Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 17:58:02 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

They might, otherwise there'd not be any research into the technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery

--
Johnny B Good

On 11/08/2016 17:58, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

Nice in that they have a long life and should not lose capacity over
time. However the normal problem of energy density still exists - many
offer less than 1MJ per litre (compared to 43MJ/l for petrol)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 11/08/16 22:23, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 17:58:02 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

They might, otherwise there'd not be any research into the technology.

Bless!

Government money and research grants have never gone to projects that
had a future.

I know, I used to work on em.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery



--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

On Thursday, 11 August 2016 17:58:05 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

They are the future.
This why we don't need Hinkley Point nuclear power station.

On 12/08/2016 07:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/08/16 22:23, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 17:58:02 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

They might, otherwise there'd not be any research into the technology.

Bless!

Government money and research grants have never gone to projects that
had a future.

I know, I used to work on em.

And he calls harry a parasite!

On 11/08/2016 23:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/08/2016 17:58, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

Nice in that they have a long life and should not lose capacity over
time. However the normal problem of energy density still exists - many
offer less than 1MJ per litre (compared to 43MJ/l for petrol)


I don't think they are intended to replace petrol.
They could be used as "pumped" storage on the grid to get windymills to
work better.
100,000l tanks aren't that big.

Dealing with the waste could be a long term problem though.

On 12/08/2016 08:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 11/08/2016 23:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/08/2016 17:58, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

Nice in that they have a long life and should not lose capacity over
time. However the normal problem of energy density still exists - many
offer less than 1MJ per litre (compared to 43MJ/l for petrol)


I don't think they are intended to replace petrol.

Not suggesting they were, just illustrating that the energy density is
pretty low in relative terms.

They could be used as "pumped" storage on the grid to get windymills to
work better.
100,000l tanks aren't that big.

Dealing with the waste could be a long term problem though.





--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 12/08/16 11:28, John Rumm wrote:
On 12/08/2016 08:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 11/08/2016 23:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/08/2016 17:58, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a
future?

Nice in that they have a long life and should not lose capacity over
time. However the normal problem of energy density still exists - many
offer less than 1MJ per litre (compared to 43MJ/l for petrol)


I don't think they are intended to replace petrol.

Not suggesting they were, just illustrating that the energy density is
pretty low in relative terms.


Only technology that CAN theoretically equal a tank of diesel weight
for weight is lithium air. But its fraught with practical issues. At
least a decade away I would guess.






--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Only technology that CAN theoretically equal a tank of diesel weight for
weight is lithium air. But its fraught with practical issues. At least a
decade away I would guess.

And I wonder how long it will take to recharge the battery - I bet it's
longer than the 5 minutes or so that it takes to fill up with 60 litres of
diesel and add another 700 miles of range.

When people recharge electric cars at home, how do they get the mains power
to the car? Trailing extension cable from a socket in the garage etc, or
some sort of permanent charging point that has to be installed, maybe by
digging up drive to lay cables from nearest ring main. What sort of power
(ie what is current rating of cable) is typical?

Changing the subject, what is it about laptop batteries which mean that they
can hold less and less charge as they are recharged, to the point where they
eventually will not hold any charge and the laptop can only be used on the
mains? I've had this happen to each of my laptops, and I'm very careful
about not leaving it permanently on mains. I try to charge it in the evening
when I'm around to stop charging once it's 100%, rather than leaving it on
overnight or for many days without sometimes running it off battery and then
charging from low. Happened with HP, Acer and Samsung laptops.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 12/08/2016 07:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/08/16 22:23, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 17:58:02 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

They might, otherwise there'd not be any research into the technology.

Bless!

Government money and research grants have never gone to projects that
had a future.

I know, I used to work on em.

And he calls harry a parasite!

The pot calling the kettle black, as usual.

On 12/08/2016 12:06, NY wrote:

When people recharge electric cars at home, how do they get the mains
power to the car?

Usually by installing a charging point on their drive.

Trailing extension cable from a socket in the garage
etc, or some sort of permanent charging point that has to be installed,
maybe by digging up drive to lay cables from nearest ring main.

yup.

What
sort of power (ie what is current rating of cable) is typical?

32A

(most cars can also charge from a 13A lead as well)

Changing the subject, what is it about laptop batteries which mean that
they can hold less and less charge as they are recharged, to the point
where they eventually will not hold any charge and the laptop can only
be used on the mains? I've had this happen to each of my laptops, and
I'm very careful about not leaving it permanently on mains. I try to
charge it in the evening when I'm around to stop charging once it's
100%, rather than leaving it on overnight or for many days without
sometimes running it off battery and then charging from low. Happened
with HP, Acer and Samsung laptops.

Its a feature of the battery technology. So wt will affect any brand of
machine.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 8/11/2016 5:58 PM, Capitol wrote:
Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

I was asked this in the pub last night, but had to look up the article.
What I thought was particularly poor was the journalist's implication
that there is so much progress that we will be able to rely on them
completely in five to ten years. Picking this Harvard one as a leader
when it is clearly still at the small scale laboratory stage was a cheap
tactic.

There's been serious research into batteries since the 1970's, I
remember meeting a guy who was working on the sodium-sulphur battery
when I was on a sodium handling course at Dounreay, at a time when that
was supposed to be imminent. Obviously, I welcome research by world
class organisations and I suspect that Musk is on to something for high
end domestic. But I don't see solar panels and windmills on the roof,
plus a cellar full of batteries, taking something like a major hospital
or medium to heavy industry off the grid. Not any time soon, at least.

On 12/08/2016 13:24, John Rumm wrote:

Changing the subject, what is it about laptop batteries which mean that
they can hold less and less charge as they are recharged, to the point
where they eventually will not hold any charge and the laptop can only
be used on the mains? I've had this happen to each of my laptops, and
I'm very careful about not leaving it permanently on mains. I try to
charge it in the evening when I'm around to stop charging once it's
100%, rather than leaving it on overnight or for many days without
sometimes running it off battery and then charging from low. Happened
with HP, Acer and Samsung laptops.

Its a feature of the battery technology. So wt will affect any brand of
machine.

Although some machines are cleverer about draining the battery every so
often, which helps.

