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

"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 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 13:25, 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 13:47, 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.

"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 ,
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.

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.

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 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.

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

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

Steve Walker wrote:
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.

So for the one weekend in your life when you drive to France, buy a house,
spray it with woodworm killer, and drive home again, you rent a petrol or
diesel car.

Perhaps the other weekends in your life don't involve nonstop driving 1000+
miles and are not as action-packed?

Theo

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 14:58, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 14:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* 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.

Why ever not?
I'd say it was the perfect place for it


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.


--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On 19/05/2021 15:10, Theo wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
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.

So for the one weekend in your life when you drive to France, buy a house,
spray it with woodworm killer, and drive home again, you rent a petrol or
diesel car.

Perhaps the other weekends in your life don't involve nonstop driving 1000+
miles and are not as action-packed?

That's one reason why I liked the idea of plug-in hybrids. Best of both
worlds.

Sufficient battery to cope with the average journey of 7 miles, and
would have the necessary range for long journeys.

Plus not be as heavy as pure EVs so less carbon particulates from tyre wear.

On 19/05/2021 15:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/05/2021 13:52, Clive Arthur wrote:

snipped


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

Indeed you'd need to cover the connector. Probably with something
cheap, disposable and biodegradable. A turnip, for example.

And as for those trailer connectors, they'll never work.

--
Cheers
Clive

"Theo" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
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.

So for the one weekend in your life when you drive to France, buy a house,
spray it with woodworm killer, and drive home again, you rent a petrol or
diesel car.

Perhaps the other weekends in your life don't involve nonstop driving
1000+
miles and are not as action-packed?

This is the problem with electric cars - one car cannot do all the jobs and
you may need either to own a second (petrol/diesel) car or else rent one -
both of which are all extra cost.

We, the public, are being asked to change the way we live and to accept a
sub-standard product. When EVs are at least as good as petrol/diesel, in
terms of range and refuelling, *then* is the time to phase out
petrol/diesel. But the date of petrol/diesel car withdrawal (ie no longer
sold any more) has already been announced. That may be to spur manufacturers
to get their acts together, though I'm sure they are all working flat out as
it is to find solutions. But if the date comes and we still have EVs with a
maximum range of 200 miles and a recharge time (to restore the full range)
of over an hour (and maybe considerably longer) then it will be a huge step
backwards in the name of "progress".


And will petrol/diesel *rental* cars always be available? Will there come a
time when the cars, bought just before sales are stopped, have worn out.
What then? Will we have no choice but to stop every 200 miles for a
multi-hour break? The problem comes when the place where you take a planned
break is not the same place as the one where you can charge the car.

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

"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.

"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).

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

In article ,
Theo wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
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.

So for the one weekend in your life when you drive to France, buy a house,
spray it with woodworm killer, and drive home again, you rent a petrol or
diesel car.

I'd considered that as a possibility when thinking about buying an electric
car. Ah - I'm 81 and hiring a car if you're over 80 it is, apparently,
very difficult.


Perhaps the other weekends in your life don't involve nonstop driving 1000+
miles and are not as action-packed?

Theo

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

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 19/05/2021 14:58, Steve Walker wrote:
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.

Why ever not? I'd say it was the perfect place for it

How many vehicles? Where is tehextra enery going to come from?

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

On 19/05/2021 15:42, NY wrote:
Will we have no choice but to stop every 200 miles
for a multi-hour break?

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally. I'm surprised that anyone would suggest otherwise. Ofc, if
you think the whole climate catastrophe thing is hooey, you'll obviously
resent any lifestyle changes whatsoever.

You are overstating the length of the break, btw. The biggest Tesla
chargers can charge at up to 250 kW. That implies a more or less
complete recharge in under half an hour.



The problem comes when the place where you take
a planned break is not the same place as the one where you can charge
the car.

Surely, if everybody has electric cars, that won't be a problem? At the
moment, there's very little electric car infrastructure, as there are
very few electric cars.

In article ,
GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 15:42, NY wrote:
Will we have no choice but to stop every 200 miles
for a multi-hour break?

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally. I'm surprised that anyone would suggest otherwise. Ofc, if
you think the whole climate catastrophe thing is hooey, you'll obviously
resent any lifestyle changes whatsoever.

You are overstating the length of the break, btw. The biggest Tesla
chargers can charge at up to 250 kW. That implies a more or less
complete recharge in under half an hour.



The problem comes when the place where you take
a planned break is not the same place as the one where you can charge
the car.

Surely, if everybody has electric cars, that won't be a problem? At the
moment, there's very little electric car infrastructure, as there are
very few electric cars.

so, a picnic spot in the wilds of nowhere is going to have a charging poit?

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

On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the end
of the world.


I don't feel that I need to know for certain that the climate
catastrophe hypothesis is correct. It's just not fair to future
generations to risk it.

On 19/05/2021 16:45, charles wrote:

The problem comes when the place where you take
a planned break is not the same place as the one where you can charge
the car.

Surely, if everybody has electric cars, that won't be a problem? At the
moment, there's very little electric car infrastructure, as there are
very few electric cars.

so, a picnic spot in the wilds of nowhere is going to have a charging poit?


All right, that's a fair point. However, I don't think it justifies
ruining the planet.

In any case, my wife refuses to pee in the bushes, so we'll have to go
somewhere with a more or less decent loo.

On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the end
of the world.


I don't feel that I need to know for certain that the climate
catastrophe hypothesis is correct. It's just not fair to future
generations to risk it.

Do you think the "end of the world" hyperbole helps? I am sorry to say
that to me it just signals someone who (consciously or not) has bought
into the hyperbolic non-science. And probably also thinks that eating
meat should be banned from 2025.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 19/05/2021 15:10, Theo wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
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.

