Death knell for petrol and diesel cars?

Johnboy1951

cnocbui wrote: »

.......

Most of the houses and accommodation that will ever exist in this country, already exist. Useless blather about passive houses and new houses is just as much of a eco-ego stroking sop as thinking the grid stores energy.

I wonder where the extra million persons expected to inhabit this country in the coming years are to live, if this is the case?

We don't seem to have sufficient accommodation for the present number.

knipex

GreeBo wrote: »

The reality *today* isn't so nicely packaged, but we are talking about in 10 years time.

Go back ten years and look how tech in *every* arena has advanced and then try to tell me that the same wont happen around energy production and storage.

To generate the quantities of storage you are talking about you are talking about a quantum leap in storage technology to be developed and implemented all within 10 years..

unkel wrote: »

Indeed. But that can be done with tech that's 100 years old (pump up water with solar / wind, let the water fall when there's no sun or wind), we already have a tiny one of these (Turlough Hill that's been running for the guts of 50 years now)

Turlough Hill is a pumped storage facility that was designed and built to provide peaking for a proposed nuclear plant that never happened. Its site was chosen due to the existence of an existing lake and the relative simplicity of adding the second lake.

The site was unique and has a capacity of 292MW for 4.5 hours max and takes 6 hours to refill/

A second potential site has been tentatively identified in the Silvermines utilising the old flooded opencast mine as the lower lake which would have 360MW output capacity but my understanding is that the max generation duration would be less than Turlough.

Estimated cost has not been disclosed except to mention leveraging a €650 million investment. So it will be over a billion..


No other potential sites have been identified in Ireland

cnocbui

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I wonder where the extra million persons expected to inhabit this country in the coming years are to live, if this is the case?

We don't seem to have sufficient accommodation for the present number.

Well if you believe that, then the bigger question would be who's going to do the building, given all the tradespeople left when the Celtic Tiger became road kill to a speeding US bank?

I'll do my bit for the cause by freeing up capacity for 5 people.

GreeBo

knipex wrote: »

To generate the quantities of storage you are talking about you are talking about a quantum leap in storage technology to be developed and implemented all within 10 years..





Turlough Hill is a pumped storage facility that was designed and built to provide peaking for a proposed nuclear plant that never happened. Its site was chosen due to the existence of an existing lake and the relative simplicity of adding the second lake.

The site was unique and has a capacity of 292MW for 4.5 hours max and takes 6 hours to refill/

A second potential site has been tentatively identified in the Silvermines utilising the old flooded opencast mine as the lower lake which would have 360MW output capacity but my understanding is that the max generation duration would be less than Turlough.

Estimated cost has not been disclosed except to mention leveraging a €650 million investment. So it will be over a billion..


No other potential sites have been identified in Ireland

What capacity needs are you referring to?
I mentioned heat pumps powered by renewable sources.

NHE/Spirit of Ireland?
Around 2005, materials scientist Igor Shvets of Trinity College Dublin realized that nature had provided the coast of western Ireland with exactly the right conditions to combine large-scale wind energy and pumped hydro energy storage. Ireland’s wind is abundant and strong enough, particularly in the west, to supply as much energy as half of Iraq’s annual oil production. As for storing that energy, some 60 large, sparsely populated, glacial valleys lined with impermeable schist and basalt dotted 600 kilometers of the western Irish coast, and these valleys sit just above a steep drop-off to the ocean


Who cares if it costs a billion or more?
That's what capital infrastructure projects are.
Ardnacrusha cost over 20% of the state's budget at the time...they still went ahead because it made sense.

knipex

GreeBo wrote: »

What capacity needs are you referring to?
I mentioned heat pumps powered by renewable sources.

NHE/Spirit of Ireland?
Around 2005, materials scientist Igor Shvets of Trinity College Dublin realized that nature had provided the coast of western Ireland with exactly the right conditions to combine large-scale wind energy and pumped hydro energy storage. Ireland’s wind is abundant and strong enough, particularly in the west, to supply as much energy as half of Iraq’s annual oil production. As for storing that energy, some 60 large, sparsely populated, glacial valleys lined with impermeable schist and basalt dotted 600 kilometers of the western Irish coast, and these valleys sit just above a steep drop-off to the ocean


Who cares if it costs a billion or more?
That's what capital infrastructure projects are.
Ardnacrusha cost over 20% of the state's budget at the time...they still went ahead because it made sense.