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 08:51:14 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 11/08/2016 23:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/08/2016 17:58, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a
future?

Nice in that they have a long life and should not lose capacity over
time. However the normal problem of energy density still exists - many
offer less than 1MJ per litre (compared to 43MJ/l for petrol)


I don't think they are intended to replace petrol.
They could be used as "pumped" storage on the grid to get windymills to
work better.

I haven't done the calculations but I think the interest stems from the
fact that they do offer a viable alternative to pumped hydro storage,
especially when you've run out of viable 'topology' to make future hydro
pumped storage worth the effort (you need large scale projects which need
suitable topology also on a large scale).

100,000l tanks aren't that big.

The PV solar or wind farms they could serve would dwarf such Organic
flow battery add-on installations. However, grid power scale batteries
require significant levels of investment, hence the ongoing research to
find the best possible solution (best bang for your buck, least impact on
and risk to the environment).


Dealing with the waste could be a long term problem though.

That's obviously a major concern in making the final choice of Organic
Flow Battery technology. There'll almost certainly be a trade off between
energy density and toxicity of the chemistry employed.

Whilst the most obvious benefit will be to the 'renewable energy'
operators (who will foot the bill for co-sited energy storage) it's also
of benefit to the conventional energy operators who are currently relying
on pumped storage stations on the grid (Ffestiniog and Dinorwig in North
Wales for example) to smooth out demand.

A few more grid storage facilities scattered around the country wouldn't
come amiss to both improve operating efficiency and provide additional
resiliency to the grid. There's every incentive to get the research done
along this particular avenue, not only to find the best solution but also
to prove that this *will* be the correct solution at the end of the day.
It might turn out that the best solution is simply to add a few more
Nukes to the grid. :-)

--
Johnny B Good

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:28:19 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 12/08/2016 08:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 11/08/2016 23:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/08/2016 17:58, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a
future?

Nice in that they have a long life and should not lose capacity over
time. However the normal problem of energy density still exists - many
offer less than 1MJ per litre (compared to 43MJ/l for petrol)


I don't think they are intended to replace petrol.

Not suggesting they were, just illustrating that the energy density is
pretty low in relative terms.

Yes, very low compared to our highest energy density portable fuelling
option (setting aside the needs of rocketry) but I think it's some 2 or 3
orders of magnitude better than your typical hydro pumped storage option
in terms of land usage which is why the technology is being researched at
all.

--
Johnny B Good

On Friday, 12 August 2016 13:24:24 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 12/08/2016 12:06, NY wrote:

When people recharge electric cars at home, how do they get the mains
power to the car?

Usually by installing a charging point on their drive.

Trailing extension cable from a socket in the garage
etc, or some sort of permanent charging point that has to be installed,
maybe by digging up drive to lay cables from nearest ring main.

yup.

What
sort of power (ie what is current rating of cable) is typical?

32A

(most cars can also charge from a 13A lead as well)


Drivel.
Virtually nobody needs fast charging at home.
Cars are charged from a 13a socket overnight on cheap electricity.
Many electric car owners have solar panels.

Plus nobody runs the battery to depletion.
Most don't run it anywhere near depletion.

Fast charging points are used at destinations and en-route.

Also many electric car owners have another car.

On Saturday, 13 August 2016 00:32:49 UTC+1, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:28:19 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 12/08/2016 08:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 11/08/2016 23:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/08/2016 17:58, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a
future?

Nice in that they have a long life and should not lose capacity over
time. However the normal problem of energy density still exists - many
offer less than 1MJ per litre (compared to 43MJ/l for petrol)


I don't think they are intended to replace petrol.

Not suggesting they were, just illustrating that the energy density is
pretty low in relative terms.

Yes, very low compared to our highest energy density portable fuelling
option (setting aside the needs of rocketry) but I think it's some 2 or 3
orders of magnitude better than your typical hydro pumped storage option
in terms of land usage which is why the technology is being researched at
all.

--

They will be installed in the basement of (groups of) houses in the future.
Energy density will not be an issue in this context.

Large central fossil fuel/nuclear electricity generation will gradually disappear.
This why the future of Hinkley point os in doubt.

Just as central heating is decentralised in large buildings these days.

On Friday, 12 August 2016 13:36:23 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 8/11/2016 5:58 PM, Capitol wrote:
Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

I was asked this in the pub last night, but had to look up the article.
What I thought was particularly poor was the journalist's implication
that there is so much progress that we will be able to rely on them
completely in five to ten years. Picking this Harvard one as a leader
when it is clearly still at the small scale laboratory stage was a cheap
tactic.

There's been serious research into batteries since the 1970's, I
remember meeting a guy who was working on the sodium-sulphur battery
when I was on a sodium handling course at Dounreay, at a time when that
was supposed to be imminent. Obviously, I welcome research by world
class organisations and I suspect that Musk is on to something for high
end domestic. But I don't see solar panels and windmills on the roof,
plus a cellar full of batteries, taking something like a major hospital
or medium to heavy industry off the grid. Not any time soon, at least.

We are always going to need oil/coal for the production of metals from ore.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 12 August 2016 13:36:23 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 8/11/2016 5:58 PM, Capitol wrote:
Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

I was asked this in the pub last night, but had to look up the article.
What I thought was particularly poor was the journalist's implication
that there is so much progress that we will be able to rely on them
completely in five to ten years. Picking this Harvard one as a leader
when it is clearly still at the small scale laboratory stage was a cheap
tactic.

There's been serious research into batteries since the 1970's, I
remember meeting a guy who was working on the sodium-sulphur battery
when I was on a sodium handling course at Dounreay, at a time when that
was supposed to be imminent. Obviously, I welcome research by world
class organisations and I suspect that Musk is on to something for high
end domestic. But I don't see solar panels and windmills on the roof,
plus a cellar full of batteries, taking something like a major hospital
or medium to heavy industry off the grid. Not any time soon, at least.

We are always going to need oil/coal for the production of metals from
ore.

The only metal that is done with is iron.

On 13/08/2016 06:31, harry wrote:
On Friday, 12 August 2016 13:24:24 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 12/08/2016 12:06, NY wrote:

When people recharge electric cars at home, how do they get the mains
power to the car?

