - which I do use on occasion for convenience (Usually one-way to airports) - can be a pain as rental firms seem to treat and price half decent cars like Ferrari's. It can often be £100 a day for a 5 Series, which is fairly ridiculous

A 300 mile range though would go a long way towards making it viable if its a reliable 300 mile range. I'd have no issues with an hour or so break half way through a drive to somewhere like Scotland. It's probably no more than I'd usually have a break for anyway. The cost needs to come down a lot too - you can buy a year old 5 Series diesel for £25k. How much is a year old EV of similar comfort and quality? The Tesla is twice that - but of course offers ludicrous levels of performance so isn't comparable, but I do wonder how many people buying Teslas actually need or want 0-60 in 3.8 seconds in a 4 seater executive car. If it was half the price and half the performance....

I think what will really help is when they stop making EV's look like bizarre concept cars. Even the Tesla Model S looks like something from an early 2000's motor show with it's excessive screen in the dash, weird looks and otherwise spartan cabin.

Just imagine Tesla tech inside a regular Mercedes E Class body. Now THAT would be an awesome EV.

 

[Joe T]

Dont forget to build in the reduced running costs (fuel and maintenance) into the cost equation. The Chevy Bolt (Opel Ampera-e) and Tesla Model 3 should start making a lot of sense for a lot of people.

On a separate note, this Lucid Air concept might have potential.

 

[Joe T]

Oh, and yes the 0-60 wars in EVs is getting a bit silly. While it's fun to accelerate fast it's really not necessary to do so at the rates some of the cars can for most people.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I have no real interest in a large saloon thats any faster than my current one, which already seems quite hilarious at 5.8 seconds for a 3 litre diesel - so from a personal perspective I'd rather focus was on range rather than ballistic missile level performance.

 

[Jez]

One thing to note (which is a huge bonus with electric tech over ICE) is that you barely sacrifice efficiency when installing more capable motors. The Model S P90DL for example is barely more "thirsty" than the base models. In that sense it's pretty cool that you really can have it all.