Says the Times. How are the charging stations going to cope with that?

Bill

williamwright wrote:
Says the Times. How are the charging stations going to cope with that?

Bill

You can use batteries to charge batteries, as stupid as that seems.

https://newatlas.com/automotive/pors...-taycan-track/

The ten cars shown in the promo shot, can each be charged twice, before
the transport is drained. The substation for charging, only has to
meet the "average" charge delivery rate, if you use batteries to
make up the difference in rates.

The Times article would be considered click-bait, because articles
about "fast batteries" have been around for decades. There will be
an article, and... nothing happens. A reason to write articles like
this, is some lab needs venture money, and once the venture money
is all burned up, that's the last you hear of it. Rinse and repeat.

Paul

"williamwright" wrote in message
...
Says the Times. How are the charging stations going to cope with that?

Hmmm. A lot hinges on what they mean by "charges in five minutes". If the
battery is 95% charged, they can charge it to 96% in five minutes. But that
doesn't tell you much. The important statistic is how long to charge from
almost empty to almost full. In other words "every n miles, you need to
factor in a 5-minute fuel stop".

My (diesel) car has a range of about 700 miles on a 60-litre tank. Diesel
has an energy density of about 38 MJ/litre.

If (and this is a big assumption) an electric car needs about the same
amount of energy to travel the same distance, then that's 60*38 = 2280 MJ
(2.28 GJ). And that energy needs to be supplied in the stated 5 minutes (300
seconds).

OK, so the power needed is 2280/300 = 7.6 MW.

Ouch!! That's equivalent to the power used by 1000 electric showers.


But maybe that's not a fair comparison.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml says that an electric car is
about 75% efficient whereas a petrol/diesel car is about 12-30% efficient
[that's a very wide range, I suppose going from a gas-guzzling petrol engine
to a more economical diesel].

So we can reduce the figures - let's say that an EV needs about 1/3 of the
energy of a diesel to take into account better efficiency.

And maybe we're happy to go back to the bad old days of a car with a range
of maybe 300 miles.

So reduce the energy needed by a factor about about 6.

That's still a charging power consumption of about 1 MW. Can the electricity
distribution system cope?


Suppose the charging process is 99% efficient - ie only 1% of the
electricity is wasted as heat. That's still a power of 1/100 MW or 10 kW. So
the batteries and the charger have got to dissipate waste heat equivalent to
three 3-bar electric fires. Gulp!



Then there's the other little matter. If new gas boilers are going to
outlawed, all the energy for people's central heating and hot water will
need to come from electricity. Oh, but we're closing coal- and gas-fired
power stations. Where the F do people think all this extra demand for
electricity is going to come from? How much of the country will need to be
covered in wind turbines?

On 19/05/2021 09:53, NY wrote:
How much of the country will need to be covered in wind turbines?

All of it.

I mean when you run the numbers the whole thing is completely insane.

What is actually happening is that while windmills and solar panels take
the headlines, behind the scenes massive work on SMR nuclear power is
going on ready for the time the public realises 'renewables dont work'

As far as electric cars go, yes 5 minute charge is possible and with a
typical battery in the 60-100kWh bracket that is around 0.72-1.2MW peak
inflow required.

And that poses problems of an engineering sort. But those sorts of flows
are not unusual in a typical electric train... Eurostar draws up to
20MW... so charging 20 cars at a time is no worse than starting up one
high speed train.

Batteries are already equipped with fan cooling.

If you want to think about 'three 3 kw electric fires' instead think
about a 300bhp car that runs at 25% efficiency - so 900bhp of HEAT is
being dumped by that cars radiators. Around 675 kW. It's no big deal to
dump 9kw. And extra fans could be built into the charge points

A bigger problem is the cable that plugs in. And safety. To get currents
down to less than - say 100A - you need 10KV or better. having that sort
of power handled by your typical Europhile ArtStudent„¢ is a frightening
prospect.

But, what it boils down to is a series of expensive engineering
challenges that all have to be solved to make it all work.

I think in time they will be, but I wont hold my breath.

Nor will I expect it all to go smoothly without several serious and
lethal accidents.

Nuclear electric *as far as is practicable* is probably tomorrows world.

BUT to eliminate fossil fuels almost entirely requires about a 3 times
uplift in total grid capacity.

And at least 80GW of nuclear power.

And you don't build that out of wishful thinking



--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/05/2021 09:53, NY wrote:
How much of the country will need to be covered in wind turbines?

All of it.

I mean when you run the numbers the whole thing is completely insane.

What is actually happening is that while windmills and solar panels take
the headlines, behind the scenes massive work on SMR nuclear power is
going on ready for the time the public realises 'renewables dont work'

Renewables work.

But you have to maintain a "basket" of power supplies,
a reliable baseline supply that meets all constraints,
as well as a variable (but basically free) dynamic source.

You can't run a country with only windmills.

That's where all those "natural gas peaker plants" came from.

Power companies here, can tell you "current windmill percent"
and "max possible windmill percent" - there is an apparent
method for working out what the mix should be. Even your
own power authority should be providing these numbers
to the users, to give some idea how poorly managed it is.

Texas could have been well managed - it probably had
sufficient infrastructure to "look good" when challenged,
but the devil was in the details.

Nukes cost money to fuel. They burn more fuel the
more you use them. Good nuke designs support
continuous fueling, so the reactor continues to run,
while fuel is loaded in deactivated zones of the
reactor, then those sections are brought online again.
A robot on the reactor, loads the fuel. If the reactor
is switched off, some of the cost of operation is saved
as the fuel isn't being burnt.