Usually by installing a charging point on their drive.

Trailing extension cable from a socket in the garage
etc, or some sort of permanent charging point that has to be installed,
maybe by digging up drive to lay cables from nearest ring main.

yup.

What
sort of power (ie what is current rating of cable) is typical?

32A

(most cars can also charge from a 13A lead as well)

Drivel.

Is a fair description of your comments it has to be said. However, what
I have said is factually correct. Please highlight where if you think
you have found an error.

Virtually nobody needs fast charging at home.

This is of course nonsense - I am sure many would actually find it very
useful if it were an option.

However we are not discussing fast charging since 32A is hardly "fast"
anyway - its just a bit less slow than the *very* slow 13A charger.

Cars are charged from a 13a socket overnight on cheap electricity.

Indeed - and way to slow for many users given the pitiful range of most
electric cars. You are talking about 8 - 10 hours for many EVs for a
full charge at 13A/240V (i.e. ~3.2kW). The faster home chargers normally
go to about 6.6kW, and can reduce that to a little over half the time.

Many electric car owners have solar panels.

Do they power their tin foil hats?

Since that does not alter the charging time, or the type of charger
installed, its of no relevance.

Plus nobody runs the battery to depletion.
Most don't run it anywhere near depletion.

These would appear to be unsubstantiated and implausible assertions.

(You have to appreciate that just because you do something, it does not
mean everyone else does)

Fast charging points are used at destinations and en-route.

If available, and working, and not in use / blocked. [1]

Also many electric car owners have another car.

They put that in the boot do they?


[1] Its interesting to see that the "bait and switch" has now started
with the public charging points. Many people were attracted to these
because they could be used free of charge or for very low cost. Now that
there has been a surge in EV sales, many are now paid for. In these
parts, they are rented out at about £6 for a charging session (typically
20 - 30 mins). Many EV users finding they need to buy two sessions to
get an 80% charge, so £12 a pop!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 13/08/2016 00:32, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:28:19 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 12/08/2016 08:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 11/08/2016 23:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/08/2016 17:58, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a
future?

Nice in that they have a long life and should not lose capacity over
time. However the normal problem of energy density still exists - many
offer less than 1MJ per litre (compared to 43MJ/l for petrol)


I don't think they are intended to replace petrol.

Not suggesting they were, just illustrating that the energy density is
pretty low in relative terms.

Yes, very low compared to our highest energy density portable fuelling
option (setting aside the needs of rocketry) but I think it's some 2 or 3
orders of magnitude better than your typical hydro pumped storage option
in terms of land usage which is why the technology is being researched at
all.

Not just land usage, but also suitable geography. The space is not much
use without the hills and water.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 13/08/2016 06:31, harry wrote:
On Friday, 12 August 2016 13:24:24 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 12/08/2016 12:06, NY wrote:

When people recharge electric cars at home, how do they get the mains
power to the car?

Usually by installing a charging point on their drive.

Trailing extension cable from a socket in the garage
etc, or some sort of permanent charging point that has to be installed,
maybe by digging up drive to lay cables from nearest ring main.

yup.

What
sort of power (ie what is current rating of cable) is typical?

32A

(most cars can also charge from a 13A lead as well)


Drivel.
Virtually nobody needs fast charging at home.
Cars are charged from a 13a socket overnight on cheap electricity.

That would be why you get free 32A charging points fitted when you buy
virtually any new electric car in the UK?
Didn't you get your free one?

Many electric car owners have solar panels.

They work well over night then.


Plus nobody runs the battery to depletion.
Most don't run it anywhere near depletion.

So they don't actually need a car to do that low a mileage.


Fast charging points are used at destinations and en-route.

They are usually used to get free electricity so that we can subsidise
even more of their energy.


Also many electric car owners have another car.


Because electric cars need another car to generate enough pollution to
keep the greens happy?

On Saturday, 13 August 2016 11:29:17 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 13/08/2016 06:31, harry wrote:
On Friday, 12 August 2016 13:24:24 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 12/08/2016 12:06, NY wrote:

When people recharge electric cars at home, how do they get the mains
power to the car?

Usually by installing a charging point on their drive.

Trailing extension cable from a socket in the garage
etc, or some sort of permanent charging point that has to be installed,
maybe by digging up drive to lay cables from nearest ring main.

yup.

What
sort of power (ie what is current rating of cable) is typical?

32A

(most cars can also charge from a 13A lead as well)

Drivel.

Is a fair description of your comments it has to be said. However, what
I have said is factually correct. Please highlight where if you think
you have found an error.

Virtually nobody needs fast charging at home.

This is of course nonsense - I am sure many would actually find it very
useful if it were an option.

However we are not discussing fast charging since 32A is hardly "fast"
anyway - its just a bit less slow than the *very* slow 13A charger.

Cars are charged from a 13a socket overnight on cheap electricity.

Indeed - and way to slow for many users given the pitiful range of most
electric cars. You are talking about 8 - 10 hours for many EVs for a
full charge at 13A/240V (i.e. ~3.2kW). The faster home chargers normally
go to about 6.6kW, and can reduce that to a little over half the time.

Many electric car owners have solar panels.

Do they power their tin foil hats?

Since that does not alter the charging time, or the type of charger
installed, its of no relevance.

Plus nobody runs the battery to depletion.
Most don't run it anywhere near depletion.

These would appear to be unsubstantiated and implausible assertions.

(You have to appreciate that just because you do something, it does not
mean everyone else does)

Fast charging points are used at destinations and en-route.

If available, and working, and not in use / blocked. [1]

Also many electric car owners have another car.

They put that in the boot do they?


[1] Its interesting to see that the "bait and switch" has now started
with the public charging points. Many people were attracted to these
because they could be used free of charge or for very low cost. Now that
there has been a surge in EV sales, many are now paid for. In these
parts, they are rented out at about £6 for a charging session (typically
20 - 30 mins). Many EV users finding they need to buy two sessions to
get an 80% charge, so £12 a pop!


Nobody runs car batteries to depletion because you can't take electricity to them in containers/buckets.

As there is noway of accurately knowing how much energy remains in a battery, no-one runs their battery even close to depletion.