Its been around since 2005 and been turned down by every single organisation who looked at it, because its a fantasy. its nonsense. Its an environmental disaster waiting to happen (pumping salt water inland) and an engineering fantasy. Even in today's world of subsidized renewable, pension funds fighting over green investments no one would touch it with the proverbial 10 foot pole..

To generate enough wind to power Ireland would require covering half the country in wind farms and an acceptance of the fact that they state will have brown outs and from time to time blackouts.

It will also lead to horrendously high electricity costs, far far greater than now.

The capital cost of wind-power is astronomical and requires huge direct and indirect subsidy to be profitable. The environmental impact of all those wind-farms is also overlooked. Thousands of acres of natural carbon sinks, bogland has been destroyed installing windfarms, access routes to them and connecting the grid.

Windfarms of the future will be offshore but that drives cost up even further.

For carbon free renewables to work you are talking about an integrated grid, interconnected on a trans-global scale. Solar farm in deserts, and across the equatorial band, windfarms on the oceans of the world, hydro in mountainous regions, geothermal where appropriate and Nuclear. In the short term lots and lots of nuclear.

But soundbites sound great.

The information is out there. Look it up, there are TED talks, engineering presentations, forms that discuss these issues. On shore wind farms without huge storage are a dead end that have cost this country billions.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Planting trees won't fix climate change.

You're right because it's caused by natural factors, but either way we completely destroyed out own natural forest and it would be nice to have actual forest with real trees.

unkel

A lot of good points, particularly the trans global interconnects.

knipex wrote: »

To generate enough wind to power Ireland would require covering half the country in wind farms.

That's a bit of an exaggeration though. And who said the wind farms have to be on land? Far better miles off shore in the Atlantic

Trying to do a basic sum here, my maths roughly correct? The biggest current gen off shore wind turbines (already installed) have a power of 10MW. Let's just for simplicity assume these are constantly running at full power. These yokes are 200m high and the rated wind speed (that gives them full power) is just 20km/h. That means that one wind generator produces

10 * 24 hours * 365 days = 87600MWh, or 0.087TWh per year

Ireland uses a total of 25,000,000,000kWh or 25TWh per year

25 / 0.087 = 285

This means that one wind farm with 285 wind turbines produces enough for all of Irelands current electricity consumption

unkel

An after thought. Those 285 wind generators have a power of 285 * 10 = 2850MW, or just under 3GW

The USA already have 100GW in wind generation power. China already has 200GW and plans to have 50% of all its energy, not just electiricty, renewable in 10 years time

It's gonna cost a few bob, but the world will go fully renewable energy within a generation

Johnboy1951

unkel wrote: »

An after thought. Those 285 wind generators have a power of 285 * 10 = 2850MW, or just under 3GW

The USA already have 100GW in wind generation power. China already has 200GW and plans to have 50% of all its energy, not just electiricty, renewable in 10 years time

It's gonna cost a few bob, but the world will go fully renewable energy within a generation

I dunno about WILL, or FULLY, but certainly there is the potential for most countries to do so.
Ireland in particular because of being an island could do so if the money could be found.

is_that_so

unkel wrote: »

An after thought. Those 285 wind generators have a power of 285 * 10 = 2850MW, or just under 3GW

The USA already have 100GW in wind generation power. China already has 200GW and plans to have 50% of all its energy, not just electiricty, renewable in 10 years time

It's gonna cost a few bob, but the world will go fully renewable energy within a generation

And it will still be 40 years to fusion!:D

Mjolnir

gctest50 wrote: »

Hp = torque x rpm ÷ 5252

.

Electric motor torque in foot/lb is hp x 5252 ÷ max rpm of the motor
Don't ask me how to do nm 😂

Jamsiek

Kristopher Nervous Killer wrote: »

I doubt most people have any interest in park and ride, it’s certainly very unappealing to me compared to driving directly to work and parking right outside the door, having my car close by if needed during the day, having anything I need with me in the car, what if I want to go somewhere in the city after work other than home etc.

Agreed that many people would opt not to use park and ride but congestion charges for non residents could be a good incentive for them to consider it.
Also the money generated could be used to fund city projects.
It works in other places so it’s worth considering at least.

GreeBo

knipex wrote: »

Its been around since 2005 and been turned down by every single organisation who looked at it, because its a fantasy. its nonsense. Its an environmental disaster waiting to happen (pumping salt water inland) and an engineering fantasy. Even in today's world of subsidized renewable, pension
funds fighting over green investments no one would touch it with the proverbial 10 foot pole..

