Navitron Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum

Announcements & News => Media Watch => Topic started by: stannn on December 01, 2018, 01:01:52 PM



Title: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: stannn on December 01, 2018, 01:01:52 PM
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/11/30/some-42-of-the-worlds-coal-generators-run-at-a-loss/


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: billi on December 01, 2018, 07:05:57 PM
read about that yesterday ,  good  to  get that media coverage about it
from another article from the independant
Quote
"Matt Gray, head of power and utilities at Carbon Tracker, said their analysis “provides a blueprint for policymakers, investors and civil society”.

“Lobbying and cronyism, that’s the only thing that can save coal, and we are seeing that from Donald Trump and others throughout the world,” he told The Independent. "








Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: RIT on December 02, 2018, 12:07:36 AM
LOL, I think everyone on this forum thinks that long-term use of coal is a very bad idea, but writing reports based on "revolutionary method to assess profitability" is not going to change much in the short term as businesses and governments operate via standard methods to assess profitability. Also comparing baseload coal providers against dynamic 'sunlight-driven' PV providers has just about zero value as they are very different markets.


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: M on December 02, 2018, 08:48:34 AM
LOL, I think everyone on this forum thinks that long-term use of coal is a very bad idea, but writing reports based on "revolutionary method to assess profitability" is not going to change much in the short term as businesses and governments operate via standard methods to assess profitability. Also comparing baseload coal providers against dynamic 'sunlight-driven' PV providers has just about zero value as they are very different markets.

But it's so important to show to those with influence over the generation mix, that views such as "'sunlight-driven' PV providers has just about zero value as they are very different markets" are now archaic as we head into a world of cheaper RE and storage. Look at Indiana, switching from 65% coal generation today to 15% in 2023 and 0% in 2028 due to the savings they will make deploying RE and storage instead.

So it is extremely important to open up folks eyes to the fact that they are no longer very different markets, they are the same market, that can be 'attacked' from different directions, thanks to falling RE costs and rising technology solutions.


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: brackwell on December 02, 2018, 08:49:39 AM
In some shape or form they must be "profitable" or they would not be there. The UK ones are paid a retainer even if never used for "just in case" and then if used their marginal cost of production is profitable. As RIT says comparing despatchable coal to non despatchable PV is not very meaningful.

Ken


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: M on December 02, 2018, 02:57:44 PM
When RE + storage is cheaper than coal, then it's extremely meaningful. Old tired claims to support FF's and nuclear in a world where the economics have turned against them, does none of us any good. It just makes for a very negative and backwards looking forum that's fails to see the positivity in news articles such as the one Stan posted.


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: marshman on December 02, 2018, 03:57:16 PM
When RE + storage is cheaper than coal, then it's extremely meaningful. Old tired claims to support FF's and nuclear in a world where the economics have turned against them, does none of us any good. It just makes for a very negative and backwards looking forum that's fails to see the positivity in news articles such as the one Stan posted.

I don't contribute to the debates on this forum about the electricity supply, contacts, cfd's, profitability etc. The main reason is that I don't feel qualified or knowledgeable enough to do so. However, I do read every single post to try to learn and understand how it all works and then try to sort the "wheat from the chaff" so to speak.

Mart, you make many informative posts in this (and other) area(s) and as I said I read them all. I do find them helpful and informative. Several times in recent months you have posted that you feel that there is negativity on this forum and I can understand why you might think that from your position/point of view. But personally as a "neutral" looking in trying to learn/understand I don't see it, I see a healthy debate where there are a range of view points. There are too many areas in modern society where people get all their information from one source, (the Daily Mail for example! [other newspapers are available :) ) and won't see or read anything they disagree with or that gives an opposing point of view so they all end up singing the "same hymn from the same hymn sheet" and learn nothing. In my opinion it can and in many cases does lead to a very polarised public where nothing is properly debated or argued, instead it degenerates into a shouting match with neither side listening to the other. The Navitron Forum is one of the best forums that I follow in many ways - helpful, friendly, very well moderated, clear boundaries, but most of all frequented by a good bunch of people with a broadly common interest/goal but, best of all, a bunch of people with differing expertise, experience and viewpoints - all of which to my mind makes for healthy, interesting and mostly informative posts and "debates". As Beattie used to say "it's good to talk" - even if you don't always agree with what the other person is saying.