One never knows exactly how much power will be consumed on a "new" journey either. There are so many factors.

It even varies on a repeat journey.

I have never used a fast charger or needed to.

As a none owner of an electric car, how is it you're such an expert anyway?

Charging at home is far cheaper than petrol even on day rate price electricity.

In Summer I charge on free electricity.
In Winter, depending on weather, sometimes by night.


Plus there is no road tax.

On Saturday, 13 August 2016 13:53:05 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 13/08/2016 06:31, harry wrote:
On Friday, 12 August 2016 13:24:24 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 12/08/2016 12:06, NY wrote:

When people recharge electric cars at home, how do they get the mains
power to the car?

Usually by installing a charging point on their drive.

Trailing extension cable from a socket in the garage
etc, or some sort of permanent charging point that has to be installed,
maybe by digging up drive to lay cables from nearest ring main.

yup.

What
sort of power (ie what is current rating of cable) is typical?

32A

(most cars can also charge from a 13A lead as well)


Drivel.
Virtually nobody needs fast charging at home.
Cars are charged from a 13a socket overnight on cheap electricity.

That would be why you get free 32A charging points fitted when you buy
virtually any new electric car in the UK?
Didn't you get your free one?

Many electric car owners have solar panels.

They work well over night then.


Plus nobody runs the battery to depletion.
Most don't run it anywhere near depletion.

So they don't actually need a car to do that low a mileage.


Fast charging points are used at destinations and en-route.

They are usually used to get free electricity so that we can subsidise
even more of their energy.


Also many electric car owners have another car.


Because electric cars need another car to generate enough pollution to
keep the greens happy?

I usually only use my other car for journeys out of range of the electric car.

On Saturday, 13 August 2016 11:39:44 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 13/08/2016 00:32, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:28:19 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 12/08/2016 08:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 11/08/2016 23:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/08/2016 17:58, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a
future?

Nice in that they have a long life and should not lose capacity over
time. However the normal problem of energy density still exists - many
offer less than 1MJ per litre (compared to 43MJ/l for petrol)


I don't think they are intended to replace petrol.

Not suggesting they were, just illustrating that the energy density is
pretty low in relative terms.

Yes, very low compared to our highest energy density portable fuelling
option (setting aside the needs of rocketry) but I think it's some 2 or 3
orders of magnitude better than your typical hydro pumped storage option
in terms of land usage which is why the technology is being researched at
all.

Not just land usage, but also suitable geography. The space is not much
use without the hills and water.


With pump storage, the same water can be used over and over.
The option exists of using natural underground water reservoirs .
Ie, letting water run down a borehole to generate power.

On Saturday, 13 August 2016 07:54:03 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 12 August 2016 13:36:23 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 8/11/2016 5:58 PM, Capitol wrote:
Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

I was asked this in the pub last night, but had to look up the article.
What I thought was particularly poor was the journalist's implication
that there is so much progress that we will be able to rely on them
completely in five to ten years. Picking this Harvard one as a leader
when it is clearly still at the small scale laboratory stage was a cheap
tactic.

There's been serious research into batteries since the 1970's, I
remember meeting a guy who was working on the sodium-sulphur battery
when I was on a sodium handling course at Dounreay, at a time when that
was supposed to be imminent. Obviously, I welcome research by world
class organisations and I suspect that Musk is on to something for high
end domestic. But I don't see solar panels and windmills on the roof,
plus a cellar full of batteries, taking something like a major hospital
or medium to heavy industry off the grid. Not any time soon, at least.

We are always going to need oil/coal for the production of metals from
ore.

The only metal that is done with is iron.

All metals that exist in the earth as oxides need coal etc to reduce them.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 13 August 2016 07:54:03 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 12 August 2016 13:36:23 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 8/11/2016 5:58 PM, Capitol wrote:
Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a
future?

I was asked this in the pub last night, but had to look up the
article.
What I thought was particularly poor was the journalist's implication
that there is so much progress that we will be able to rely on them
completely in five to ten years. Picking this Harvard one as a leader
when it is clearly still at the small scale laboratory stage was a
cheap
tactic.

There's been serious research into batteries since the 1970's, I
remember meeting a guy who was working on the sodium-sulphur battery
when I was on a sodium handling course at Dounreay, at a time when
that
was supposed to be imminent. Obviously, I welcome research by world
class organisations and I suspect that Musk is on to something for
high
end domestic. But I don't see solar panels and windmills on the roof,
plus a cellar full of batteries, taking something like a major
hospital
or medium to heavy industry off the grid. Not any time soon, at least.

We are always going to need oil/coal for the production of metals from
ore.

The only metal that is done with is iron.

All metals that exist in the earth as oxides need coal etc to reduce them.

No coal is used when turning bauxite into aluminium.
Or with any of the other metals like copper, zinc tin etc either.

On 13/08/16 00:25, Johnny B Good wrote:
Whilst the most obvious benefit will be to the 'renewable energy'
operators (who will foot the bill for co-sited energy storage) it's also
of benefit to the conventional energy operators who are currently relying
on pumped storage stations on the grid (Ffestiniog and Dinorwig in North
Wales for example) to smooth out demand.

A few more grid storage facilities scattered around the country wouldn't
come amiss to both improve operating efficiency and provide additional
resiliency to the grid. There's every incentive to get the research done
along this particular avenue, not only to find the best solution but also
to prove that this *will* be the correct solution at the end of the day.
It might turn out that the best solution is simply to add a few more
Nukes to the grid. :-)

The real facts are that adding storage and removing renewable energy
would be the best thing for the grid.


--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On 13/08/2016 18:17, harry wrote:

Nobody

Bzzzzrt Wrong, try again harry.

Are you telling us that never in the history of EV ownership has anyone
ever ran out of juice?

runs car batteries to depletion because you can't take electricity to
them in containers/buckets.

As there is noway of accurately knowing how much energy remains in a
battery, no-one runs their battery even close to depletion.

Lets take a real world example. A friend of mine was coming over to see
me in his leaf. He left home with a nearly full charge, to do what
should have been a 40 mile journey. Normally he can *just* get here and
back again on a single charge.