If you have a windless day, that's when the reliable
baseline is switched on.

I don't know what a headline looks like, but a well
managed power utility has some common characteristics
in terms of public disclosure. Usually you can find
a plan, detailing when the system is going to enter
a rough period (30% of nukes need to be replaced all at
once). Something has to finance that, and as the
Toshiba example shows, the companies doing the work
need financial guarantees. Projects that fail half
way through, can spell the end of the contractor
doing the work. The various schemes to deflect the
financing details, those have a price.

Like when a certain bridge was built here, and
some nitwit borrowed Deutsch marks to finance it.
Basically placing the citizens in debt, forever.
(The toll charged to cross the bridge, pays for the
interest on the loan. Seemingly no payment of principle.)

Poorly planned borrowing to finance projects, has
at times, a very big cost. A lot of utility projects
are loaded with very bad terms, in the financing.
Like a "free" source of energy, where one of the
terms of the financing, "gives" the free power for
practically nothing, to a third party for 35 or 50 years.
That's the kind of stuff that goes on behind the scenes.

Any energy source with astronomical financing, the
citizens are going to take a screwing on it, one
way or another.

Paul

Paul wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
NY wrote

How much of the country will need to be covered in wind turbines?

All of it.

I mean when you run the numbers the whole thing is completely insane.

What is actually happening is that while windmills and solar panels take
the headlines, behind the scenes massive work on SMR nuclear power is
going on ready for the time the public realises 'renewables dont work'

Renewables work.

No they dont when you need the backups for when
they cant supply what you are using. When you have
that, you might as well use the backup all the time
and save the stupid money you have ****ed against
the wall on the renewables and dont get the
comprehensive ****ing of the environment those do.

But you have to maintain a "basket" of power supplies,
a reliable baseline supply that meets all constraints,
as well as a variable (but basically free) dynamic source.

Not if you get a clue and use nukes instead.

You can't run a country with only windmills.

You can with nukes. France does.

That's where all those "natural gas peaker plants" came from.

Which **** that scarce resource against the wall. **** that.

Power companies here, can tell you "current windmill percent"
and "max possible windmill percent" - there is an apparent
method for working out what the mix should be. Even your
own power authority should be providing these numbers
to the users, to give some idea how poorly managed it is.

Makes a lot more sense to go nuke instead.

Texas could have been well managed - it probably had sufficient
infrastructure to "look good" when challenged,but the devil was in the
details.

Nukes cost money to fuel.

Cost **** all for fuel in fact.

They burn more fuel the more you use them.

Still **** all.

Good nuke designs support continuous fueling, so the reactor continues to
run, while fuel is loaded in deactivated zones of the reactor, then those
sections are brought online again.
A robot on the reactor, loads the fuel.

Makes more sense to have multiple nukes
given that refuelling happens so rarely.

If the reactor is switched off, some of the cost of operation is saved as
the fuel isn't being burnt.

**** all in fact.

If you have a windless day, that's when the reliable baseline is switched
on.

Makes more sense to use it all the time with nukes.

I don't know what a headline looks like, but a well
managed power utility has some common characteristics
in terms of public disclosure. Usually you can find a plan, detailing when
the system is going to enter a rough period (30% of nukes need to be
replaced all at once).

That never happens.

Something has to finance that, and as the Toshiba example shows, the
companies doing the work need financial guarantees.

Not if the nukes are done like France did.

Projects that fail half way through, can spell the end of the contractor
doing the work.

Didnt happen with France until they stupidly
gave up on what built their nuke fleet.

The various schemes to deflect the
financing details, those have a price.

Not when you do it like France did.

Like when a certain bridge was built here, and
some nitwit borrowed Deutsch marks to finance it. Basically placing the
citizens in debt, forever.
(The toll charged to cross the bridge, pays for the
interest on the loan. Seemingly no payment of principle.)

Only the stupid build bridges that way.

Poorly planned borrowing to finance projects, has at times, a very big
cost. A lot of utility projects
are loaded with very bad terms, in the financing.

France's nukes werent.

Like a "free" source of energy, where one of the
terms of the financing, "gives" the free power for
practically nothing, to a third party for 35 or 50 years.
That's the kind of stuff that goes on behind the scenes.

It didnt in France.

Any energy source with astronomical financing, the citizens are going to
take a screwing on it, one way or another.

Didnt happen with France or Japan or China either.

On Thu, 20 May 2021 09:56:59 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest troll**** unread


--
Xeno to senile Rodent:
"You're a sad old man Rod, truly sad."
MID:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
If you want to think about 'three 3 kw electric fires' instead think about
a 300bhp car that runs at 25% efficiency - so 900bhp of HEAT is being
dumped by that cars radiators. Around 675 kW. It's no big deal to dump
9kw. And extra fans could be built into the charge points

The difference is that engines are built to withstand high temperatures.
Batteries (electrolyte and plates) are not - and if the battery includes
lithium, you definitely don't want any possibility of *that* catching fire.
I presume the rate of chemical change in the battery is the rate-limiting
step for charging rate.

I'd not actually done the sums: 300 bhp at 25 % efficiency is a lot of power
to be lost as heat. OK, so that's peak instantaneous power, only during
acceleration or at non-legal road speed, and the normal average power will
be a lot less. The figure I quoted for a very fictitious 99% charging
efficiency (which I'm sure is pie-in-the-sky) is a continuous power of 10 kW
for as long as it takes to charge the battery.