Roger


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: djs63 on December 02, 2018, 04:49:13 PM
And, in addition to what Marshman (Roger) says, we are getting there. Sometimes slowly, but coal generated electricity is getting less and less in many (not all) places. Nuclear commissioning is up and down but I guess, also less and less, Storage is becoming viable on a big scale....
Looking much better than when I started!
David


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: RIT on December 02, 2018, 06:12:04 PM
When RE + storage is cheaper than coal, then it's extremely meaningful. Old tired claims to support FF's and nuclear in a world where the economics have turned against them, does none of us any good. It just makes for a very negative and backwards looking forum that fails to see the positivity in news articles such as the one Stan posted.

The issue is that this report does not focus on RE + storage if you read the info on their website (link below). In fact, the report is not even just about RE vs coal as it also has gas as an alternative to coal. So they have replaced dispatchable coal with dispatchable gas. This is understandable when you read their mission goals as they are an 'independent' financial think tank with an aim of a 'route to a low carbon future'.

   https: //www.carbontracker.org/reports/coal-portal/

The report has also decided to group the whole of the EU as a single pot, so hiding just how bad the situation is in certain countries. Or for once just how good the UK is looking, which seems a shame to me.


A side issue is that the writers of this report seem to release a new report every year or so, saying much the same time. This is the Guardian's report from the start of the year regarding last year's report

   https: //www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/08/death-spiral-half-of-europes-coal-plants-are-losing-money



Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: A.L. on December 02, 2018, 08:04:22 PM
hello,


I don't contribute to the debates on this forum about the electricity supply, contacts, cfd's, profitability etc. The main reason is that I don't feel qualified or knowledgeable enough to do so. However, I do read every single post to try to learn and understand how it all works and then try to sort the "wheat from the chaff" so to speak.

 The Navitron Forum is one of the best forums that I follow in many ways - helpful, friendly, very well moderated, clear boundaries, but most of all frequented by a good bunch of people with a broadly common interest/goal but, best of all, a bunch of people with differing expertise, experience and viewpoints - all of which to my mind makes for healthy, interesting and mostly informative posts and "debates". As Beattie used to say "it's good to talk" - even if you don't always agree with what the other person is saying.


me too - marshman +1


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: offthegridandy on December 02, 2018, 08:10:33 PM
+ another 1, Marshman


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: M on December 03, 2018, 07:50:14 AM
When RE + storage is cheaper than coal, then it's extremely meaningful. Old tired claims to support FF's and nuclear in a world where the economics have turned against them, does none of us any good. It just makes for a very negative and backwards looking forum that's fails to see the positivity in news articles such as the one Stan posted.

I don't contribute to the debates on this forum about the electricity supply, contacts, cfd's, profitability etc. The main reason is that I don't feel qualified or knowledgeable enough to do so. However, I do read every single post to try to learn and understand how it all works and then try to sort the "wheat from the chaff" so to speak.

Mart, you make many informative posts in this (and other) area(s) and as I said I read them all. I do find them helpful and informative. Several times in recent months you have posted that you feel that there is negativity on this forum and I can understand why you might think that from your position/point of view. But personally as a "neutral" looking in trying to learn/understand I don't see it, I see a healthy debate where there are a range of view points. There are too many areas in modern society where people get all their information from one source, (the Daily Mail for example! [other newspapers are available :) ) and won't see or read anything they disagree with or that gives an opposing point of view so they all end up singing the "same hymn from the same hymn sheet" and learn nothing. In my opinion it can and in many cases does lead to a very polarised public where nothing is properly debated or argued, instead it degenerates into a shouting match with neither side listening to the other. The Navitron Forum is one of the best forums that I follow in many ways - helpful, friendly, very well moderated, clear boundaries, but most of all frequented by a good bunch of people with a broadly common interest/goal but, best of all, a bunch of people with differing expertise, experience and viewpoints - all of which to my mind makes for healthy, interesting and mostly informative posts and "debates". As Beattie used to say "it's good to talk" - even if you don't always agree with what the other person is saying.