So for the one weekend in your life when you drive to France, buy a house,
spray it with woodworm killer, and drive home again, you rent a petrol or
diesel car.

Perhaps the other weekends in your life don't involve nonstop driving 1000+
miles and are not as action-packed?

But other's have involved setting off with only a couple of hour's
notice for a family funeral - again "non-stop", Manchester, Holyhead,
Dublin Sligo, Church, Graveyard, Cemetery, Meal, Belfast, Stranraer,
Manchester.

The point is that even if you don't do it often, electric cars aren't
capable of it when needed. I don't want two different cars, just one to
fill all the roles I need it for. For me a plug-in hybrid would make the
best sense. 60 miles range would cater for me in day to day driving on
electric only, almost all the time, but with the ability to do longer
journeys, as and when, at zero notice.

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
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.

Why? Anything is possible. At one time, you had to buy petrol from a
chemist shop.

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.

Not been around when petrol was in short supply? I have been.

--
*Windows will never cease *

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

On 19/05/2021 18:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
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.

Why? Anything is possible. At one time, you had to buy petrol from a
chemist shop.

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.

Not been around when petrol was in short supply? I have been.

Not even I can recall the Suez crisis! :-)

On 19/05/2021 17:09, Robin wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the end
of the world.


I don't feel that I need to know for certain that the climate
catastrophe hypothesis is correct. It's just not fair to future
generations to risk it.

Do you think the "end of the world" hyperbole helps? I am sorry to say
that to me it just signals someone who (consciously or not) has bought
into the hyperbolic non-science. And probably also thinks that eating
meat should be banned from 2025.


I couldn't resist the wording. Sorry about that! Runaway climate change
would make life on earth extremely difficult, and that is one of the
possible outcomes. Clearly, the earth would continue to exist.

The point, though, is that people are complaining that they may not be
able to use their favourite picnic spot on long journeys, whilst
ignoring the idea that people in arid areas may effectively be without
water. Those too losses don't seem comparable to me.

On Wed, 19 May 2021 17:09:25 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the end
of the world.


I don't feel that I need to know for certain that the climate
catastrophe hypothesis is correct. It's just not fair to future
generations to risk it.

Do you think the "end of the world" hyperbole helps? I am sorry to say
that to me it just signals someone who (consciously or not) has bought
into the hyperbolic non-science.

The options weren't clear enough for you then?

And probably also thinks that eating
meat should be banned from 2025.

Whilst I doubt it will happen from 2025 (it will continue going that
way of course) but do you think we will be able to continue to feed an
ever growing population AND as many livestock as people on the current
viable land indefinitely? Or do you think we should just carry on
flattening places like the Amazon [1] and other ecosystems until we
fell the last tree and then look to see what other planet we can ****
up?

But, for those who have been indoctrinated to *believe* we actually
have to eat the flesh of an animal to survive (when millions of people
around the world haven't for thousands of years) they you should still
be able to get your carnist 'fix' from 'Syntho meat', grown in the lab
and not needing to waste all those resources and pollute the planet.

Irrespective of any MMGW, we have more and more people consuming and
in turn they are producing more pollution where currently much of that
is livestock farming (ground, air, sea).

https://ibb.co/Y81hX7r

Cheers, T i m

[1] The Amazon rain forest is a very fragile ecosystem where it's only
the density of vegetation that allows for a very shallow level of
nutrients to keep the system running.

Fell / slash cut / burn that and plant animal feed and the nutrients
are exhausted very quickly and so not supporting plant growth for
animals (and so man) for very long. You then can't grow anything there
and it will take *years* for any of it ('The lungs of the world'
remember) to recover.

Even if it could sustain trees again and they were replanted, it takes
15 years for an average tree to stop producing CO2 and another 15 to
become net carbon neutral. So even if we did that over the entire
Amazon today, do we have 60+ years to wait before it starts breathing
for us again?

On 19/05/2021 18:16, Steve Walker wrote:

The point is that even if you don't do it often, electric cars aren't
capable of it when needed. I don't want two different cars, just one to
fill all the roles I need it for. For me a plug-in hybrid would make the
best sense. 60 miles range would cater for me in day to day driving on
electric only, almost all the time, but with the ability to do longer
journeys, as and when, at zero notice.

One of the manufacturers was looking at a little trailer with a motor +
generator that you could hire for long journeys. Or leave in the garage
until needed, so you weren't lugging around a heavy engine just for a
trip around town. It doesn't seem to have caught on. Maybe, it will.

On Wed, 19 May 2021 17:01:53 +0100, GB
wrote:

On 19/05/2021 16:45, charles wrote:

The problem comes when the place where you take
a planned break is not the same place as the one where you can charge
the car.

Surely, if everybody has electric cars, that won't be a problem? At the
moment, there's very little electric car infrastructure, as there are
very few electric cars.

so, a picnic spot in the wilds of nowhere is going to have a charging poit?


All right, that's a fair point.

Far point? ;-)

Everywhere was 'in the middle of nowhere' till someone put up a pub or
windmill and then 'they came' ...

However, I don't think it justifies
ruining the planet.

Quite and have you noticed that all those in favour of us carrying on
as we are now, no consideration what so ever that we may not be able
to (unsustainable) and *will* have to change our lifestyles, possibly
dramatically if we want to survive?

All this assumption that we could just jump in our personal transport
and burn fossil fuels polluting the atmosphere that we are all
breathing, just for the fun of doing so for ever ...

Covid19 has already changed the way many people work, live and play
for ever and I believe this is just the start.

In any case, my wife refuses to pee in the bushes, so we'll have to go
somewhere with a more or less decent loo.

Or take your own (if you have the car with you)?

Cheers, T i m