A bigger problem is the cable that plugs in. And safety. To get currents
down to less than - say 100A - you need 10KV or better. having that sort
of power handled by your typical Europhile ArtStudent„¢ is a frightening
prospect.

Yes. Assuming you want a charging cable that is easy to coil up into the car
when not in use and which isn't so stiff and heavy that you need to be built
like Arnold Schwarzeneger to wrestle with it, you need to keep the conductor
cross section (and therefore the current) to a reasonable level. And as you
say, if you want a certain power and the current must be low, the voltage
must be frighteningly high. I'm not sure I want to be close to a cable
carrying 10 kV, no matter how good the safety interlocks are to prevent
power being applied until the cable is proved to be safely connected, and so
it will cut out as soon as the cable is removed.




I think we will need to resign ourselves to an *enormous* step backwards in
convenience: having to stop more frequently is not the end of the world, but
if every one of those stops is for half an hour or several hours (depending
on how much power EVs really *can* use for charging) then it completely
****s up a long journey that is greater than the car's range. Whenever we go
on a cruise, we have a journey from Yorkshire to Southampton (or back) and
we tend to do that in one go: I've driven all the way before now, and at
worst it's a stop to go for a pee and to change drivers - a lot less than
the recharging time for an EV. I suppose we will have to be able to
guarantee that we will always be able to fully charge an EV overnight before
the journey, and won't be starting in a half-charged state. There is also
the social etiquette for your friends and family compensating you for your
electricity they use to recharge their car while they are visiting: there
will have to be a little financial transaction on the quiet. I'm assuming
that using your own electricity supply will always be cheaper than using a
roadside charger, so no-one will ever use the latter if the former is
available.

I don't see charging times being reduced by the order of magnitude that is
needed to match refuelling time for petrol/diesel cars, so let's hope
technology gradually evolves to increase the range so there is never the
need to recharge half-way through a journey. As my mum's friend's husband
(former professor of fuel technology) used to say "never underestimate the
energy in a gallon of petrol - that's what we have to match with alternative
fuel".

On 19/05/2021 13:25, NY wrote:

snipped

Yes. Assuming you want a charging cable that is easy to coil up into the
car when not in use and which isn't so stiff and heavy that you need to
be built like Arnold Schwarzeneger to wrestle with it, you need to keep
the conductor cross section (and therefore the current) to a reasonable
level. And as you say, if you want a certain power and the current must
be low, the voltage must be frighteningly high. I'm not sure I want to
be close to a cable carrying 10 kV, no matter how good the safety
interlocks are to prevent power being applied until the cable is proved
to be safely connected, and so it will cut out as soon as the cable is
removed.

Have a separate fast charge connector under the vehicle, accessed
automatically.

--
Cheers
Clive

On 19/05/2021 13:52, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 19/05/2021 13:25, NY wrote:

snipped

Yes. Assuming you want a charging cable that is easy to coil up into
the car when not in use and which isn't so stiff and heavy that you
need to be built like Arnold Schwarzeneger to wrestle with it, you
need to keep the conductor cross section (and therefore the current)
to a reasonable level. And as you say, if you want a certain power and
the current must be low, the voltage must be frighteningly high. I'm
not sure I want to be close to a cable carrying 10 kV, no matter how
good the safety interlocks are to prevent power being applied until
the cable is proved to be safely connected, and so it will cut out as
soon as the cable is removed.

Have a separate fast charge connector under the vehicle, accessed
automatically.

and covered in mud...and subject to spray....I dont think so

there is a reason why fuel fillers are where they are


--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

On 19/05/2021 13:25, NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
If you want to think about 'three 3 kw electric fires' instead think
about a 300bhp car that runs at 25% efficiency - so 900bhp of HEAT is
being dumped by that cars radiators. Around 675 kW. It's no big deal
to dump 9kw. And extra fans could be built into the charge points

The difference is that engines are built to withstand high temperatures.
Batteries (electrolyte and plates) are not - and if the battery includes
lithium, you definitely don't want any possibility of *that* catching
fire. I presume the rate of chemical change in the battery is the
rate-limiting step for charging rate.

So what? batteries can do 60C engines can do 100C. Not a lot of
difference at the end of the day



I'd not actually done the sums: 300 bhp at 25 % efficiency is a lot of
power to be lost as heat. OK, so that's peak instantaneous power, only
during acceleration or at non-legal road speed, and the normal average
power will be a lot less. The figure I quoted for a very fictitious 99%
charging efficiency (which I'm sure is pie-in-the-sky) is a continuous
power of 10 kW for as long as it takes to charge the battery.

which we have already established is less than 5 minutes.

Remmember if you want your 300bhp car to be hurtling down the autobahn
at 160 mph then it IS continuous power.

Also, the reason that lithium cells *can* be charged quicker is that
their internal resistance is so much less with new technology. The price
you pay is weight...

A bigger problem is the cable that plugs in. And safety. To get
currents down to less than - say 100A - you need 10KV or better.
having that sort of power handled by your typical Europhile
ArtStudent„¢ is a frightening prospect.

Yes. Assuming you want a charging cable that is easy to coil up into the
car when not in use and which isn't so stiff and heavy that you need to
be built like Arnold Schwarzeneger to wrestle with it, you need to keep
the conductor cross section (and therefore the current) to a reasonable
level. And as you say, if you want a certain power and the current must
be low, the voltage must be frighteningly high. I'm not sure I want to
be close to a cable carrying 10 kV, no matter how good the safety
interlocks are to prevent power being applied until the cable is proved
to be safely connected, and so it will cut out as soon as the cable is
removed.


charging cables would of course not be part of the car any more than the
petrol pump hoses are.