This time it was very cold, and he got stuck for an hour and a half in a
traffic jam on a dual carriage way due to an accident. Since he needed
to run heating for that time, that eat into his juice. When he got close
to my place his car was telling him he had 10 miles of range. Then he
found they were resurfacing our road, and he could not get into it from
one end. Needed to detour of a few miles to go to the other end and come
in that way. He finally pulled onto my drive with the car indicating 4
miles range remaining.

Now whether you know exactly what capacity remains or not does not
really matter. Its not good for the stress levels to have the car saying
4 miles left when you have an unknown number of miles still to do, and
nowhere handy to plug it in.

One never knows exactly how much power will be consumed on a "new"
journey either. There are so many factors.

It even varies on a repeat journey.

Indeed it does.

I have never used a fast charger or needed to.

The significance being what exactly?

Others have, and rely on them, but many will try and charge at home most
of the time.

As a none owner of an electric car, how is it you're such an expert
anyway?

Because I talk to people who do own them. People who still go out to
work and have families and need to use their cars for day to day stuff,
not retired keyboard warriors who just need a little jaunt to take the
Mrs to the shops twice a week.

I have also wired up / moved charging points for them as well.

Charging at home is far cheaper than petrol even on day rate price
electricity.

And charging in the car park at Lakeside now costs my mate with the leaf
£12, that's not far cheaper than petrol (if at all).

In Summer I charge on free electricity.

Its not free - it cost you a significant capital cost to be able to
collect this "free" electricity.

The whole scheme only works because you benefit from the existing CCGT
power stations that buffer solar generation to make it usable in the
first place, and subsidies collected from other energy users. A burden
that falls most heavily on those for whom energy bills represent a
significant portion of their income.

Are you seriously going to tell us that you would have bothered with
your solar PV installation if it were not grid connected, and there were
no FiT payments? Where the deal was, use the power when available, or
not at all?

In Winter, depending on
weather, sometimes by night.

Free electricity at night huh? Full moon was it?

Plus there is no road tax.

Yup, you keep convincing yourself.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 13/08/2016 18:25, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 13 August 2016 11:39:44 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 13/08/2016 00:32, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:28:19 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 12/08/2016 08:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 11/08/2016 23:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/08/2016 17:58, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a
future?

Nice in that they have a long life and should not lose capacity over
time. However the normal problem of energy density still exists - many
offer less than 1MJ per litre (compared to 43MJ/l for petrol)


I don't think they are intended to replace petrol.

Not suggesting they were, just illustrating that the energy density is
pretty low in relative terms.

Yes, very low compared to our highest energy density portable fuelling
option (setting aside the needs of rocketry) but I think it's some 2 or 3
orders of magnitude better than your typical hydro pumped storage option
in terms of land usage which is why the technology is being researched at
all.

Not just land usage, but also suitable geography. The space is not much
use without the hills and water.


With pump storage, the same water can be used over and over.

Even a closed system still needs some replenishment since some if lost
to evaporation.

The option exists of using natural underground water reservoirs .
Ie, letting water run down a borehole to generate power.

Which stations did you have in mind that do this?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sunday, 14 August 2016 04:56:46 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 13/08/2016 18:17, harry wrote:

Nobody

Bzzzzrt Wrong, try again harry.

Are you telling us that never in the history of EV ownership has anyone
ever ran out of juice?

runs car batteries to depletion because you can't take electricity to
them in containers/buckets.

As there is noway of accurately knowing how much energy remains in a
battery, no-one runs their battery even close to depletion.

Lets take a real world example. A friend of mine was coming over to see
me in his leaf. He left home with a nearly full charge, to do what
should have been a 40 mile journey. Normally he can *just* get here and
back again on a single charge.

This time it was very cold, and he got stuck for an hour and a half in a
traffic jam on a dual carriage way due to an accident. Since he needed
to run heating for that time, that eat into his juice. When he got close
to my place his car was telling him he had 10 miles of range. Then he
found they were resurfacing our road, and he could not get into it from
one end. Needed to detour of a few miles to go to the other end and come
in that way. He finally pulled onto my drive with the car indicating 4
miles range remaining.

Now whether you know exactly what capacity remains or not does not
really matter. Its not good for the stress levels to have the car saying
4 miles left when you have an unknown number of miles still to do, and
nowhere handy to plug it in.

One never knows exactly how much power will be consumed on a "new"
journey either. There are so many factors.

It even varies on a repeat journey.

Indeed it does.

I have never used a fast charger or needed to.

The significance being what exactly?

Others have, and rely on them, but many will try and charge at home most
of the time.

As a none owner of an electric car, how is it you're such an expert
anyway?

Because I talk to people who do own them. People who still go out to
work and have families and need to use their cars for day to day stuff,
not retired keyboard warriors who just need a little jaunt to take the
Mrs to the shops twice a week.

I have also wired up / moved charging points for them as well.

Charging at home is far cheaper than petrol even on day rate price
electricity.

And charging in the car park at Lakeside now costs my mate with the leaf
£12, that's not far cheaper than petrol (if at all).

In Summer I charge on free electricity.

Its not free - it cost you a significant capital cost to be able to
collect this "free" electricity.

The whole scheme only works because you benefit from the existing CCGT
power stations that buffer solar generation to make it usable in the
first place, and subsidies collected from other energy users. A burden
that falls most heavily on those for whom energy bills represent a
significant portion of their income.

Are you seriously going to tell us that you would have bothered with
your solar PV installation if it were not grid connected, and there were
no FiT payments? Where the deal was, use the power when available, or
not at all?

In Winter, depending on
weather, sometimes by night.

Free electricity at night huh? Full moon was it?

Plus there is no road tax.

Yup, you keep convincing yourself.

On Sunday, 14 August 2016 04:56:46 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 13/08/2016 18:17, harry wrote:

Nobody

Bzzzzrt Wrong, try again harry.

Are you telling us that never in the history of EV ownership has anyone
ever ran out of juice?

runs car batteries to depletion because you can't take electricity to
them in containers/buckets.

As there is noway of accurately knowing how much energy remains in a
battery, no-one runs their battery even close to depletion.