Flight was an engineering fantasy, as were space flight, bullet trains and that Channel Tunnel, yet here we are.
"todays" world will not be the same world tomorrow.
There will be more and more money to be made via renewables in the future, there has to be, its the only future we have.

knipex wrote: »

To generate enough wind to power Ireland would require covering half the country in wind farms and an acceptance of the fact that they state will have brown outs and from time to time blackouts.

Why do you insist on taking any solution in isolation?
Who said anything about putting all our eggs in the wind power basket?

knipex wrote: »

It will also lead to horrendously high electricity costs, far far greater than now.

Thats going to happen anyway. What happens your electricity costs when the oil wells start to run dry?

knipex wrote: »

The capital cost of wind-power is astronomical and requires huge direct and indirect subsidy to be profitable. The environmental impact of all those wind-farms is also overlooked. Thousands of acres of natural carbon sinks, bogland has been destroyed installing windfarms, access routes to them and connecting the grid.

And yet people are still building wind farms all over the world. Again, did anyone say ANYTHING about putting windfarms into bogland?
Its interesting that you are worried about the environment when it suits yet are so steadfastly against any alternatives to that mass polluting fossil fuels...

knipex wrote: »

Windfarms of the future will be offshore but that drives cost up even further.

Windfards of the *now* are off shore. Go look of Bray head. Arklow Bank is generating 25MW.

knipex wrote: »

For carbon free renewables to work you are talking about an integrated grid, interconnected on a trans-global scale. Solar farm in deserts, and across the equatorial band, windfarms on the oceans of the world, hydro in mountainous regions, geothermal where appropriate and Nuclear. In the short term lots and lots of nuclear.

Indeed you are talking about a grid...long term.
Desertec, Alantropa, European Super Grid, etc, etc, but for some reason you dont want to even start them and yet use their in-existence as a reason to do nothing. Frankly I dont understand what your point is, unless you are a secret member of OPEC?

knipex wrote: »

But soundbites sound great.

Negative soundbites are even greater and easier to throw out....any chance of an old alternative?

knipex wrote: »

The information is out there. Look it up, there are TED talks, engineering presentations, forms that discuss these issues. On shore wind farms without huge storage are a dead end that have cost this country billions.

Who said anything about *not* providing storage? Again with the throwaway negative comments without alternatives. You should be in politics, perfect candidate for "The Opposition"....you can just oppose everything and produce nothing. Is that you Mary-Lou?

dmcsweeney

Instead of coming up with unworkable plans to grab headlines they should try to encourage motorist to buy cars that are newer and appropriate to their needs. I'm a die hard diesel fan, and branding them all as dirty is not the way to go. Instead of trying to force electric cars down our throats when the infrastructure isn't there, encourage people to move away from older, more polluting cars. They also need to educate people on buying the correct car. If you live and work in the city, and do a lot of short trips, electric, or petrol hybrid is the way to go as a petrol or diesel will spend most of it's time running cold and pumping out the most emissions. I see this a lot with cars that can't pass an emissions test because they're completely chocked up. If you do a lot of mileage, as I do, diesel is still king, and a petrol hybrid just can't cut it. The next step would be to start introducing incentives to get older pre euro 5 cars off the road.

GreeBo

dmcsweeney wrote: »

Instead of coming up with unworkable plans to grab headlines they should try to encourage motorist to buy cars that are newer and appropriate to their needs. I'm a die hard diesel fan, and branding them all as dirty is not the way to go. Instead of trying to force electric cars down our throats when the infrastructure isn't there, encourage people to move away from older, more polluting cars. They also need to educate people on buying the correct car. If you live and work in the city, and do a lot of short trips, electric, or petrol hybrid is the way to go as a petrol or diesel will spend most of it's time running cold and pumping out the most emissions. I see this a lot with cars that can't pass an emissions test because they're completely chocked up. If you do a lot of mileage, as I do, diesel is still king, and a petrol hybrid just can't cut it. The next step would be to start introducing incentives to get older pre euro 5 cars off the road.

Why would you encourage people to buy a new diesel rather than a new electric?

"a lot" of mileage means what these days with 400KM+ Electric cars available right now. What makes Diesel king is the comparatively cheap cost of diesel today...that wont last.

The infrastructure is improving all the time, just look at the Ionity network.

dmcsweeney

GreeBo wrote: »

Why would you encourage people to buy a new diesel rather than a new electric?