It would be a suspended cable from the filling station - probably servo
assisted to get it into the right place to make contact with the cars
socket.

10KV is no big deal really, unless you touch it...need some serious
earth leakage trips

I would imagine a smart plug/socket arrangement with a barcode on the
cars socket linked to a debit card, and a charging regime, that would
allow no current to flow until a valid car was in fact plugged in, and
some safety barriers erected, and the seat sensors indicated the car was
empty...or whatever was deemed to be suitably 'safe'




I think we will need to resign ourselves to an *enormous* step backwards
in convenience: having to stop more frequently is not the end of the
world, but if every one of those stops is for half an hour or several
hours (depending on how much power EVs really *can* use for charging)
then it completely ****s up a long journey that is greater than the
car's range. Whenever we go on a cruise, we have a journey from
Yorkshire to Southampton (or back) and we tend to do that in one go:
I've driven all the way before now, and at worst it's a stop to go for a
pee and to change drivers - a lot less than the recharging time for an
EV. I suppose we will have to be able to guarantee that we will always
be able to fully charge an EV overnight before the journey, and won't be
starting in a half-charged state. There is also the social etiquette for
your friends and family compensating you for your electricity they use
to recharge their car while they are visiting: there will have to be a
little financial transaction on the quiet. I'm assuming that using your
own electricity supply will always be cheaper than using a roadside
charger, so no-one will ever use the latter if the former is available.

I don't see charging times being reduced by the order of magnitude that
is needed to match refuelling time for petrol/diesel cars, so let's hope
technology gradually evolves to increase the range so there is never the
need to recharge half-way through a journey. As my mum's friend's
husband (former professor of fuel technology) used to say "never
underestimate the energy in a gallon of petrol - that's what we have to
match with alternative fuel".

I think that several things will in fact happen.

1. Fuel cars may be banned from residential town areas, but they will
not disappear.
2. Urban car ownership will decline, with fully charged driverless taxis
being the urban norm
3. Charge times will reduce a lot
4. Range will increase a little.
5. 'Renewable' energy will vanish
6. Nuclear power will run everything. People will tell you that 'the sun
is renewable and it's a nuclear reactor innit' in a massive exercise in
doublethink
7. As fossil fuel costs increase, synthetic hydrocarbons rather than
hydrogen will replace them. Since these will use CO2 and water to make
them they will be considered 'renewable'
8. But mostly, we will be (nuclear) electric where ever possible for
everything



--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On Wed, 19 May 2021 14:56:44 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

I would imagine a smart plug/socket arrangement with a barcode on the
cars socket linked to a debit card, and a charging regime, that would
allow no current to flow until a valid car was in fact plugged in,

snip

And the last bit is what I understand happens already, no charge is
applied until all the right signals come back (as a make learned with
his re-badged Chevy Volt and 'faulty' charging socket connector).
snip

I think that several things will in fact happen.

1. Fuel cars may be banned from residential town areas,

Already happening in many 'pedestrianised areas of course.

but they will
not disappear.

There is no suggestion they will (in the foreseeable).

2. Urban car ownership will decline,

Agreed.

with fully charged driverless taxis
being the urban norm

Mostly in the form of better more granular Public Transport.

3. Charge times will reduce a lot

Agreed, even if only at 'Super' (more expensive) charging points.

4. Range will increase a little.

Range could increase a lot when we realise that luxuries and speed
affect range.

5. 'Renewable' energy will vanish

In your dreams.

6. Nuclear power will run everything.

In your dreams.

People will tell you that 'the sun
is renewable and it's a nuclear reactor innit' in a massive exercise in
doublethink

Except that particular nuclear reactor is 151.39 million km from us so
much safer and less likely to be used for nefarious purposes. Best to
make better use of that by collecting it's output using a mixture of
techniques.

7. As fossil fuel costs increase, synthetic hydrocarbons rather than
hydrogen will replace them. Since these will use CO2 and water to make
them they will be considered 'renewable'

Cool.

8. But mostly, we will be (nuclear) electric where ever possible for
everything

Nuclear powered long range high speed electric ferries / transports
with (onboard vehicle) charging will replace much aero / freight
movement.

Cheers, T i m

On 19/05/2021 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Batteries are already equipped with fan cooling.

If you want to think about 'three 3 kw electric fires' instead think
about a 300bhp car that runs at 25% efficiency - so 900bhp of HEAT is
being dumped by that cars radiators. Around 675 kW. It's no big deal to
dump 9kw. And extra fans could be built into the charge points

If you want a green solution you don't dump the excess heat into the
environment? It could result in more global warming!

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 20/05/2021 17:11, alan_m wrote:
On 19/05/2021 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Batteries are already equipped with fan cooling.

If you want to think about 'three 3 kw electric fires' instead think
about a 300bhp car that runs at 25% efficiency - so 900bhp of HEAT is
being dumped by that cars radiators. Around 675 kW. It's no big deal
to dump 9kw. And extra fans could be built into the charge points

If you want a green solution you don't dump the excess heat into the
environment? It could result in more global warming!

Nothing about greenwash makes sense anyway

Ok you put the cars into insulated housings and use the hot airr to heat
the restaurant above...

--
€œPuritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.€�

H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy

On 19/05/2021 09:53, NY wrote:

My (diesel) car has a range of about 700 miles on a 60-litre tank.
Diesel has an energy density of about 38 MJ/litre.

The fact that your car can drive 700 miles without a fill-up does not
mean that you can drive it that far without a break.