Lets take a real world example. A friend of mine was coming over to see
me in his leaf. He left home with a nearly full charge, to do what
should have been a 40 mile journey. Normally he can *just* get here and
back again on a single charge.

This time it was very cold, and he got stuck for an hour and a half in a
traffic jam on a dual carriage way due to an accident. Since he needed
to run heating for that time, that eat into his juice. When he got close
to my place his car was telling him he had 10 miles of range. Then he
found they were resurfacing our road, and he could not get into it from
one end. Needed to detour of a few miles to go to the other end and come
in that way. He finally pulled onto my drive with the car indicating 4
miles range remaining.

Now whether you know exactly what capacity remains or not does not
really matter. Its not good for the stress levels to have the car saying
4 miles left when you have an unknown number of miles still to do, and
nowhere handy to plug it in.

One never knows exactly how much power will be consumed on a "new"
journey either. There are so many factors.

It even varies on a repeat journey.

Indeed it does.

I have never used a fast charger or needed to.

The significance being what exactly?

Others have, and rely on them, but many will try and charge at home most
of the time.

As a none owner of an electric car, how is it you're such an expert
anyway?

Because I talk to people who do own them. People who still go out to
work and have families and need to use their cars for day to day stuff,
not retired keyboard warriors who just need a little jaunt to take the
Mrs to the shops twice a week.

I have also wired up / moved charging points for them as well.

Charging at home is far cheaper than petrol even on day rate price
electricity.

And charging in the car park at Lakeside now costs my mate with the leaf
£12, that's not far cheaper than petrol (if at all).

In Summer I charge on free electricity.

Its not free - it cost you a significant capital cost to be able to
collect this "free" electricity.

The whole scheme only works because you benefit from the existing CCGT
power stations that buffer solar generation to make it usable in the
first place, and subsidies collected from other energy users. A burden
that falls most heavily on those for whom energy bills represent a
significant portion of their income.

Are you seriously going to tell us that you would have bothered with
your solar PV installation if it were not grid connected, and there were
no FiT payments? Where the deal was, use the power when available, or
not at all?

In Winter, depending on
weather, sometimes by night.

Free electricity at night huh? Full moon was it?

Plus there is no road tax.

Yup, you keep convincing yourself.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sunday, 14 August 2016 04:56:46 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 13/08/2016 18:17, harry wrote:

Nobody

Bzzzzrt Wrong, try again harry.

Are you telling us that never in the history of EV ownership has anyone
ever ran out of juice?

runs car batteries to depletion because you can't take electricity to
them in containers/buckets.

As there is noway of accurately knowing how much energy remains in a
battery, no-one runs their battery even close to depletion.

Lets take a real world example. A friend of mine was coming over to see
me in his leaf. He left home with a nearly full charge, to do what
should have been a 40 mile journey. Normally he can *just* get here and
back again on a single charge.

This time it was very cold, and he got stuck for an hour and a half in a
traffic jam on a dual carriage way due to an accident. Since he needed
to run heating for that time, that eat into his juice. When he got close
to my place his car was telling him he had 10 miles of range. Then he
found they were resurfacing our road, and he could not get into it from
one end. Needed to detour of a few miles to go to the other end and come
in that way. He finally pulled onto my drive with the car indicating 4
miles range remaining.

Now whether you know exactly what capacity remains or not does not
really matter. Its not good for the stress levels to have the car saying
4 miles left when you have an unknown number of miles still to do, and
nowhere handy to plug it in.

One never knows exactly how much power will be consumed on a "new"
journey either. There are so many factors.

I know your story is a lie.
Electric cars use zero power while stopped in traffic. It is one of their main benefits.
And nobody sets off on an extreme range journey with less then full charge.
And unless they know exactly where/how they are going to recharge, when half the available energy is used on a journey, they turn round and go home.

No-one would set out on such a journey anyway without pre-checks.

I always check distances on Google Maps for a new destination and try to assess any hills by looking at a map.

The energy content/computer range calculation devices on electric cars are inaccurate.
Too many assumptions are made.
So the "four miles" is also cobblers.

All this means that you have to keep some "range" in hand when assessing any extreme range journey.





It even varies on a repeat journey.

Indeed it does.

I have never used a fast charger or needed to.

The significance being what exactly?

Others have, and rely on them, but many will try and charge at home most
of the time.

As a none owner of an electric car, how is it you're such an expert
anyway?

Because I talk to people who do own them. People who still go out to
work and have families and need to use their cars for day to day stuff,
not retired keyboard warriors who just need a little jaunt to take the
Mrs to the shops twice a week.

I have also wired up / moved charging points for them as well.

Charging at home is far cheaper than petrol even on day rate price
electricity.

And charging in the car park at Lakeside now costs my mate with the leaf
£12, that's not far cheaper than petrol (if at all).


One of the reasons I charge at home.
They were all free or cheap card operated only a couple of years back.
But that was always a dodgy inducement.




In Summer I charge on free electricity.

Its not free - it cost you a significant capital cost to be able to
collect this "free" electricity.

It's free. I get paid for it whether I use it myself or not.


The whole scheme only works because you benefit from the existing CCGT
power stations that buffer solar generation to make it usable in the
first place, and subsidies collected from other energy users. A burden
that falls most heavily on those for whom energy bills represent a
significant portion of their income.

Are you seriously going to tell us that you would have bothered with
your solar PV installation if it were not grid connected, and there were
no FiT payments? Where the deal was, use the power when available, or
not at all?

In Winter, depending on
weather, sometimes by night.

Free electricity at night huh? Full moon was it?

Plus there is no road tax.

Yup, you keep convincing yourself.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 14 August 2016 04:56:46 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 13/08/2016 18:17, harry wrote:

Nobody

Bzzzzrt Wrong, try again harry.

Are you telling us that never in the history of EV ownership has anyone
ever ran out of juice?

runs car batteries to depletion because you can't take electricity to
them in containers/buckets.

As there is noway of accurately knowing how much energy remains in a
battery, no-one runs their battery even close to depletion.

Lets take a real world example. A friend of mine was coming over to see
me in his leaf. He left home with a nearly full charge, to do what
should have been a 40 mile journey. Normally he can *just* get here and
back again on a single charge.