"a lot" of mileage means what these days with 400KM+ Electric cars available right now. What makes Diesel king is the comparatively cheap cost of diesel today...that wont last.

The infrastructure is improving all the time, just look at the Ionity network.

And if every diesel owner switches tomorrow we'd take the entire grid down. A lot of people are reluctant to move over, so in the meanwhile encourage those that won't to get something cleaner, be it by taxation, LEZs or scrappage schemes. Every little helps, so start by getting rid of the worst offenders. I understand the range is improving, but how will the range degrade over the life of the car? At the moment I've got a range of 12-1300km and i can fill up in minutes.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

............What makes Diesel king is the comparatively cheap cost of diesel today...that wont last...........

In early 2013 diesel was in excess of €1.50/litre.......... it's under €1.40/litre now in most places.
I'd not be expecting it to rise to prohibitive levels for some years yet

dmcsweeney

Augeo wrote: »

In early 2013 diesel was in excess of €1.50/litre.......... it's under €1.40/litre now in most places.
I'd not be expecting it to rise to prohibitive levels for some years yet

Agreed. Demand is falling, so will the price. Besides, if you own an EV, you're not immune to oil price hikes. Oil goes up, energy prices go up. Not to mention the fact that those big diesel generators that are feeding into the grid will get more expensive to run.

GreeBo

dmcsweeney wrote: »

And if every diesel owner switches tomorrow we'd take the entire grid down. A lot of people are reluctant to move over, so in the meanwhile encourage those that won't to get something cleaner, be it by taxation, LEZs or scrappage schemes. Every little helps, so start by getting rid of the worst offenders. I understand the range is improving, but how will the range degrade over the life of the car? At the moment I've got a range of 12-1300km and i can fill up in minutes.

And if a meteor hits tomorrow it wont matter.

What are the chances that *every* diesel owner not only goes out and buys a new car tomorrow, but they choose to buy an EV?

Encouraging someone to buy a new diesel now means another diesel manufactured that will run for another 10 years and keep polluting for those 10 years.

Your car has a 12-1300 km range...do you often travel 12-1300km in a day?

The infrastructure is Complete crap. It's improving of course, at a snails pace but improving.

I see Konas and Teslas at chargers, range aside, people will still need charging when away from home and the network just is not up to supporting a mass transition to EV.

There's not a sign in sight of a proper charging network for the M7, there's not a charger west of the N11 in Wicklow.

1 fast charger in the whole of Kerry.

We got a very long way to go.

That being said a lot of people don't realise how good electric cars are at the moment but there's still too little choice and the costs need to come down.

Anyone comparing the 20 odd K Kona Petrol to the cost of the 38-40K Kona will realise that the difference in price buys a whole lot of petrol.

Same with the Clio V Zoe 15K V what for the 40 K Zoe 35K ?

GreeBo

Augeo wrote: »

In early 2013 diesel was in excess of €1.50/litre.......... it's under €1.40/litre now in most places.
I'd not be expecting it to rise to prohibitive levels for some years yet

Based on OPEC who we have zero control over.
They will raise or lower the price to suit one person and it ain't you the diesel driver.

dmcsweeney wrote: »

Agreed. Demand is falling, so will the price. Besides, if you own an EV, you're not immune to oil price hikes. Oil goes up, energy prices go up. Not to mention the fact that those big diesel generators that are feeding into the grid will get more expensive to run.

The percentage of electricity generated via diesel is falling all the time, you are insulating yourself from them the more you move away from oil based products.

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

The infrastructure is Complete crap. It's improving of course, at a snails pace but improving.

The network is improving as the demand increases.

How many petrol stations do you reckon there were when Henry Ford lobbed out the Model T?

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

The infrastructure is Complete crap. It's improving of course, at a snails pace but improving.

I see Konas and Teslas at chargers, range aside, people will still need charging when away from home and the network just is not up to supporting a mass transition to EV.

There's not a sign in sight of a proper charging network for the M7, there's not a charger west of the N11 in Wicklow.

1 fast charger in the whole of Kerry.

We got a very long way to go.

That being said a lot of people don't realise how good electric cars are at the moment but there's still too little choice and the costs need to come down.

Anyone comparing the 20 odd K Kona Petrol to the cost of the 38-40K Kona will realise that the difference in price buys a whole lot of petrol.

Same with the Clio V Zoe 15K V what for the 40 K Zoe 35K ?