For me, a practical use case is to be able to drive 1-2 hours between
breaks. I have a petrol car, but if I had an electric car, I'd just plug
it in at each rest break.



Suppose the charging process is 99% efficient - ie only 1% of the
electricity is wasted as heat. That's still a power of 1/100 MW or 10
kW. So the batteries and the charger have got to dissipate waste heat
equivalent to three 3-bar electric fires. Gulp!


But, they only have to do that level of charging for 5 minutes. So,
that's not going to heat the car up appreciably? Perhaps the charging
station will incorporate fans to help dissipate the heat? Current
charging stations don't need that, as they are only charging at a
fraction of the rate.

On 19/05/2021 13:47, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 09:53, NY wrote:

My (diesel) car has a range of about 700 miles on a 60-litre tank.
Diesel has an energy density of about 38 MJ/litre.

The fact that your car can drive 700 miles without a fill-up does not
mean that you can drive it that far without a break.

For me, a practical use case is to be able to drive 1-2 hours between
breaks. I have a petrol car, but if I had an electric car, I'd just plug
it in at each rest break.

Have you never driven longer journeys "non-stop", with just pauses to
visit the toilet and swap over drivers?

Manchester to Dover, across to Calais, along to just past St. Malo, a
visit to a house, a visit to a "solicitor" to buy it, to a hardware shop
for woodworm spray, to the house, back to Calais, across to Dover and
back to Manchester. Three of us, over a weekend, so as not to lose time
off work.

Also, "non-stop" Manchester to the south of France and Manchester to
Nottingham to Stuttgart.

And a number of others.

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Have you never driven longer journeys "non-stop", with just pauses to
visit the toilet and swap over drivers?

Manchester to Dover, across to Calais, along to just past St. Malo, a
visit to a house, a visit to a "solicitor" to buy it, to a hardware shop
for woodworm spray, to the house, back to Calais, across to Dover and
back to Manchester. Three of us, over a weekend, so as not to lose time
off work.

You drove across the channel? No reason why your vehicle couldn't be
charged during the crossing. Likewise at the house etc you were visiting.
Electricity, unlike diesel or petrol, is available near everywhere.

--
*CAN AN ATHEIST GET INSURANCE AGAINST ACTS OF GOD?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 19/05/2021 14:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Have you never driven longer journeys "non-stop", with just pauses to
visit the toilet and swap over drivers?

Manchester to Dover, across to Calais, along to just past St. Malo, a
visit to a house, a visit to a "solicitor" to buy it, to a hardware shop
for woodworm spray, to the house, back to Calais, across to Dover and
back to Manchester. Three of us, over a weekend, so as not to lose time
off work.

You drove across the channel? No reason why your vehicle couldn't be
charged during the crossing. Likewise at the house etc you were visiting.
Electricity, unlike diesel or petrol, is available near everywhere.

They are never going to provide charging on cross-channel ferries.

The house we were "visiting" (to buy) was not ours until we had done the
paperwork, had only a 3kW supply limit, was at the time disconnected and
we only stopped there long enough to look (bought as seen on the day)
and again for an hour to spray woodworm killer.

Charging anywhere on route, would have delayed us considerably.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Have you never driven longer journeys "non-stop", with just pauses to
visit the toilet and swap over drivers?

Manchester to Dover, across to Calais, along to just past St. Malo, a
visit to a house, a visit to a "solicitor" to buy it, to a hardware shop
for woodworm spray, to the house, back to Calais, across to Dover and
back to Manchester. Three of us, over a weekend, so as not to lose time
off work.

You drove across the channel? No reason why your
vehicle couldn't be charged during the crossing.

Corse there is, no charger provided.

Too much hassle providing chargers for all cars on the ferry or train.

Likewise at the house etc you were visiting.

Electricity, unlike diesel or petrol, is available near everywhere.

Pity about the stupid charging time.

On 19/05/2021 14:02, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 13:47, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 09:53, NY wrote:

My (diesel) car has a range of about 700 miles on a 60-litre tank.
Diesel has an energy density of about 38 MJ/litre.

The fact that your car can drive 700 miles without a fill-up does not
mean that you can drive it that far without a break.

For me, a practical use case is to be able to drive 1-2 hours between
breaks. I have a petrol car, but if I had an electric car, I'd just
plug it in at each rest break.

Have you never driven longer journeys "non-stop", with just pauses to
visit the toilet and swap over drivers?

Manchester to Dover, across to Calais, along to just past St. Malo, a
visit to a house, a visit to a "solicitor" to buy it, to a hardware shop
for woodworm spray, to the house, back to Calais, across to Dover and
back to Manchester. Three of us, over a weekend, so as not to lose time
off work.

Also, "non-stop" Manchester to the south of France and Manchester to
Nottingham to Stuttgart.

And a number of others.

I predict a very high demand for new ICE and Hybrid vehicles in the
final years of production leading up to 2030/35 and the owners running
those cars for as many years as they can, also the prices of used
ICE/Hybrids after 2030/35 will rise due to higher demand.

You can lead a horse to water..............

"GB" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2021 09:53, NY wrote:

My (diesel) car has a range of about 700 miles on a 60-litre tank. Diesel
has an energy density of about 38 MJ/litre.

The fact that your car can drive 700 miles without a fill-up does not mean
that you can drive it that far without a break.

For me, a practical use case is to be able to drive 1-2 hours between
breaks. I have a petrol car, but if I had an electric car, I'd just plug
it in at each rest break.

Would you normally take a rest break for as long as it *really* takes to
recharge a car - not the fairyland figure of 5 minutes.

