No for the car. Just keep it plugged in
Sorry, it was a joke reply to the anti matter battery. Forget it please.
No for the car. Just keep it plugged in
Ok.
Where madder meets anti-madder.Zynerji wrote: ↑Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:02 pmMore like the electrified bumber cars at your nearest amusement park!!
http://bestonrides.com/uploadfile/2015/ ... 830426.jpg
Well they worked well, so there is something to think about.
Great post! My estimates using the total number of cars and assuming they would use 5 batteries charges per week is much worse than getting the estimates for total distance travelled (even tho I hate that you converted it to miles )henry wrote: ↑Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:10 pmOn the subject of electricity generating capacity.
Here in the U.K. we use cars and vans to do around 700 billion kilometres/year. That’s 437 billion miles per year or 109 billion/quarter. At 300 Wh per mile that’s 33 terrawatt hours. U.K. generation 2018Q1 was 98 terrawatt hours, that’s if every journey was done by EV. So a 30% increase in capacity is the maximum needed. Given that there is probably spare capacity at night when a lot of charging would be done the extra capacity doesn’t look that daunting.
Also if the vehicles were hooked up at all times when they’re not doing journeys there would be a large reservoir to smooth out renewables. Renewables were 30% of the supply noted above. There are around 36 million cars and vans, (32 and 4). If they averaged 100 kWh batteries that’s 3.6 TWh potential storage.
Big Mangalhit wrote: ↑Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:46 amGreat post! My estimates using the total number of cars and assuming they would use 5 batteries charges per week is much worse than getting the estimates for total distance travelled (even tho I hate that you converted it to miles )henry wrote: ↑Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:10 pmOn the subject of electricity generating capacity.
Here in the U.K. we use cars and vans to do around 700 billion kilometres/year. That’s 437 billion miles per year or 109 billion/quarter. At 300 Wh per mile that’s 33 terrawatt hours. U.K. generation 2018Q1 was 98 terrawatt hours, that’s if every journey was done by EV. So a 30% increase in capacity is the maximum needed. Given that there is probably spare capacity at night when a lot of charging would be done the extra capacity doesn’t look that daunting.
Also if the vehicles were hooked up at all times when they’re not doing journeys there would be a large reservoir to smooth out renewables. Renewables were 30% of the supply noted above. There are around 36 million cars and vans, (32 and 4). If they averaged 100 kWh batteries that’s 3.6 TWh potential storage.
But still more than half the electricity in the UK comes from fossil fuels. If you increase the total by 33% it probably means increasing the fossil fuel burning which makes it a moot point.
If it was possible to increasing the production of "green electricity" in 33 TWh/quarter you still don't need EV cause that could just go to lower the production of fossil fuel electricity thus lowering carbon footprint by a lot without the need to completely refurbish our fleet of vehicles that already exist.
From your post I understand you think nobody cares about decarbonisation in heating. No idea in UK, but in Spain that´s not true at all, government is subsidizing boilers to replace old oil boilers for many years now.Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:42 ambut (in the UK anyway) we are committed to reducing our carbon footprint by 80%
about 40% of our carbon was produced by all terrestrial transport and all electricity generation
so we have to decarbonise this 40 %
and then decarbonise the other 60%, which is heating (residential, workspace, and production)
the electricity is the lowest-hanging fruit
but this has given people and government the convenient idea that electricity is the problem for decarbonisation
the problem is all energy not just electrical energy