Some of that infrastructure responsibility will be passed on to councils, who I believe will be expected to set up 200 charge points a year in their area.

dmcsweeney

GreeBo wrote: »

And if a meteor hits tomorrow it wont matter.

What are the chances that *every* diesel owner not only goes out and buys a new car tomorrow, but they choose to buy an EV?

Encouraging someone to buy a new diesel now means another diesel manufactured that will run for another 10 years and keep polluting for those 10 years.

Your car has a 12-1300 km range...do you often travel 12-1300km in a day?

There's a far better chance of winning the euro millions. The point I'm trying to make is that the infrastructure inst there at the moment. And I don't just mean chargers. The grid cannot support a mass move over at the moment. I'm involved in energy projects and I know some of the issues that are out there.

Not strictly true. You need to balance a number of factors. What impact will taking, for example, a black smoke belching euro 3 Passat, or a C02 belching prius with a dud battery pack off the road? I understand that an electric car will be zero emission as it rolls through the city, and it will help air quality locally, but they are not zero emission, and the faster the government forces them onto the roads the more they emit because we have to rely on standby generation capacity (diesel) to support them.

Not often thankfully!! But when I do a long drive I do it in the knowledge that I'm not going to get stuck for range, and that my car's range will not change significantly over its life.

I fully respect your views on EVs, and they are an important development, but they're not for everyone, they're not zero emission and we have an opportunity during the transition period to make a difference.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

The network is improving as the demand increases.

How many petrol stations do you reckon there were when Henry Ford lobbed out the Model T?

Improving as demand increases ? absolutely untrue, the demand has been high for some time but the network has stalled for the last 4.5 years, this is the real issue, no investment by the ESB and no commitment form the Government hence not many people bought electric cars.

The network for some time has been unsuitable, there's no way I would have got the i3 with Rex if it was in any way suitable.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Based on OPEC who we have zero control over.
They will raise or lower the price to suit one person and it ain't you the diesel driver.........

Well you can be sure they won't be raising it to make running ICE vehicles prohibitively expensive
I'm not really emotionally or financially involved in this chat, I bought a nearly new large vehicle that's diesel 12 months ago that I need for business reasons. I'll knock another 4 years out of it at least and by then it will have paid for itself and enabled me to line my pocket.
There's no EV available that suits me currently
Diesel can double or treble in price and I'd still not find an EV that cuts the mustard for me, all considered.

GreeBo

dmcsweeney wrote: »

There's a far better chance of winning the euro millions. The point I'm trying to make is that the infrastructure inst there at the moment. And I don't just mean chargers. The grid cannot support a mass move over at the moment. I'm involved in energy projects and I know some of the issues that are out there.

The demand isn't there yet either though...its a balance, just as it was for ICE cars. Its unfair to compare the current ICE infrastructure to the current EV infrastructure.

dmcsweeney wrote: »

Not strictly true. You need to balance a number of factors. What impact will taking, for example, a black smoke belching euro 3 Passat, or a C02 belching prius with a dud battery pack off the road? I understand that an electric car will be zero emission as it rolls through the city, and it will help air quality locally, but they are not zero emission, and the faster the government forces them onto the roads the more they emit because we have to rely on standby generation capacity (diesel) to support them.

The more EVs we have the more the the grid will improve, because it has to.
If we can agree that they contribute less pollution than an ICE car then we are on the same page. Sure, currently, some of the electricity is sourced from generators, but the government can tackle that a lot easier than suddenly getting everyone into EVs. But there is less benefit to them doing it if everyone is still on a 10 year old diesel.

dmcsweeney wrote: »

Not often thankfully!! But when I do a long drive I do it in the knowledge that I'm not going to get stuck for range, and that my car's range will not change significantly over its life.

But you wont get stuck for range in an EV either...you know what the range is starting out, just like in your current car. Sure its a shorter range, but its already at the levels that make that insignificant for the vast majority of users.

dmcsweeney wrote: »

I fully respect your views on EVs, and they are an important development, but they're not for everyone, they're not zero emission and we have an opportunity during the transition period to make a difference.

I think the number of people the dont suit is tiny and is shrinking. The problem is the perception is they dont suit the majority, which is just wrong...at least today.

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

Improving as demand increases ? absolutely untrue, the demand has been high for some time but the network has stalled for the last 4.5 years, this is the real issue, no investment by the ESB and no commitment form the Government hence not many people bought electric cars.

