Electric cars.

[dad_of_jon]

Given that the national grid only provides around 20% of the UK's overall energy requirements and road transport is 30% of the UK's energy consumption then the transition to EV's is shifting a huge amount of energy demand from direct petrol and over to the grid. Without significant expansion of the national grid generating and distribution capacity we have no chance in supporting the move from gas and diesel/petrol over to electric options. We're talking many many billions of pounds of infrastructure investment over the next few decades to achieve this before we can have the EV charging network that we need.

We can chuck up wind turbines and solar panels quickly enough at great environmental cost (I know because every field around me is being covered with solar panels turning green fields into black glass - black glass as far as the eye can see), but for every Gw of wind and solar we need we need to match it with a GW of gas to generate the demanded energy requirements on days when its not windy or sunny. When people talk about cost of renewables they often ignore the cost of the back up needed.

Nuclear should be one of the sources for the times when the weather doesn't play ball. More grid storage as well. Still not much sign of compact modular nuclear reactors in the near future we're not doing so good when it comes to a lot of infrastructure thesedays

 

[tigertim]

There's no acid in Li ion batteries, the electrolyte is one of a range of flammable organics.

You can't let the truth get in the way of some good, old-fashioned, uninformed hand-wringing though.

The misinformation has just got so pervasive. I was reading a local Facebook group a couple of days ago where they're looking for trials of on-street chargers, and some Doris who clearly knows nothing of the facts of EVs was up in arms, talking about doing everything she can to prevent them from installing near her because the last thing she wants is one of those mobile explosions parked outside her house. Despite the fact that an EV is statistically 20 to 60 times less likely to catch fire than a fossil fuel counterpart that she already has parked up outside her house and the fact that thermal runaway of a battery is slow as it spreads from cell to cell, relative to 60 litres of petrol which tends to go up quite quickly.

She was probably also writing the comment on a device containing a Li-Ion battery which she puts on charge less than a metre from her head as she sleeps at night.

 

[dad_of_jon]

So burning gas - for heating or to generate electricity - is not as reliable as one might think, you need the gas before you can burn it. We currently import half our gas and some of our oil and those numbers are only going to go up. So the question for those advocating "business as usual" is - are you kidding yourself about the reliability and security of fossil fuels? How much needs to be spent on gas storage and warships to secure our gas supply? What happens if there's wars involving Russia and the Middle East at the same time? Oh, hold on...

Or is it a better plan to conserve our limited supplies of domestic gas for use only when the wind doesn't blow, but otherwise generate most of our electricity cheaply from domestic sources of renewables? This report from the government's advisors on this stuff suggest that by 2035 our mix in a typical year could look like 70% variable renewables, 20% low-carbon baseload (nuclear and eg biogas) and 10% storage, with just 2% of our electricity being generated from natural gas. I don't agree with all of it, and part of its purpose is to prod the government into doing things that aren't happening at the moment, but it's well worth a read if you're interested in this stuff.

I suppose in essence you want a reliable backup for renewables if you're not going nuclear or tidal instead of sourcing gas from shall we say less problematic parts of the world. The old gas storage towers in swansea is a tescos and a car park thesedays.

 

[JockyBrewer]

Nuclear should be one of the sources for the times when the weather doesn't play ball. More grid storage as well. Still not much sign of compact modular nuclear reactors in the near future we're not doing so good when it comes to a lot of infrastructure thesedays

If you've seen what has happened with NuScale in the US I think that small modular reactors might be a bit of a pipe dream.

 

[tigertim]

Talking of EV fires, I see that as soon as some car burst into flames at Bristol Airport last week, the rabid anti-EV brigade (especially one particular YouTuber) immediately jump on it to further their clicks.

1. If the authorities announce the car to be an EV, they'll be telling the truth
2. If the authorities don't announce the car type, it's because they'll be avoiding saying it's an EV
3. If the authorities say it's a petrol or diesel car then they'll be lying.

It's essentially impossible for a fossil car to catch fire by their logic. Interestingly, the fire service said the fire was quickly extinguished after damaging only a handful of cars. Aren't we always being told that EV batteries burn for days? So which is it, conspiracists? Make your minds up!

And the comments are full of "Isn't it funny that we didn't hear of airpark car park fires until the last few years since EVs have become more popular?". No! You didn't really hear about them! because they just happened and were dealt with - there wasn't the same conspiratorial social media clicks-driven "news" that keeps misinformation bubbling around for weeks for financial gain.