In article ,
NY wrote:
"GB" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2021 09:53, NY wrote:

My (diesel) car has a range of about 700 miles on a 60-litre tank. Diesel
has an energy density of about 38 MJ/litre.

The fact that your car can drive 700 miles without a fill-up does not mean
that you can drive it that far without a break.

For me, a practical use case is to be able to drive 1-2 hours between
breaks. I have a petrol car, but if I had an electric car, I'd just plug
it in at each rest break.

Would you normally take a rest break for as long as it *really* takes to
recharge a car - not the fairyland figure of 5 minutes.

If driving all day, I'll normally take a sensible lunch break. About an
hour, or so. Same as when at work. A 1 hour re-charge is more within the
bounds of possibility.

--
*To be intoxicated is to feel sophisticated, but not be able to say it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
NY wrote:
"GB" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2021 09:53, NY wrote:

My (diesel) car has a range of about 700 miles on a 60-litre tank.
Diesel
has an energy density of about 38 MJ/litre.

The fact that your car can drive 700 miles without a fill-up does not
mean
that you can drive it that far without a break.

For me, a practical use case is to be able to drive 1-2 hours between
breaks. I have a petrol car, but if I had an electric car, I'd just
plug
it in at each rest break.

Would you normally take a rest break for as long as it *really* takes to
recharge a car - not the fairyland figure of 5 minutes.

If driving all day, I'll normally take a sensible lunch break.

I don’t do lunch even when not driving. The most I might
do is an apple when on a decent trip.

About an hour, or so.

Doesn’t take anything like that long to eat an apple.

Same as when at work. A 1 hour re-charge
is more within the bounds of possibility.

But is **** all charge for an EV, particularly if
you have decent heating and cooling in the EV.

On Wed, 19 May 2021 14:39:49 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

snip

If driving all day, I'll normally take a sensible lunch break. About an
hour, or so. Same as when at work. A 1 hour re-charge is more within the
bounds of possibility.

And the key word there being 'normally', 'normal' as_considered_
with_our_current_tools / usage.

When you could only travel the distance within the range of a std
horse and coach, they built 'Coach houses' that distance apart along
any main / regularly traveled (where the trade would justify it),
expanding out from the centres until they met in the middle (like how
they often build bridges).

Then the same thing would have happened with petrol stations as the IC
powered vehicles become more common but that didn't happen with EV's
around the same time because it wasn't as 'easy' to distribute
electricity (with wires) as it was liquid fuel (tankers) even then.

Once the supply and infrastructure is in place it's much easier to
distribute such energy over wires than it is tankers. You can do it
with pipes but I think the cost / risk (with petrol, compared with
water or gas) wouldn't be viable, especially retrospectively
throughout a density populated country like ours (and for direct usage
by Joe Public).

Cheers, T i m

On 19/05/2021 14:02, NY wrote:
"GB" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2021 09:53, NY wrote:

My (diesel) car has a range of about 700 miles on a 60-litre tank.
Diesel has an energy density of about 38 MJ/litre.

The fact that your car can drive 700 miles without a fill-up does not
mean that you can drive it that far without a break.

For me, a practical use case is to be able to drive 1-2 hours between
breaks. I have a petrol car, but if I had an electric car, I'd just
plug it in at each rest break.

Would you normally take a rest break for as long as it *really* takes to
recharge a car - not the fairyland figure of 5 minutes.

20 minutes is my usual nap time if I am in danger of falling asleep.,
Otherwise 10 minutes - fillup, pay, cup of coffee and a pee.


--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Would you normally take a rest break for as long as it *really* takes to
recharge a car - not the fairyland figure of 5 minutes.

20 minutes is my usual nap time if I am in danger of falling asleep.,
Otherwise 10 minutes - fillup, pay, cup of coffee and a pee.

Your car has an estimated range of (let's say) 50 miles remaining in the
battery. You still have 200 miles to go. How much extra range will you add
in a 20 minute break? Enough to get you home? I doubt it.

When we do a long journey we tend to take sandwiches and other snacks and
eat in the car. And we'd choose somewhere quiet with a nice view, not a
garage forecourt or motorway service station. Back to the problem that the
place where you would choose to stop is not the place with the power.

On 19/05/2021 13:47, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 09:53, NY wrote:

My (diesel) car has a range of about 700 miles on a 60-litre tank.
Diesel has an energy density of about 38 MJ/litre.

The fact that your car can drive 700 miles without a fill-up does not
mean that you can drive it that far without a break.


I've done 900 miles with just a driver switch and 1200 miles with a 45
minute break half way

Plus cross channel ferry of course

For me, a practical use case is to be able to drive 1-2 hours between
breaks. I have a petrol car, but if I had an electric car, I'd just plug
it in at each rest break.


nah. I tend to do 4 hours a stint



Suppose the charging process is 99% efficient - ie only 1% of the
electricity is wasted as heat. That's still a power of 1/100 MW or 10
kW. So the batteries and the charger have got to dissipate waste heat
equivalent to three 3-bar electric fires. Gulp!


But, they only have to do that level of charging for 5 minutes. So,
that's not going to heat the car up appreciably?Â* Perhaps the charging
station will incorporate fans to help dissipate the heat? Current
charging stations don't need that, as they are only charging at a
fraction of the rate.


I think people don't realise just how much heat you can simply blow away
- getting rid of 10KW is a piece of ****. Getting it out of the
batteries while keeping them less than say 60C is more challenging BUT ...

....that's what a fast charge battery is all about - better heat dump
capability You can build thin flat cells with air spaces between, fin
them and fan blow them.