The network for some time has been unsuitable, there's no way I would have got the i3 with Rex if it was in any way suitable.

EV charging demand has been high for some time?
A year ago there were 5K EVs in the country.
How can that be considered "high demand"?

Higher range EV cars are very recent, so up until now you could easily charge your lower range EV at home.

Unless you are calling a 180KM range EV trying to drive from Belfast to Kerry "high demand" then I just dont see it tbh.

minikin

We have around 1,000 petrol stations in the state.
We’re proposing spending €3,000,000,000 on an ill thought out national broadband plan.
Divert that into a national ev charging network - 1,000 sites (or additions to petrol stations) at €3,000,000 per site (say 20 chargers each) along with 5G transmitters.... two birds one stone.
State retains ownership of network - a great asset.
Great for the environment, real progress.

Why not?

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

..............
If we can agree that they contribute less pollution than an ICE car then we are on the same page. ..........

Didn't Mercedes recently comment over 10 years you're looking at 40% less pollution or something? Nothing really mindblowing to be fair.

The best thing for the environment is mass movement to public transport in urban areas........ any one championing mass movement to EVs really doesn't have the environment at heart IMO
just wannabe tree huggers and penny pinchers looking for things that suit themselves and the tax payer to pay for it IMO

GreeBo

minikin wrote: »

We have around 1,000 petrol stations in the state.
We’re proposing spending €3,000,000,000 on an ill thought out national broadband plan.
Divert that into a national ev charging network - 1,000 sites (or additions to petrol stations) at €3,000,000 per site (say 20 chargers each) along with 5G transmitters.... two birds one stone.
State retains ownership of network - a great asset.
Great for the environment, real progress.

Why not?

The expensive NBP sites are exactly where you wouldnt put EV charge points.

GreeBo

Augeo wrote: »

Didn't Mercedes recently comment over 10 years you're looking at 40% less pollution or something? Nothing really mindblowing to be fair.

If you are including electricity pollution in this then are you also including pollution involved in extracting & transporting oil?
And almost halving pollution isnt mindblowing?
I'd have my mind blown if my salary increased by 40% (or decreased by that matter!)

Augeo wrote: »

The best thing for the environment is mass movement to public transport in urban areas........ any one championing mass movement to EVs really doesn't have the environment at heart IMO
just wannabe tree huggers and penny pinchers looking for things that suit themselves and the tax payer to pay for it IMO

Why do you think these tree huggers and penny pinchers dont pay tax?

MIT wrote:

The Union’s findings were that: “Manufacturing a midsized electric vehicle (EV) with an 84-mile range results in about 15 per cent more emissions than manufacturing an equivalent gasoline vehicle. For larger, longer-range EVs that travel more than 250 miles per charge, the manufacturing emissions can be as much as 68 per cent higher.

"These differences change as soon as the cars are driven. EVs are powered by electricity, which is generally a cleaner energy source than gasoline. Battery electric cars make up for their higher manufacturing emissions within eighteen months of driving - shorter range models can offset the extra emissions within 6 months - and continue to outperform gasoline cars until the end of their lives.”

minikin

GreeBo wrote: »

The expensive NBP sites are exactly where you wouldnt put EV charge points.

Not sure I understand. The expensive nbp sites???
I’m saying the nbp budget is large enough to flood the state with ev charging points... isn’t that what’s needed to encourage mass adoption of ev? My other half is an ideal adopter - would be in an ioniq or other ev in a heartbeat but lives in an apartment.

GreeBo

minikin wrote: »

Not sure I understand. The expensive nbp sites???
I’m saying the nbp budget is large enough to flood the state with ev charging points...

You said two birds with one stone, I'm saying the best places for EV charge stations probably isn't the best place for broadband, for the expensive, remote sites.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

If you are including electricity pollution in this then are you also including pollution involved in extracting & transporting oil?
And almost halving pollution isnt mindblowing?
I'd have my mind blown if my salary increased by 40% (or decreased by that matter!)

It's a mercedes comment, I didn't interrogate them.
I don't think almost halving pollution on personal transport over 10 years is mindblowing given the cost and required infrastructure to facilitate most people doing it

Would you blow your mind if you spent 40% more or less time eating, walking, watching TV, having sex, exercising? Not everything is as profound as a 40% wage increase. I've been there and done that on the wages, my mind wasn't blown.

GreeBo wrote: »

Why do you think these tree huggers and penny pinchers dont pay tax?