 

[dad_of_jon]

You can't let the truth get in the way of some good, old-fashioned, uninformed hand-wringing though.

The misinformation has just got so pervasive. I was reading a local Facebook group a couple of days ago where they're looking for trials of on-street chargers, and some Doris who clearly knows nothing of the facts of EVs was up in arms, talking about doing everything she can to prevent them from installing near her because the last thing she wants is one of those mobile explosions parked outside her house. Despite the fact that an EV is statistically 20 to 60 times less likely to catch fire than a fossil fuel counterpart that she already has parked up outside her house and the fact that thermal runaway of a battery is slow as it spreads from cell to cell, relative to 60 litres of petrol which tends to go up quite quickly.

She was probably also writing the comment on a device containing a Li-Ion battery which she puts on charge less than a metre from her head as she sleeps at night.

Ah the ford pinto, not a safe car in a crash. The renault zoe and jeep wrangler have a port inside the passenger compartment there you can stick a hose in to flood it with water to try and stop thermal runaway. OOOPS! - that same port can vent gasses into the passenger compartment which can lead to an impersonation of a Russian t-72 tank.

let me say now I'm not anti-ev's I'm anti-bad design. I recall that the mk2? Zafira had a spate of catching fire which was blamed on incorrect repairs to the heater according to the manufacturer. You can't make cars numpty/bad mechanic proof but kia never had a problem with their mpv that was around at the same time.

 

[dad_of_jon]

Talking of EV fires, I see that as soon as some car burst into flames at Bristol Airport last week, the rabid anti-EV brigade (especially one particular YouTuber) immediately jump on it to further their clicks.

1. If the authorities announce the car to be an EV, they'll be telling the truth
2. If the authorities don't announce the car type, it's because they'll be avoiding saying it's an EV
3. If the authorities say it's a petrol or diesel car then they'll be lying.

It's essentially impossible for a fossil car to catch fire by their logic. Interestingly, the fire service said the fire was quickly extinguished after damaging only a handful of cars. Aren't we always being told that EV batteries burn for days? So which is it, conspiracists? Make your minds up!

And the comments are full of "Isn't it funny that we didn't hear of airpark car park fires until the last few years since EVs have become more popular?". No! You didn't really hear about them! because they just happened and were dealt with - there wasn't the same conspiratorial social media clicks-driven "news" that keeps misinformation bubbling around for weeks for financial gain.

The logic is flawed. When something happens often it's not newsworthy. it's the exceptions you see in the news in the main.

In terms of risk management I recently parked in Heathrow long stay car park, which was not a multistory and parked next to the zebra crossing in the car park. There were some EV charging points, not sure why in a long stay but I kept clear of them so I only had one car close to me rather than one on either side and one behind.

Even If I was told I could park in the multi story right next to the terminal for the same price - forget it. The density of flammable material is higher in a multi story.

 

[tigertim]

let me say now I'm not anti-ev's

Absolutely; neither am I specifically pro-EV or anti-fossil; I just like to look at everything as scientifically as I can with as many facts as it's possible to authenticate and make my decisions from that. I also don't suggest that a number of the current crop of EVs haven't been rushed out with a plethora of issues - I've driven two annoyingly flawed EVs for many miles Although, interestingly, none of the flaws have anything to do with the concerns non-EV drivers repeatedly raise.

There are lessons to learn as with any new(ish) technology; I don't think any pro-EV people are saying that mistakes haven't been made; it's inevitable. But on the plus side, we already knew more about safety when building the first EVs than we did building the first fossil cars.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

It's essentially impossible for a fossil car to catch fire by their logic. Interestingly, the fire service said the fire was quickly extinguished after damaging only a handful of cars. Aren't we always being told that EV batteries burn for days? So which is it, conspiracists? Make your minds up!

And the comments are full of "Isn't it funny that we didn't hear of airpark car park fires until the last few years since EVs have become more popular?". No! You didn't really hear about them! because they just happened and were dealt with - there wasn't the same conspiratorial social media clicks-driven "news" that keeps misinformation bubbling around for weeks for financial gain.

Well said that man

 

[Chippy_Tea]

10 minutes of waffle and then we get the facts -

 

[tigertim]

10 minutes of waffle and then we get the facts -

I thought it was the wrong video at first because it looked like a torch and axe advertisement The most accurate information always comes from heavily sponsored content.