This time it was very cold, and he got stuck for an hour and a half in a
traffic jam on a dual carriage way due to an accident. Since he needed
to run heating for that time, that eat into his juice. When he got close
to my place his car was telling him he had 10 miles of range. Then he
found they were resurfacing our road, and he could not get into it from
one end. Needed to detour of a few miles to go to the other end and come
in that way. He finally pulled onto my drive with the car indicating 4
miles range remaining.

Now whether you know exactly what capacity remains or not does not
really matter. Its not good for the stress levels to have the car saying
4 miles left when you have an unknown number of miles still to do, and
nowhere handy to plug it in.

One never knows exactly how much power will be consumed on a "new"
journey either. There are so many factors.

I know your story is a lie.

We'll see...

Electric cars use zero power while stopped in traffic.

He used the ****ing heater when stopped in traffic, ****wit.

It is one of their main benefits. And nobody sets off on
an extreme range journey with less then full charge.

You dont know that it was normally an extreme range journey.

And unless they know exactly where/how they are
going to recharge, when half the available energy
is used on a journey, they turn round and go home.

Wouldnt have worked in this situation due to the traffic jam.

And he may well have decided that once it was clear that
half the battery capacity had been used, that it would make
more sense to continue on to John's place and recharge
there than return home back thru that traffic jam again.

No-one would set out on such a journey anyway without pre-checks.

It would have been fine if there wasnt a traffic jam, something
that wouldnt have been known at the time he started, fool.

I always check distances on Google Maps for a new destination
and try to assess any hills by looking at a map.

And doing that would have shown that the trip would have been fine.

The energy content/computer range calculation
devices on electric cars are inaccurate.
Too many assumptions are made.
So the "four miles" is also cobblers.

It is however what the car was claiming.

All this means that you have to keep some "range"
in hand when assessing any extreme range journey.

He was fresh out of magic wands to wave, ****wit.

It even varies on a repeat journey.

Indeed it does.

I have never used a fast charger or needed to.

The significance being what exactly?

Others have, and rely on them, but many will try and charge at home most
of the time.

As a none owner of an electric car, how is it you're such an expert
anyway?

Because I talk to people who do own them. People who still go out to
work and have families and need to use their cars for day to day stuff,
not retired keyboard warriors who just need a little jaunt to take the
Mrs to the shops twice a week.

I have also wired up / moved charging points for them as well.

Charging at home is far cheaper than petrol even on day rate price
electricity.

And charging in the car park at Lakeside now costs my mate with the leaf
£12, that's not far cheaper than petrol (if at all).

One of the reasons I charge at home.
They were all free or cheap card operated only a couple of years back.
But that was always a dodgy inducement.

In Summer I charge on free electricity.

Its not free - it cost you a significant capital cost to be able to
collect this "free" electricity.

It's free. I get paid for it whether I use it myself or not.

The whole scheme only works because you benefit from the existing CCGT
power stations that buffer solar generation to make it usable in the
first place, and subsidies collected from other energy users. A burden
that falls most heavily on those for whom energy bills represent a
significant portion of their income.

Are you seriously going to tell us that you would have bothered with
your solar PV installation if it were not grid connected, and there were
no FiT payments? Where the deal was, use the power when available, or
not at all?

In Winter, depending on
weather, sometimes by night.

Free electricity at night huh? Full moon was it?

Plus there is no road tax.

Yup, you keep convincing yourself.

In article , harry
wrote:
On Sunday, 14 August 2016 04:56:46 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 13/08/2016 18:17, harry wrote:

Nobody

Bzzzzrt Wrong, try again harry.

Are you telling us that never in the history of EV ownership has anyone
ever ran out of juice?

runs car batteries to depletion because you can't take electricity to
them in containers/buckets.

As there is noway of accurately knowing how much energy remains in a
battery, no-one runs their battery even close to depletion.

Lets take a real world example. A friend of mine was coming over to see
me in his leaf. He left home with a nearly full charge, to do what
should have been a 40 mile journey. Normally he can *just* get here and
back again on a single charge.

This time it was very cold, and he got stuck for an hour and a half in
a traffic jam on a dual carriage way due to an accident. Since he
needed to run heating for that time, that eat into his juice. When he
got close to my place his car was telling him he had 10 miles of range.
Then he found they were resurfacing our road, and he could not get into
it from one end. Needed to detour of a few miles to go to the other end
and come in that way. He finally pulled onto my drive with the car
indicating 4 miles range remaining.

Now whether you know exactly what capacity remains or not does not
really matter. Its not good for the stress levels to have the car
saying 4 miles left when you have an unknown number of miles still to
do, and nowhere handy to plug it in.

One never knows exactly how much power will be consumed on a "new"
journey either. There are so many factors.

I know your story is a lie. Electric cars use zero power while stopped in
traffic.

Not if it's after lighting up time.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 14/08/2016 06:59, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 14 August 2016 04:56:46 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 13/08/2016 18:17, harry wrote:

Nobody

Bzzzzrt Wrong, try again harry.

Are you telling us that never in the history of EV ownership has
anyone ever ran out of juice?

runs car batteries to depletion because you can't take
electricity to them in containers/buckets.

As there is noway of accurately knowing how much energy remains
in a battery, no-one runs their battery even close to depletion.

Lets take a real world example. A friend of mine was coming over to
see me in his leaf. He left home with a nearly full charge, to do
what should have been a 40 mile journey. Normally he can *just* get
here and back again on a single charge.

This time it was very cold, and he got stuck for an hour and a half
in a traffic jam on a dual carriage way due to an accident. Since
he needed to run heating for that time, that eat into his juice.
When he got close to my place his car was telling him he had 10
miles of range. Then he found they were resurfacing our road, and
he could not get into it from one end. Needed to detour of a few
miles to go to the other end and come in that way. He finally
pulled onto my drive with the car indicating 4 miles range
remaining.

Now whether you know exactly what capacity remains or not does not
really matter. Its not good for the stress levels to have the car
saying 4 miles left when you have an unknown number of miles still
to do, and nowhere handy to plug it in.

One never knows exactly how much power will be consumed on a
"new" journey either. There are so many factors.

I know your story is a lie. Electric cars use zero power while
stopped in traffic.