98% of vehicles are ICE, 2% EV ...........EVs are heavily subsidised by the state (taxpayer). Figures speak for themselves.

For whatever reason you seem emotionally involved in this, chill out

Johnboy1951

GreeBo wrote: »

.....
I think the number of people the dont suit is tiny and is shrinking. The problem is the perception is they dont suit the majority, which is just wrong...at least today.

I would have no objection at all to driving an EV.
BUT ...... to get one it has to comply with my requirements and use case.

There is no EV presently available, nor announced for the future, that covers those needs and wants.
I am not, I believe, in a tiny minority.
In fact I suspect I am amongst the majority.

First of all a new EV must be affordable.
That is affordable for the users of compact cars ...... Ford Focus, Skoda Ocatavia, Toyota Corolla and their smaller siblings.
In addition they need to have long range.
Add to that they need to be available in a range of body styles.
Also there needs to be a choice of manufacturer of these ranges of vehicles.

EVs are nowhere near covering those needs & wants.
Maybe in 10 years time the situation will have improved ...... maybe not. I cannot predict the future. I expect/hope it will.

Until I can go to a range of retailers to buy an EV to suit my needs, I will continue to drive an ICE, where I have choice.

IMO, the vast majority of car owners in this country fall into a similar bracket.

I am willing to be encouraged into an EV ..... in fact would like to drive one.
That 'one' is not available, and apparently is not planned for the near future release by any manufacturer.

dmcsweeney

GreeBo wrote: »

If we can agree that they contribute less pollution than an ICE car then we are on the same page.

I did a very quick calculation using the C02 figures from one electricity provider and yes, they are cleaner in operation than an equivalent diesel (won't even mention petrol here). There's that big argument about the C02 etc emitted during the mining, transport and manufacturing of batteries but I'll make no comment without figures, and every car made creates some pollution. They're definitely cleaner, but not for everyone. TBH if I could get my car in plug in diesel hybrid then that's the way I'd go right now. As for the grid keeping up, unfortunately it won't for now. I'm currently involved in a green energy project and despite the ESB building a shiny new substation, it's already reaching capacity and it'll strangle future development in that area. The other issue is that wind generation, as good as it is, still requires diesel power for grid stabilisation and fast response power. BESS (Battery Energy Storage Systems) are reducing the size of these sets, but outdated grid codes are delaying this too. Now, if we had a better metering system we could use all the EV's plugged in to bolster the grid in short bursts if we were forward thinking. The other issue is home charging. As it stands you won't manage much on a 12KVA standard domestic supply. Add a heat pump to the equation and you'll probably even exceed a 15KVA enhanced supply.

GreeBo

Augeo wrote: »

It's a mercedes comment, I didn't interrogate them.
I don't think almost halving pollution on personal transport over 10 years is mindblowing given the cost and required infrastructure to facilitate most people doing it

Well if you halve it it remains halved for the lifetime of the vehicles. Thats impressive to me at least.
Its not just for 10 years, its for all the years after the 10 years and that assume no improvement in energy productions.

Augeo wrote: »

98% of vehicles are ICE, 2% EV ...........EVs are heavily subsidised by the state (taxpayer). Figures speak for themselves.

Their prices are aritifically high because of the subsidies. Its cheaper to buy an EV in pretty much any other country than Ireland.
And on the subject of subsidies

The report titled "Fossil Fuel and Similar Subsidies 2012 2016" says that direct and indirect fossil fuel subsidies amount to €2.5bn per year

Augeo wrote: »

For whatever reason you seem emotionally involved in this, chill out

Not in the slightest, you started getting emotional referring to tree-huggers.

ethernet

Augeo wrote: »

98% of vehicles are ICE, 2% EV ...........EVs are heavily subsidised by the state (taxpayer). Figures speak for themselves.

You could argue diesel users are subsidised by the state too compared to petrol users when you take excise into account - at least for the time being.

The subsidies available to incentivise EV adoption seem small relative to the fines we will incur for not cutting our carbon emissions.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

..........



Not in the slightest, you started getting emotional referring to tree-huggers.

I referred to wannabe tree huggers iirc
I'd class myself as a tree hugger so I'm not getting emotional at all

GreeBo wrote: »

............


Their prices are aritifically high because of the subsidies. Its cheaper to buy an EV in pretty much any other country than Ireland.
..........