In model plane circles we can now safely *discharge* a lithium battery
in 3 minutes or less. That's the same sort of power dissipation as
charging it in 3 minutes or less. There are other reasons why we don't
charge that fast however.

Fast charge cells would of course have internal voltage and temperature
sensing built in, to tell the charge to slow down a bit, or if it didnt,
to disconnect themselves from it - or such smarts might be built totally
into the car itself.

This is a very soluble problem. At a weight and complexity cost. But do
you want the 300 mile car that needs an hour to charge, or the 150 mile
car that you can charge in 5 minutes?

Your Mileage May Vary...;-)





--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2021 13:47, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 09:53, NY wrote:

My (diesel) car has a range of about 700 miles on a 60-litre tank.
Diesel has an energy density of about 38 MJ/litre.

The fact that your car can drive 700 miles without a fill-up does not
mean that you can drive it that far without a break.


I've done 900 miles with just a driver switch and 1200 miles with a 45
minute break half way

Plus cross channel ferry of course

For me, a practical use case is to be able to drive 1-2 hours between
breaks. I have a petrol car, but if I had an electric car, I'd just plug
it in at each rest break.


nah. I tend to do 4 hours a stint

I regularly do 6 hours non stop and 14 hours less often.

On Wed, 19 May 2021 15:07:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

...that's what a fast charge battery is all about - better heat dump
capability You can build thin flat cells with air spaces between, fin
them and fan blow them.

snip

I thought those vehicle batteries that included temperature management
were done with liquid (heating and cooling), not air?

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 09:53, NY wrote:

My (diesel) car has a range of about 700 miles on a 60-litre tank.
Diesel has an energy density of about 38 MJ/litre.

The fact that your car can drive 700 miles without a fill-up does not
mean that you can drive it that far without a break.

For me, a practical use case is to be able to drive 1-2 hours between
breaks. I have a petrol car, but if I had an electric car, I'd just plug
it in at each rest break.

Assuming that there is a charge pont clear.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Wed, 19 May 2021 16:01:18 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 09:53, NY wrote:

My (diesel) car has a range of about 700 miles on a 60-litre tank.
Diesel has an energy density of about 38 MJ/litre.

The fact that your car can drive 700 miles without a fill-up does not
mean that you can drive it that far without a break.

For me, a practical use case is to be able to drive 1-2 hours between
breaks. I have a petrol car, but if I had an electric car, I'd just plug
it in at each rest break.

Assuming that there is a charge pont clear.

I think when it get's to that level of uptake, *every* parking space
will have a charging point and the load based on the worst case
typical percentage of EV's to IC that would be parked there.

They would do that because that would encourage EV drivers to park
there and so use the other facilities (like restaurants and all the
shopping / entertainment that would then also be added).

Just in the same way there is usually a food place and newsagent at /
near a railway station.

Cheers, T i m

In article , T i m
wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2021 16:01:18 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article , GB
wrote:
On 19/05/2021 09:53, NY wrote:

My (diesel) car has a range of about 700 miles on a 60-litre tank.
Diesel has an energy density of about 38 MJ/litre.

The fact that your car can drive 700 miles without a fill-up does not
mean that you can drive it that far without a break.

For me, a practical use case is to be able to drive 1-2 hours between
breaks. I have a Jpetrol car, but if I had an electric car, I'd just
plug it in at each rest break.

Assuming that there is a charge pont clear.

I think when it get's to that level of uptake, *every* parking space will
have a charging point and the load based on the worst case typical
percentage of EV's to IC that would be parked there.

They would do that because that would encourage EV drivers to park there
and so use the other facilities (like restaurants and all the shopping /
entertainment that would then also be added).

Just in the same way there is usually a food place and newsagent at /
near a railway station.

Cheers, T i m

Westfield at Shepherds Bush has a large Tesla recharging ststion on the
lower floor only. Management shut the lower floor during lockdown ;-(

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

GB wrote
NY wrote

My (diesel) car has a range of about 700 miles on a 60-litre tank. Diesel
has an energy density of about 38 MJ/litre.

The fact that your car can drive 700 miles without a fill-up does not mean
that you can drive it that far without a break.

The only break I have is for a quick **** by
the side of the road, not even a minute.

For me, a practical use case is to be able to drive 1-2 hours between
breaks.

I never do it like that. I routinely drive for far
more hours than that between breaks other
than a quick ****.

I have a petrol car, but if I had an electric car, I'd just plug it in at
each rest break.

Pity that wont replace what you used getting there
even if you can find somewhere to do that. I cant.

Suppose the charging process is 99% efficient - ie only 1% of the
electricity is wasted as heat. That's still a power of 1/100 MW or 10 kW.
So the batteries and the charger have got to dissipate waste heat
equivalent to three 3-bar electric fires. Gulp!

But, they only have to do that level of charging for 5 minutes. So, that's
not going to heat the car up appreciably?

Corse it will, that heat has to end up somewhere.

Perhaps the charging station will incorporate fans to help dissipate the
heat?

Thats a lot of fans.

Current charging stations don't need that, as they are only charging at a
fraction of the rate.

"Who or What is Rod Speed?

Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

--
Xeno to senile Rodent:
"You're a sad old man Rod, truly sad."
MID:

Le 19/05/2021 Ã* 10:53, NY a écritÂ*:
If (and this is a big assumption) an electric car needs about the same
amount of energy to travel the same distance, then that's 60*38 = 2280
MJ (2.28 GJ). And that energy needs to be supplied in the stated 5
minutes (300 seconds).