I'm not going to disagree with his facts; I assume he could reference some official sources if pressed, rather than just another guy on YouTube - I've not done any research of my own and it wouldn't be a significant enough risk to stop me from owning a Zoe. But assuming he is 100% correct, all it does is point out a flaw with the Zoe and Jeep rather than EVs in general. I don't think I was expecting the battrery pack to be exposed to the passenger compartment beneath the seats, if I'm honest, but the top of a fuel tank is often presented under the back seats because it's where the fuel pump and fuel level sender are inserted and accessed for maintenance.

Yes, it's not ideal and is, arguably, inexcusable; but we have to remember that whether we like electricity as a propulsion system or not, these products are all built to a price, like fossil vehicles, by the same companies who lied about emissions and safety issues and gave us anti-theft systems on luxury vehicles which can be disabled by a cretin with a device off eBay. Mistakes will be made, safety concerns will be realised and cover-ups will happen. But it's not specifically an EV issue. All vehicles, regardless of their propulsion, have a large amount of stored potential energy and when released in an unscheduled event, it's almost always dangerous and messy - just in subtly different ways.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

EV's in the headlines and not for fires for a change -

Elon Musk's Tesla recalls two million cars in US over Autopilot defect​

Tesla is recalling more than two million cars after the US regulator found its driver assistance system, Autopilot, was partly defective.
It follows a two-year investigation into crashes which occurred when the tech was in use.
The recall applies to almost every Tesla sold in the US since the Autopilot feature was launched in 2015.
Tesla, owned by billionaire Elon Musk, said it would send a software update "over the air" to fix the issue.
The update happens automatically and does not require a visit to a dealership or garage, but is still referred to by the US regulator as a recall.
The BBC has approached the UK Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency to ask how Tesla drivers in the UK will be affected.
Autopilot is meant to help with steering, acceleration and braking - but, despite the name, the car still requires driver input.
Tesla's software is supposed to make sure that drivers are paying attention and that the feature is only in use in appropriate conditions, such as driving on highways.
But the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said a two-year investigation of 956 Tesla crashes found that "the prominence and scope of the feature's controls may not be sufficient to prevent driver misuse".
"Automated technology holds great promise for improving safety but only when it is deployed responsibly", the NHTSA wrote, adding it would continue to monitor the software once it was updated.
Tesla did not respond to a request for comment.
According to the recall notice, the company did not concur with the agency's analysis but agreed to add new features to resolve the concerns, including additional checks on turning on the self-driving features.
The recall comes a week after a former Tesla employee told the BBC he believed the technology was not safe.
Lukasz Krupski, speaking after winning the Blueprint Prize which recognises whistleblowers, told the BBC: "I don't think the hardware is ready and the software is ready".
"It affects all of us because we are essentially experiments in public roads", he claimed.
Reacting to the news of the recall Mr Krupski told the BBC it was "a step in the right direction" but pointed out it was not just a problem in the US.
"The hardware is the same in all the Teslas in the US, China etc.", he said

Safety metrics​

On Tuesday, Tesla defended the safety of Autopilot in a post on X (formerly Twitter) in response to a Washington Post article.
"Safety metrics are emphatically stronger when Autopilot is engaged than when not engaged" it wrote, pointing to statistics that suggested there were fewer crashes when the system was used.
Jack Stilgoe, associate professor at University College London, who researches autonomous vehicles, said Tesla should have spent more time developing the system in the first place.
"The conventional way of ensuring safety is to check that a car is safe when it leaves the factory", he told the BBC.
But despite this being the second recall this year affecting Tesla vehicles, Susannah Streeter of investment company Hargreaves Lansdown, said her assessment was that it should not check the carmaker's momentum too greatly:
"This recall of 2 million cars on its own is not likely to seriously quash enthusiasm. The share price has dropped back slightly, but it doesn't look like it'll be hit by a bad bout of skidding.
"After all, recalls in the car industry are far from unusual and the group also has the financial ability to invest in fixes", she added.
Tesla has heavily promoted the technology in its cars and says remaining at the cutting edge of self-driving is key to its future growth.
Goldman Sachs analysts estimated this month that Tesla's most advanced Autopilot offering, full self driving, could end up generating more than $50bn a year in revenue by 2030, up from $1bn-$3bn presently.
In the US, the full-self driving package costs $12,000, or a $199 monthly subscription fee.
"Autonomy is really where it's at," Mr Musk told investors this summer.

