all electric cars power problem elReg 2018-02-28

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/28/shift_to_electric_vehicles_wouldve_melted_royal_mails_substation_mps_told/

Emergent Tech

Full shift to electric vans would melt Royal Mail's London hub, MPs told That 49,000-vehicle fleet won't be going green any time soon

By Kat Hall 28 Feb 2018 at 09:25

Royal Mail considered shifting its fleet of small vans in London to electric vehicles but concluded that doing so would lead to a power meltdown at its central hub in the capital.

Speaking at a Parliamentary hearing about electric vehicles, Andrew Benfield, group director of transport at the non-profit Energy Saving Trust, revealed Royal Mail contemplated switching all its petrol guzzlers to an available electric alternative.

"Assuming they could get them from the manufacturer - which is another problem - they [worked out it] would melt the substation at Mount Pleasant in London where they are based, because there isn't the power available to charge the vehicles that they would need to run."

Last year Royal Mail began trials in London of nine electric vans with ranges of up to 100 miles, produced by Oxfordshire-based car maker Arrival. It had also ordered another batch of 100 electric vans from Peugeot.

The company's fleet is made up of roughly 49,000 vehicles.

Given the concerns around power capacity, The Register asked Royal Mail when it would in fact be feasible to shift its entire fleet, but did not receive a response.

During the hearing, MPs heard that a number of factors are preventing the uptake of electric vehicles, including lack of charging methods and not enough range of vehicles (only 80 are predicted to be on the market by 2025).

Other factors included the expense - Tesla's entry-level Model 3 vehicle is $35,000 (£28,500) and there's no second-hand market. All these issues mean the electric car won't become "a thing" for some time.

However, the government is keen to boost the sector, unveiling a £400m charging infrastructure fund in the last Budget, along with an extra £100m in plug-in-car grants, and £40m in charging R&D. ®

comments (selected)



192 Comments

Jellied Eel
Re: Hmmm

Nope, it's a huge problem that will result in even higher electricity bills.

Musk hasn't cracked solar roof tiles. He's sort of trying to sell them, but they're very expensive and not likely to produce much power. AFAIK there aren't any in the wild yet to produce real-world stats. Problem is..

Solar gives you maybe 1kW/m^2 of potential energy, ie solar irradiance at surface. An EV may have a 100kWh battery, so depending on charge rates (10-120kW), you'd need 10-120m^2 or more per vehicle to charge it. But solar panels aren't 100% efficient, so you'd need more. And you can't rely on a constant 1kW/m^2 because that changes as the Sun's angle changes, or seasons change, or it's cloudy, or pigeons/London grime covers the panels.

And of course at night, solar's usefulness drops to zero. Then Powerwalls or other displacement activities add cost. So if you're using solar to charge a Powerwall during the day, you can't be using that energy to charge a vehicle. Or do any other useful work. Assuming the Powerwall's fully charged, you might then try charging a vehicle from it. But a Powerwall has a capacity of 13.5kWh, and the Model S wants 100kWh.. And the cost per kWh for a Powerwall is around $400

Which is around 10x more than current wholesale electricity prices, and a lot more than diesel.

Then there's the challenge with power density, ie trying to charge a lot of vehicles at the same time, so say 100 @ 120kW for 'fast charging', which would mean a substation and hefty DC conversion facility installed in your car park. Fleet owners won't want to be paying those sorts of costs any time soon.

But this is nothing new. After all, the first EV's were around a hundred years ago, and the problems are well understood.. By engineers, if not politicians.



Jellied Eel
Re: Hmmm

As solar appears on more and more roofs with their own battery storage there will be less and less call on the major grid power generators (and also more turbines).

If you mean gas turbines, then you're right. Because solar's very expensive and unreliable, we need to spend even more money on backup power generators that can cut in when it's dark, or the wind's wrong. Like at the moment where we have very cold weather and not much wind.

the problem with nuclear is the time it takes to safely build one and the time and horrendous cost to decommission it at end of its life (and would you live on the land of a decommissioned nuclear power station?)

The problem with nuclear is we've had decades of loony Greens and ecofreaks telling us they're a very bad thing. So we must cover the UK with wind turbines and solar panels instead. But living with nuclear power is pretty safe. So the only new reactors that have gone operational in the UK are inside 100x11m tubes with 100 people living in and around them, ie our Astute submarines and their RR PWR-2s

And because there's so much fear of nuclear power, that translates into regulatory costs and delays whilst they object. And the renewables lobby don't want nuclear either, because modular 1GW reactors provide low carbon power 24x7x365 at a relatively predictable cost.. Which is much lower than the cost of wind, solar and especially if you factor in the need for stand-by generation, grid upgrades, storage etc etc.

The renewables lobby will of course promise solutions to the problems they've created, but all they do is add more cost, which all UK energy users will end up paying.

Jemma

The solutions to these problems are easy, most of them have already been listed. That isn't the point.

The point is there is NO sensible reason why we need to build a WHOLE infrastructure basically from scratch across practically every single country on the planet - at massive cost in both greenhouse gasses and money (what you think charging stations made of concrete are green - wake up and smell the co2 (concrete produces it as it sets and for YEARS later)) when we already have a system in place and all we have to do swap in a new production system (solar reactors) to a fully installed and operational distribution system to vehicles that are capable of using it with better performance variables across every possible field - including (when someone takes those TFSI petrols out the back and shoots them) pollution.

Make a standard for a transmission/engine interface plate system so I can go get a nice modern diesel and pop it into an Austin 1800 when the E series finally pops its clogs. Or better the 2200 110hp replaced by a 1600 HDI no waste, less pollution, better economy. Tatra did it for at least 40 years and may still be doing it - they'd upgrade cars that came for repairs by pulling old parts, popping them on the line and replacing the bits as if it was a new build - voila T2-603 from a T603 in about 20 components - instead of a whole car.

Make internals easily replaceable and then you can make bodyshells that last alot longer - because unlike the Trabant you can upgrade internals so much easier you can keep a bodyshell for 40 years that (for example) started with an 65hp 4 spd A-Series lump and now is happily running a 6 speed & Ecoboost with twice the power (or even a little Hyundai 3 banger diesel) , and still looks good.

Adjust body manufacture so like the old Triumph Herald the panels are bolt on and off - easier repairs and replacements for wear or for new styling updates. Include/exclude lighting units so upgrading from halogen to LED is easier or harder depending on skill. Give certain panels smart capabilities - bonnet edge sensors for ice, a Bluetooth transceiver for locating the vehicle, biometric locks (hell, a friend put a pin lock on his own car as a college project 20 years ago)

But no, it all has to be "electric and green and new"

I've some news

Batteries predate even the earliest ICE and actually set the first speed records. Not new.

RWD has been around since year dot (Tesla 3) and is less efficient and more dangerous than FWD. Not new.

Putting the displays out of the line of sight (Tesla) is so far beyond stupid even US car companies stopped that before the 1920s. Not new (but really dangerous)

Electric motors - again with predating ICE engines. Not new.

Getting electric from NG/lignite/Coal - CVN plants - not green. Not new either.

In short we have two options in the context of this discussion. Artificially manufactured petrol/diesel: or electric.

In one we have to make ONE single change in order for it to work. And it'll get its raw materials from the pollution already present.

In the other we have to basically build the whole lot out from scratch, retrofit existing systems and arguably retrain people. Causing more pollution, wasted resources, time and usually half assed solutions.

I'm going with ICE with hopefully some of the tech I've listed above, even my 93 year old grandmother could figure the sensible answer.

What part of this confuses you, I'd honestly like to know.