OK, so the power needed is 2280/300 = 7.6 MW.
+1
And if you take into account the power loss in the charging cable and
the internal resistance of the battery you get to the conclusion that
the topic is stupid.
May be with a 100 KV battery but good luck to build a 100 KV motor :-)

On 19/05/2021 23:04, bilou wrote:
Le 19/05/2021 Ã* 10:53, NY a écritÂ*:
If (and this is a big assumption) an electric car needs about the same
amount of energy to travel the same distance, then that's 60*38 = 2280
MJ (2.28 GJ). And that energy needs to be supplied in the stated 5
minutes (300 seconds).

OK, so the power needed is 2280/300 = 7.6 MW.
+1
And if you take into account the power loss in the charging cable and
the internal resistance of the battery you get to the conclusion that
the topic is stupid.

No,. if you were an engineer and no an ArtStudent you would do the
research and the calculations and see that it was challenging, but not
impossible at all, and the stupid person was in fact you.

May be with a 100 KV battery but good luck to build a 100 KV motor :-)

Oh dear. semiconductors that function up to certainly 25kV as used on
overhead electric trains that develop up to 50MW...are patently myth!


The sweet spot is probably around 5KV for charge CABLES. The battery can
be whatever you want. Semiconductor inverters and regulators will feed
the appropriate 4.2v to each and every cell.

As far as motors go, again the choice is almost limitless. lots of turns
of thin wire or a few turns of thick wire - the motor doesn't care. A
few turns of thick wire are good but that means you need very big
control transistors. In reality Id guess at something between 100V and a KV.

In short the constraints are about optimising the following issues

1. Charge cables. Too low a voltage means a massively heavy cable. Too
high a voltage makes safety a concern and also the ability to down
convert using readily available cheap semiconductor inverters. If you
limit current to 100A, then you need a KV for each MW of charge power.
2KV is within reach of plenty of semiconductors. That's a 2MW charge
lead. 2MW will charge a 100kWh battery in 3 minutes. All other things
being equal

2. Motor voltage. You probably again want to go high here, but without
getting into super dangerous territory, mainly so that connecting wires
and switching transistors have to handle less current. For a single
motor/conventional transmission a 300bhp motor (225Kw) running at say
500V and 450A is ok and in fact things get easier with 4 wheel motors.
Again you might want to push up towards the 2kv limit of cheap
semiconductors to get peak currents down, but, realistically you need to
look at the overall usage on the motor. It wont do 300bhp forever one
suspects, or need to.

3. Battery voltage - well you make that the same as the motor voltage
for simplicity. 250 cells in series nets you about a kV. It is really no
big issue.

What it boils down to is this. Can you make a cable and a connector that
will deliver a MW that is no worse to handle than a petrol pump hose
and nozzle?

If we go to 5KV, we need 200A. IEEE tables suggests that needs around 70
sq mm of cable to not overheat, which means that two such, and an earth,
would certainly fit inside something no bigger than a petrol hose.
lets say the overall cross sections end up around 200 sq mm and the
'hose' is two meters long - that's 0.4 cu dm of copper weighing about
4.5kg.

Not something you would want to lift unaided, but probably not much
worse than a fuel nozzle on a big truck diesel pump

And in fact aluminium has a better current to weight ratio, so would
probably be used instead.

Make the thing out of hundreds of small strands, and its flexible,
cover it in silicone rubber for primary insulation, and a wire spiral
and rubber overcoat - earthed for extra protection - and you have a MW
charge lead.

The plug and socket would be an interesting challenge - able to be
connected in less than a second by a complete numpty with no possibility
of wrong insertion, inherently lockable and capable of doing 200A.,..and
insulated to 5Kv.


I think id put some simple robotics in the charger side that rotated
things to alignment, wiped all the contacts carefully before clamping
them hard and then monitored the temperature in the whole shebang, and
couldn't be pulled loose without shutting off power first

I don't see any serious problems in any of this. Its not radical
technology, its just coming up with a standard
plug/socket/voltage/current that is *good enough*.

And then having the cars own electronics down convert that to suit the
battery in use.



--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent
renewable energy.

On 19/05/2021 02:26, williamwright wrote:

Says the Times. How are the charging stations going to cope with that?

More interesting is how the cable interconnection and plug/socket cope!

We used to have some very high DC current supplies and magnetic
repulsion between the supply wires would cause metal fatigue after a
while. It will be interesting to see how a battery copes with it too.

A supercapacitor might be OK but I can't see diffusion limited chemical
reactions tolerating superfast charging without a much shortened life.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2021 02:26, williamwright wrote:

Says the Times. How are the charging stations going to cope with that?

A supercapacitor might be OK but I can't see diffusion limited chemical
reactions tolerating superfast charging without a much shortened life.

Exactly. The laws of physics/chemistry (governing charging rates) are more
immutable than the law of the land (you will not buy a petrol/diesel car
after a certain date).

On 19/05/2021 15:50, NY wrote:


"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2021 02:26, williamwright wrote:

Says the Times. How are the charging stations going to cope with that?

A supercapacitor might be OK but I can't see diffusion limited
chemical reactions tolerating superfast charging without a much
shortened life.

Exactly. The laws of physics/chemistry (governing charging rates) are
more immutable than the law of the land (you will not buy a
petrol/diesel car after a certain date).


Sadly its already been achieved. Sub 5 minute charging has been done in
the lab,. and sub 3 minute discharging is reality on every single flight
battery I have bought this year

This is not pie in the sky, It's achievable - albeit at a cost and
weight and lifetime penalty.



--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

ۥ Confucius