Additional alerts​

Critics have said Tesla has misled customers about its software's capabilities, contributing to risks.
The carmaker is facing other government investigations, as well as a number of lawsuits in the US in relation to crashes involving the software.
But a jury in one of the first cases to go to trial found that Tesla's autopilot technology was not to blame.
The new controls that Tesla has agreed to do should help limit drivers from using Autopilot unsafely, said Professor Missy Cummings, director of the Autonomy and Robotics Center at George Mason University.
But she added that there was "an opportunity missed" for regulators to require Tesla to make Autopilot features unavailable in places where it is not supposed to be used.
The recall centres on a part of Autopilot called Autosteer.
Autosteer helps keep a car in the correct lane in conjunction with "traffic-aware cruise control" which matches the speed of the car to that of the surrounding traffic.
The driver is expected to have their hands on wheel and be ready to take over from the assistive system when required.
When Autosteer is on, systems in the car monitor that the driver is paying attention. If it detects the driver isn't there are warning alerts. There are also alerts if the driver tries to use Autosteer in inappropriate circumstances.
According to the NHTSA recall report, the "over the air update" will include additional alerts and monitoring "to encourage the driver to adhere to

BBC News

 

[Nicks90]

So not really a recall, just tweaking what's already there.
But whilst I believe the majority of people are sensible, you can't do everything to protect the stupid and stupid people are generous when operating heavy machinery

I'm on the Tesla model Y owners group and one woman was raging...proper raging...that she nearly had a crash and it was the Tesla's fault.
She put on cruise control on a local road and was dismayed that she nearly crashed when she came to a corner at 60mph. 'Why didn't the car slow down when it was coming to a bend?' 'why didn't it read the map and know you can't take that bend at 60?'
Ffs....

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I never knew the screen in the dash was so big (i have never looked in one) is that not a bit of a distraction at night (i know you can dim it but its still huge)

 

[Rodcx500z]

I never knew the screen in the dash was so big (i have never looked in one) is that not a bit of a distraction at night (i know you can dim it but its still huge)



View attachment 93226

If you dim it how can see it or does it just dim enough so you can see it, even so it is a bit ott

 

[Chippy_Tea]

My car has an auto dim which you can set to your own preference the screen is only 8 inch but I tend to switch it off if I am not using it for anything as it's still a bit in your face the Tesla one is massive in comparison

 

[dad_of_jon]

10 minutes of waffle and then we get the facts -

that is the nature of you tube, however the roof of the jeep doing a t-72 is in the first 10 seconds. He pads out the facts in my view because as well as a qualified mechanical engineer he is a journalist. I suspect he is padding facts out to allow the lesser qualified to digest them. It also gets more him more YT revenue for longer videos. There is obviously a lot of padding going on, that suits my brain because hey I'm less sharp than I used to be.
Having done a lot of risk management myself he knows his beans on that. I have read up on a lot of the science presented by him trust him more than other lightweight presentation style channels out there.

He does bring an overly male-centric tone to his videos and his musings on 'tiffany' or the boss's secretary are wearing. If his target audience are rednecks (boguns) I'm not sure they'd be watching YT videos.

 

[Benfleet Brewery]

So not really a recall, just tweaking what's already there.
But whilst I believe the majority of people are sensible, you can't do everything to protect the stupid and stupid people are generous when operating heavy machinery

I'm on the Tesla model Y owners group and one woman was raging...proper raging...that she nearly had a crash and it was the Tesla's fault.
She put on cruise control on a local road and was dismayed that she nearly crashed when she came to a corner at 60mph. 'Why didn't the car slow down when it was coming to a bend?' 'why didn't it read the map and know you can't take that bend at 60?'
Ffs....

Exactly this.

Forget the headline. The issue is that the autopilot doesn’t do enough to account for stupid people. And, the cars weren’t recalled at all. The upgrade comes with an over the air update.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I suppose in essence you want a reliable backup for renewables if you're not going nuclear or tidal

But you need reliable backup for nuclear or tidal as well - they do not run 100% of the time. Even Sizewell B, our most modern nuclear station has operated less than 82% of the time since 2010, and the older British ones can be less than 75%; in 2022 the French nuclear fleet averaged 54%, at one point it was less than 35%, So if nuclear can be less "reliable" than an offshore windfarm, should you not demand backup for nuclear?
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-07-05/192696/
Some of that is things breaking, some of it is planned maintenance and refuelling, but even the scheduled outages can happen at inconvenient times like the middle of winter :
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/23321968.sizewell-b-thousands-workers-arrive-major-outage/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/09/snowstorms-high-winds-forecast-uk-travel-disruption
And scheduled maintenance of nuclear plants can end up overrunning by several months - how unreliable!
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-nuclear-edf-idUKKBN2CE0O6/
Nuclear is not free of the supply question either - the biggest suppliers of uranium to Europe are Kazakhstan and Niger, both of which saw coups in the last two years, whilst Eastern Europe remains dependent on Russia for a lot of their nuclear supply chain which is why it's not being sanctioned.