Roger

Thanks, that's a great post. My feelings however remain the same, since I look back on positive debates and a site that had lots of comments each day, whereas now what I see is short threads often shutting down almost from the first post with broad negative statements such as consideration/comparison being meaningless.

On here we have an article on the economics of coal. As coal gets less economic, less will be deployed, and as per the article, more of the existing generation will become un-economic (money losing) and will shut down. That's a great thing.

Quote
According to the report, rising fuel costs and the falling cost of renewable generation mean solar power is not just cheaper than coal, but that a considerable proportion of coal generation capacity is running at a loss.

So what makes coal less economic, one thing is cheap gas in some countries, then we have the addition of externalities to the cost of coal (obviously the cost is already there, but it's not being paid by the generator, nor the consumer), and lastly we have RE.

To be more exact we have RE in the short term, RE + (RE + storage) in the medium term, and RE + storage in the long term.

Breaking this down even further we see that one component of RE + storage is PV. As PV gets cheaper so does RE and so does RE + storage.

Now going back, we have coal consumption/deployment being influenced by RE + storage, and RE + storage being influenced by PV.

So shutdown comments claiming that comparisons are not very meaningful, or have no value, do a discredit to any forum, but certainly to one about renewables. It not only ignores the big picture, but can choke of debate before it can lead to an appreciation of the bigger picture.


So we have threads, or perhaps I should say comments, supporting nuclear on economic grounds, without providing any economic info whatsoever*, we have storage threads shutdown due to posters obsessing on the chosen industry standard for reporting large scale supply side deployments, threads on any Elon related company** attracting openly hostile attacks (as the poster admits to having a 'thing' about the man), bio-energy discussions being left on the starting blocks due to there not being any spare grass in the UK!

*The last off-shore wind contracts will provide generation at one eighth the subsidy that HPC will get. Next year the government hopes to attract up to 3.2GW of capacity for £60m, that's half the generation of HPC for 1/750th of the subsidy (£60m/£45,000m).

**It's very difficult to mention Elon without attracting claims of 'Fanboi' but since his companies are leading so many innovations at the moment he's bound to get mentioned a lot (BEV's, methods of transport, RE generation and storage). But criticisms of EV's because they are expensive and long range, misses the point that the company is producing more BEV's than any other company in the world this year, and doing it profitably, thus creating a business model that can expand into smaller cheaper BEV's, a market requiring far higher production numbers to achieve profitability. We have the idea of new transport routes (underground) utilising cheaper drilling, and the innovative sale of 'the muck' as low priced bricks - but even these approaches draw criticism on the grounds that the tunneling industry is mature and Elon can't do it cheaper/better, and bricks can't be sold.

I too only want a friendly discussion on all these issues, but threads these days don't seem to attract carefully calculated and well set out pessimism of developments, instead I tend to see (or receive) short, blunt comments, with no analysis/breakdown, simply saying why something won't work, or why the issue/article is meaningless. Once threads receive comments like that, they tend to stop dead - that's my concern, the negativity tends to end the discussion, so we don't see the full story, nor the positive comments - though I appreciate that some posters do try, but I see less and less posts from them now.


Here's an idea, perhaps renewables were the underdog, a plucky fighter challenging the norm, and attracting so, so much positivity, debate, threads and posts each and every day. But now that they are becoming the winners, and dare I say 'the establishment', they are now fair game, attracting more criticism, which I feel should still be targeted against what they are displacing.


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: oliver90owner on December 03, 2018, 09:52:10 AM
Mart,

The simple requirement for PV and wind generated leccy is mass storage.  Neither are continuous supplies.  Tidal is about the only predictable renewable.

Even you seem to forget that actual wind generation is not nameplate rating.

We currently useup to about 45GW at times.  In the dark and not necessarily windy.  That amount of storage capacity, perhaps for days on end, is not practical, currently.  Other schemes, such as power transmission around the globe, need consideration.


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: RIT on December 03, 2018, 10:59:47 AM
So shutdown comments claiming that comparisons are not very meaningful, or have no value, do a discredit to any forum, but certainly to one about renewables. It not only ignores the big picture, but can choke of debate before it can lead to an appreciation of the bigger picture.