Lights, wipers, on board electronics, heater, etc.

It is one of their main benefits.

Stop start IC engines don't use any more power than that either.

And nobody sets off on an extreme range journey with less then full
charge. And unless they know exactly where/how they are going to
recharge, when half the available energy is used on a journey, they
turn round and go home.

Maybe they need to make the trip and expect the ability to top up at the
destination?


No-one would set out on such a journey anyway without pre-checks.

Your psychic abilities have yet to be proven.


I always check distances on Google Maps for a new destination and try
to assess any hills by looking at a map.

The energy content/computer range calculation devices on electric
cars are inaccurate. Too many assumptions are made. So the "four
miles" is also cobblers.

All this means that you have to keep some "range" in hand when
assessing any extreme range journey.


Its called range anxiety and its why most people don't buy an electric
car and those that do trust them so much they buy another car as well.





It even varies on a repeat journey.

Indeed it does.

I have never used a fast charger or needed to.

The significance being what exactly?

Others have, and rely on them, but many will try and charge at home
most of the time.

As a none owner of an electric car, how is it you're such an
expert anyway?

Because I talk to people who do own them. People who still go out
to work and have families and need to use their cars for day to day
stuff, not retired keyboard warriors who just need a little jaunt
to take the Mrs to the shops twice a week.

I have also wired up / moved charging points for them as well.

Charging at home is far cheaper than petrol even on day rate
price electricity.

And charging in the car park at Lakeside now costs my mate with the
leaf £12, that's not far cheaper than petrol (if at all).


One of the reasons I charge at home. They were all free or cheap card
operated only a couple of years back. But that was always a dodgy
inducement.




In Summer I charge on free electricity.

Its not free - it cost you a significant capital cost to be able to
collect this "free" electricity.

It's free. I get paid for it whether I use it myself or not.

So its free to you but costs others more than if you got it free from
the grid. Some odd definition of free.

On 14/08/2016 09:15, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:

On Sunday, 14 August 2016 04:56:46 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:

traffic jam on a dual carriage way due to an accident. Since he needed
to run heating for that time, that eat into his juice.

I know your story is a lie. Electric cars use zero power while stopped
in traffic. It is one of their main benefits.

Besides being a FIT thief, harry can't read either.


I can't work out if harry is an idiot or is just a compulsive liar like TNP.

On 14/08/2016 06:59, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 14 August 2016 04:56:46 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 13/08/2016 18:17, harry wrote:

Nobody

Bzzzzrt Wrong, try again harry.

Are you telling us that never in the history of EV ownership has anyone
ever ran out of juice?

runs car batteries to depletion because you can't take electricity to
them in containers/buckets.

As there is noway of accurately knowing how much energy remains in a
battery, no-one runs their battery even close to depletion.

Lets take a real world example. A friend of mine was coming over to see
me in his leaf. He left home with a nearly full charge, to do what
should have been a 40 mile journey. Normally he can *just* get here and
back again on a single charge.

This time it was very cold, and he got stuck for an hour and a half in a
traffic jam on a dual carriage way due to an accident. Since he needed
to run heating for that time, that eat into his juice. When he got close
to my place his car was telling him he had 10 miles of range. Then he
found they were resurfacing our road, and he could not get into it from
one end. Needed to detour of a few miles to go to the other end and come
in that way. He finally pulled onto my drive with the car indicating 4
miles range remaining.

Now whether you know exactly what capacity remains or not does not
really matter. Its not good for the stress levels to have the car saying
4 miles left when you have an unknown number of miles still to do, and
nowhere handy to plug it in.

One never knows exactly how much power will be consumed on a "new"
journey either. There are so many factors.

I know your story is a lie.

Like most things you "know", they are incorrect.

Electric cars use zero power while stopped in traffic. It is one of their main benefits.

What do the heaters run on - Scotch mist?

And nobody sets off on an extreme range journey with less then full charge.

40 miles is not an "extreme range journey" - its one that he knows his
car will do on less than half a charge.

And unless they know exactly where/how they are going to recharge,

Which he did - he knew that he could recharge at my place when he got here.

when half the available energy is used on a journey, they turn round and go home.

So he runs out a few mile from home, wastes a few hours and does not get
where he wanted to go?

Yup, I can see that would make perfect sense to someone like you.

No-one would set out on such a journey anyway without pre-checks.

What would you suggest, a survey of all the drivers likely to be using
the same road to check if they are planning on having an accident?

I always check distances on Google Maps for a new destination and try to assess any hills by looking at a map.

Do you have the comprehension skills of a spanner? (no need to answer
that, we know the answer).

He was coming here. The clue in the description was "friend" - you could
perhaps infer from that, he has been here before!

The energy content/computer range calculation devices on electric cars are inaccurate.
Too many assumptions are made.
So the "four miles" is also cobblers.

Yup, it might have only be 1 or it might have been ten.

(he also has a (non Nissan approved) smartphone app that lets him
interrogate all kinds of detail from the car that it won't tell you via
its instrumentation, such as the actual battery state and the capacity
remaining)

All this means that you have to keep some "range" in hand when assessing any extreme range journey.

40 miles? Can I have a pint of whatever you are on harry?

And charging in the car park at Lakeside now costs my mate with the leaf
£12, that's not far cheaper than petrol (if at all).


One of the reasons I charge at home.
They were all free or cheap card operated only a couple of years back.
But that was always a dodgy inducement.

Bait and switch, as I said.

In Summer I charge on free electricity.

Its not free - it cost you a significant capital cost to be able to
collect this "free" electricity.

It's free. I get paid for it whether I use it myself or not.

Its free in the same way the gas I get from EDF is free - it just comes
out of a hole in the ground.




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 14/08/2016 09:15, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:

On Sunday, 14 August 2016 04:56:46 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:

traffic jam on a dual carriage way due to an accident. Since he needed
to run heating for that time, that eat into his juice.

I know your story is a lie. Electric cars use zero power while stopped
in traffic. It is one of their main benefits.

Besides being a FIT thief, harry can't read either.


I can't work out if harry is an idiot or is just a compulsive liar like
TNP.

He appears to be both, and a completely rabid bigot as well.