Charging woes...

[redneck]

Originally Posted by JSH

It isn't base load - it is peak load

The 18GW number comes from a report from the National Grid. The range was 6 to 18 GW if 100% of cars go electric by 2050. 6GW if charging is well managed and most charging is done off-peak and 18GW if charging is completely unmanaged. With the recent statement that future chargers will have off-peak charging programmed as the default it seems the UK is choosing the well managed option.

Where does the extra electricity come from? Maybe the UK just continues their current trend. UK energy consumption has been steadily falling since the mid-00's. By continuing to make other sectors of their economy more efficient they steady create excess capacity that can be used to charge EVs.

Or maybe nothing gets more efficient and we take the middle cause of 12 GW which is 20% of the current 60 GW. The UK would need to add 20% peak capacity over 28 years. That seems doable.



https://assets.publishing.service.go...lectricity.pdf

It isn't base load - it is peak load

Agreed.

The 18 GW estimate however is just a guess. In reality it could be more.

I also doubt trucking and delivery vehicles are included in that number.

More than likely not.

The chart you posted is interesting. If I recall correctly. They started outsourcing more and more to Asia and India around that time.

Commercial

Online sales reduce the need for brick and mortar stores and Outsourcing business personnel reduces the need for office buildings.


Residential

Reduced or lost commercial and industrial jobs cause people to tighten the purse strings and conserve. Led lighting and more efficient appliances also helped to reduce.


Industrial

A reduction in electric use would seem obvious to see when one doesn’t produce as many products as in the past.


Well anyway, that’s what I see.


Then you need to add everything else to the electrical load that would be normally provided by other means of energy.

A near total electric society will consume more power than less.


In my opinion...




>

.

[freebeard]

The sellers and buyers would rotate around the planet once every 24 hours.

[redneck]

.

(*couch*graphene*cough*)

Gee, I hope you’re not getting the wuflu...

But if you do and you get the jab...

You get a dose of graphene oxide along with it for free...


You know...

In case they decide to plug you in...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IojqOMWTgv8

😈


>

.

[JSH]

No need to guess - go to the source (linked below) Is trucking and delivery included?

Lorries are integral to the transport of goods nationally and internationally. Currently, they run on petrol or diesel, emitting around 17% of emissions from the transport sector in 2019. There is a high degree of uncertainty surrounding the speed of decarbonisation for this sub-sector and our scenarios show various mixes of hydrogen and electricity.

We are expecting new legislation to ensure that lorries are fully decarbonised by 2050. This could be in the form of ICE bans or caps on carbon emissions. The National Infrastructure Commission has previously suggested that a 2040 diesel new sales ban for HGVs would be appropriate.

I've not read it all (it is 167 pages for just the presentation) but you can quickly see that the Daily Mail's article is disingenuous and misleading. Looking at the actual report you can see the national grid is not planning for EVs to massively increase peak demand. In fact they are planning for the opposite and for EVs to act as grid storage that work to buffer peak demand through V2G technology. By 2050 they predict that EVs will be feeding 6GW of electricity back into the grid during peak demand events.




But of course the Daily Mail is a conservative tabloid that thrives on shocking headlines and sensationalism. It isn't where one would go for serious analysis of energy policy.

The source document is here:
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/docu...99871/download

[Isaac Zachary]

We'll charge and discharge that bridge when we get there.

[redpoint5]

I've been saying that EVs are more likely to be a net benefit to the grid rather than a liability. I dislike that headline (and most any headline). Didn't realize Daily Mail was right as I never read it, not that political bias has anything to do with the accuracy of the content. All "news" sensationalizes because delivering the facts is boring and can't compete with cat videos and other super compelling distractions.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

We'll charge and discharge that bridge when we get there.

Yes and no. Electrical grid updates take years to get permitted and approved so electrical providers have to predict future demand trends and plan ahead.

Just like building cars. If a company wants to sell an EV in 2030 they need to kick off that project about 2025.

[freebeard]

redneck -- I was mis-quoting John Belushi

When the doctor said natural immunity fades, I asked if I could get the Mumps again and he said yes.

The Daily Fail is notorious, but like the National Inquirer back in the day, they break stories others won't touch.

[oil pan 4]

Hopefully they don't ban dumb 6.6kw chargers and dumb breakered outlets.

Bottom line is California yet again shows us all how not to run a state, roll out EV adoption, manage a power grid, forestry, ect.

[redpoint5]

Wait, I thought this was UK policy. Daily Mail is a UK media outlet, right (based on the domain).