As that comment I guess was made to me all I can do is recommend that you go and access the report as it is free if you create an account on their website. From here you can look at the detail they have included for the UK market.

Once you start to read the detail you will find that much of the underlying detail (at least for the UK) is far too general or incorrect to be of value, such as them using all the Paris agreement phase-out dates rather than the UK government's stated dates/plans. They make no mention of the current utilization of the stations (3GW at the time of writing), instead, they just focus on the total capacity (14GW). Their final claim for the UK is that all our current coal power stations are operating at a loss, this is an odd claim as all of them are run by private businesses, who are not known for their charitable acts.

The overall result for at least the UK marketplace is that the underlying numbers in the report are meaningless - so if anyone uses this report to try and justify any decision that decision will be challenged and no doubt delayed. Reports with bad information do "choke of debate before it can lead to an appreciation of the bigger picture", which is what you have claimed I have done by pointing out that this is a bad report that is not in a fit state to justify decisions.

It should also be noted that at no point is the word 'storage' used in the report. Instead, Wind and PV are just put head to head against coal with dispatchable gas talked about in the general text.


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: billi on December 03, 2018, 11:47:06 AM
Mart,

The simple requirement for PV and wind generated leccy is mass storage.  Neither are continuous supplies.  Tidal is about the only predictable renewable.

Even you seem to forget that actual wind generation is not nameplate rating.

We currently useup to about 45GW at times.  In the dark and not necessarily windy.  That amount of storage capacity, perhaps for days on end, is not practical, currently.  Other schemes, such as power transmission around the globe, need consideration.

Why is it not practical , for example the  gas grid can take/store  month of gas  produced from  Wind and PV , Hydro  and Biomas
Hot water storage for heating  is a simple storage idea
Lots of ways to store  energy from renewables
that can be developped further in the time  while renewable installations should , have to grow fast
So no reason to stall  renewable addition  like its done in several european countries by conservative  governments ,  and that is a crime  in my opinion

when i see grapfs like this  and  the thread s wrtite up     and  recent articles  like this  https://corporateeurope.org/climate-and-energy/2018/11/coal-king-un-climate-talks-poland?fbclid=IwAR3JJ0UX2n3JZ-xDZjBQDCYq-40yzNGFvmxPC13tuGm19xIxx1bZruFq4YI    about the funding  from the coal lobby  of the UN climate talks in Poland

then i am wondering , how on earth  those fossil fuel friendly governments , will cope with the amount of people  dying  or on the run because of climate change , that will be and is the number one reason for  people have to leave the homes ....

Billi


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: M on December 03, 2018, 01:55:08 PM
Mart,
Even you seem to forget that actual wind generation is not nameplate rating.

Do I, or is that simply false negativity? Let's check with what I posted:

*The last off-shore wind contracts will provide generation at one eighth the subsidy that HPC will get. Next year the government hopes to attract up to 3.2GW of capacity for £60m, that's half the generation of HPC for 1/750th of the subsidy (£60m/£45,000m).

So HPC has a nameplate capacity of 3.2GW, and at a cf of 92% works out at about 2.944GW.

And I suggested that 3.2GW of off-shore wind would be equal to about half the generation of HPC, so approx 46%cf (((2.944 / 2) 3.2) x 100%) = 46%.

So my statement does relate to generation, not nameplate, and therefore seems fine to me.


We currently useup to about 45GW at times.  In the dark and not necessarily windy.  That amount of storage capacity, perhaps for days on end, is not practical, currently.  Other schemes, such as power transmission around the globe, need consideration.

An article pointing out that this is possible, today, based on today's technology and economics has been posted on this site, with cheap RE supplying the grid, batts for short term storage and balancing, and chemical storage for longer term. You were the 3rd to respond, shortly after it was suggested I was deluding myself (too positive). The thread was heading for yet another negative rabbit hole, but some of the positive posters pulled it back - good on em.

Quote
"While several of the issues raised by the Heard paper are important, you have to realise that there are technical solutions to all the points they raised using today's technology," says the lead author Dr. Tom Brown of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology.

"Furthermore, these solutions are absolutely affordable, especially given the sinking costs of wind and solar power," says Professor Christian Breyer of Lappeenranta University of Technology, who co-authored the response.