You are aware we are referring to Ireland in this chat?

ethernet

ethernet wrote: »

You could argue diesel users are subsidised by the state too compared to petrol users when you take excise into account - at least for the time being.....................

You could argue the state subsidy that applies to diesel makes goods and services cheaper so it trickles down to all.

We'll be getting fined anyway, EV subsidies just mean we pay twice as the fines are inevitable. Mass movement to EV won't prevent the fines.

minikin

GreeBo wrote: »

You said two birds with one stone, I'm saying the best places for EV charge stations probably isn't the best place for broadband, for the expensive, remote sites.

Not so sure about that - if you were guaranteed being no more than say ten km from a charger site the main blocker to mass adoption would be gone. (Range anxiety)

Another option would be 10,000 charger sites with a €300,000 budget per site!

orangerhyme

Can anyone calculate how many EVs are needed for distributed grid storage?

Let's say in 20 years there's a million EVs on Irish roads.
You charge your car at night when demand is low and good wind generation. Then at the morning peak your car feeds energy back into the grid.
Then drive to work and plug car back into the grid. The smart grid then either charges the car or takes energy from it depending on needs.
Then drive back home and plug into grid to feed energy into it for evening peak.
Let's say all schools and offices are fitted with solar also and are feeding energy into grid for the evening peak.
Let's say also we've a few 100 offshore turbines by this stage so generation isn't the issue, only storage and distribution at correct times.

Can anyone calculate how many EVs are necessary to achieve this?
Storage is obviously the major issue I think with renewables

GreeBo

Augeo wrote: »

I referred to wannabe tree huggers iirc
I'd class myself as a tree hugger so I'm not getting emotional at all

Hugs are usually due to emotion!

Augeo wrote: »

You are aware we are referring to Ireland in this chat?

Yep, thats where the subsidies and correspondingly high EV prices are.

GreeBo

minikin wrote: »

Not so sure about that - if you were guaranteed being no more than say ten km from a charger site the main blocker to mass adoption would be gone. (Range anxiety)

Another option would be 10,000 charger sites with a €300,000 budget per site!

Thats true, but you would you pay to supply a charger every 10KM in the country? Thats about 8500 charge points, most of which would be in the back arse of nowhere.

Range anxiety is already pretty much a moot point for 95%+ of Irish drivers.
The average is 40km a day or something ridiculous like that. Thats 10 trips before you recharge a Kona.

grogi

unkel wrote: »

A complete diesel car ban in our cities can't come quick enough. Several other countries have already implemented it, hopefully we will be next.

Who?! I am not aware of any single nation that has a complete diesel ban.

dmcsweeney

dmcsweeney wrote: »

I did a very quick calculation using the C02 figures from one electricity provider and yes, they are cleaner in operation than an equivalent diesel (won't even mention petrol here). There's that big argument about the C02 etc emitted during the mining, transport and manufacturing of batteries but I'll make no comment without figures, and every car made creates some pollution. They're definitely cleaner, but not for everyone. TBH if I could get my car in plug in diesel hybrid then that's the way I'd go right now. As for the grid keeping up, unfortunately it won't for now. I'm currently involved in a green energy project and despite the ESB building a shiny new substation, it's already reaching capacity and it'll strangle future development in that area. The other issue is that wind generation, as good as it is, still requires diesel power for grid stabilisation and fast response power. BESS (Battery Energy Storage Systems) are reducing the size of these sets, but outdated grid codes are delaying this too. Now, if we had a better metering system we could use all the EV's plugged in to bolster the grid in short bursts if we were forward thinking. The other issue is home charging. As it stands you won't manage much on a 12KVA standard domestic supply. Add a heat pump to the equation and you'll probably even exceed a 15KVA enhanced supply.

Co2 and pollution are two completely different things.

Co2 is not a pollutant.

The real issues with emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is Nox and PM2.5 , that's real and very nasty pollution. Co2 is harmless, unless of course you put a bag over your head........

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Hugs are usually due to emotion!

Yep, thats where the subsidies and correspondingly high EV prices are.

Were the prices lower before the subsidies?

lipso

Can anyone do the nitty gritty and roughly calculate the average cost of running a diesel v petrol v hybrid v EV? per week or month or year
Eg. For each type: Tax; Insurance: Fuel cost; Maintenance


Tax for a hybrid is 180/190 and for EV 120

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Hugs are usually due to emotion!

......

Tree hugger is a term, a figure of speech .......... there's not any hugging going on :pac:
Just in case you didn't realise that.