I'm not trying particularly to ding nuclear for being unreliable, it is what it is, it's just that nuclear seems to have mythical levels of availability in the eyes of many people. The biggest problems with nuclear are just how long it takes to get built and how much it costs - Hinckley Point will cost over £10bn/GW, whereas even allowing for less availability you could generate the same amount of electricity from a Dogger Bank-style offshore windfarm for less than £5bn. Which then gives you £5bn to spend on storage.

Tidal is predictable but not "reliable" - it produces in a sine curve, at the top and bottom of the tide it produces nothing. You can space tidal units 6 hours apart on the tide to match the two sine curves but that doesn't really work in practice as you get hotspots like Orkney which has a resource of 10GW's of tidal, but 6 hours either side don't. So tidal needs storage of some kind. But again the problem with tidal is cost - in the latest auction round tidal was going for £198/MWh compared to £47/MWh for solar, £52/MWh for onshore wind and £119/MWh for geothermal. They screwed up the process for offshore wind, but are planning to bump up the ceiling next time from £44/MWh to £73/MWh. So you can see tidal just isn't there yet on cost.

 

[MattH1973]

But you need reliable backup for nuclear or tidal as well - they do not run 100% of the time. Even Sizewell B, our most modern nuclear station has operated less than 82% of the time since 2010, and the older British ones can be less than 75%; in 2022 the French nuclear fleet averaged 54%, at one point it was less than 35%, So if nuclear can be less "reliable" than an offshore windfarm, should you not demand backup for nuclear?
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-07-05/192696/
Some of that is things breaking, some of it is planned maintenance and refuelling, but even the scheduled outages can happen at inconvenient times like the middle of winter :
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/23321968.sizewell-b-thousands-workers-arrive-major-outage/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/09/snowstorms-high-winds-forecast-uk-travel-disruption
And scheduled maintenance of nuclear plants can end up overrunning by several months - how unreliable!
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-nuclear-edf-idUKKBN2CE0O6/
Nuclear is not free of the supply question either - the biggest suppliers of uranium to Europe are Kazakhstan and Niger, both of which saw coups in the last two years, whilst Eastern Europe remains dependent on Russia for a lot of their nuclear supply chain which is why it's not being sanctioned.

I'm not trying particularly to ding nuclear for being unreliable, it is what it is, it's just that nuclear seems to have mythical levels of availability in the eyes of many people. The biggest problems with nuclear are just how long it takes to get built and how much it costs - Hinckley Point will cost over £10bn/GW, whereas even allowing for less availability you could generate the same amount of electricity from a Dogger Bank-style offshore windfarm for less than £5bn. Which then gives you £5bn to spend on storage.

Tidal is predictable but not "reliable" - it produces in a sine curve, at the top and bottom of the tide it produces nothing. You can space tidal units 6 hours apart on the tide to match the two sine curves but that doesn't really work in practice as you get hotspots like Orkney which has a resource of 10GW's of tidal, but 6 hours either side don't. So tidal needs storage of some kind. But again the problem with tidal is cost - in the latest auction round tidal was going for £198/MWh compared to £47/MWh for solar, £52/MWh for onshore wind and £119/MWh for geothermal. They screwed up the process for offshore wind, but are planning to bump up the ceiling next time from £44/MWh to £73/MWh. So you can see tidal just isn't there yet on cost.

good points- nothing is perfect and the answer is surely a blend....

But i think the difference is this:
- with renewables we *know* they will be unavailable for significant periods, and we also *know* that we dont know always when those will be, therefore a more predictable backup is needed
- nuclear I think is more predictable than renewables, as it can be taken down for maintenance at times when we are confident that other options exist. But you rightly point out the risk of unplanned outages - and this exists with any infrastructure - critical or not. It's then a question of risk appetite as to how many backups you have.
- Personally, I would keep a few coal or gas fired power-stations as a backup. But then that's because I think maintaining our way of life is more important than a puritanical insistence on net zero. We should be kinder to the environment of course, but that needs to be balanced against other objectives - to illustrate with an extreme example - should a hospital let babies on incubators die if the only way to power those incubators was a diesel generator ? That's how absurd the extreme net zero lobby are.