Brown cites the worst-case solution of hydrogen or synthetic gas produced with renewable electricity for times when imports, hydroelectricity, batteries, and other storage solutions fail to bridge the gap during low wind and solar periods during the winter. For maintaining stability, there is a series of technical solutions, from rotating grid stabilisers to newer electronics-based solutions. The scientists have collected examples of best practice by grid operators from across the world, from Denmark to Tasmania.

Can we get 100 percent of our energy from renewable sources? (https://www.navitron.org.uk/forum/index.php/topic,29567.75.html)


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: M on December 03, 2018, 02:04:35 PM
It should also be noted that at no point is the word 'storage' used in the report. Instead, Wind and PV are just put head to head against coal with dispatchable gas talked about in the general text.

On-shore wind, PV and now off-shore wind are all, already cheaper than coal when you include externalities, and now starting to hit old fully amortized coal generation too. So currently (no storage needed) RE is impacting the economics of coal. And that's simply approaching this from a cold ££££££££'s point of view, something I often do, despite believing we should be doing it anyway, as economics are RE's new trump card.

As RE and storage costs fall, then RE + (RE + storage) will be able to challenge coal in the near future as we run out of low hanging fruit, and need RE's role and scale to expand further. As their costs continue to fall, then RE + storage in the medium/long term will be able to compete against dispatchable generation ....... and win. I truly don't believe I'm being overly enthusiastic nor optimistic about this, I believe the economics of RE and storage are already too far down this road for FF's to win.

At that point RE is cleaner, RE is more popular, RE is sustainable, and RE is cheaper, and sadly the last point is probably the most important one outside of pro RE forums, but I won't shed too many tears, since a win is a win.


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: M on December 03, 2018, 02:41:23 PM
Apologies for a third post, but just saw this article, and it kinda screamed to be mentioned on here given it's title and timeliness, though this is more at the theoretical end I believe:

What Long Duration Energy Storage Is & Why It Kills Coal (https://cleantechnica.com/2018/12/02/what-long-duration-energy-storage-is-why-it-kills-coal/)


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: djs63 on December 03, 2018, 03:32:50 PM
Unfortunately coal and gas act as energy stores. We need to do more to help overcome the still, very massive problem we face.

1. Presumably carbon capture ADDS to the cost of electricity generation from these fuels thus we need another storage medium, making renewables even cheaper by comparison. Perhaps build barrage systems eg Bristol Channel and Morecambe Bay, as “hydro storage” as well as being tidal generators. We certainly should push for large scale storage schemes. As forum members I bet most are keen to have both domestic and national scale storage if it is financially feasible. It is. Perhaps our only options are personal use of storage and to convince MPs to push the powers that be to get on with it on a national scale (London SW1A 0AA).

A large scale open cast coal mine application is back on the agenda local to me at Druridge Bay. The local MPs are either Labour or Conservative, both have their reasons for encouraging the proposal, creating jobs or reducing reliance on imports (and Russian gas). Thus we are tied up in politics making it harder for persuasion to work. We can but try.

2. Coal use is going out of favour internationally, all be it  too slowly, but mining and transporting it does create jobs. So one massive problem for us to solve is reemployment of those put out of work by axing the use of coal for electricity generation. Also, several countries rely in part, on coal, oil or gas exports to improve their economies. This is made worse for them because the alternative for coal exporters is to import oil or gas. So we have to help those countries use renewables to generate their electricity and find some way of bolstering their economies so that they do not have to rely coal (or oil or gas) exports.

My motto, is “keep trying” ( and insulate, insulate and insulate). David


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: billi on December 03, 2018, 05:12:59 PM
Quote
2. Coal use is going out of favour internationally, all be it  too slowly, but mining and transporting it does create jobs. So one massive problem for us to solve is reemployment of those put out of work by axing the use of coal for electricity generation. Also, several countries rely in part, on coal, oil or gas exports to improve their economies. This is made worse for them because the alternative for coal exporters is to import oil or gas. So we have to help those countries use renewables to generate their electricity and find some way of bolstering their economies so that they do not have to rely coal (or oil or gas) exports.

Between 2012 and 2016  the German  solarindustry  lost about 80000 jobs  according to Volker Quaschning , because of anti renewable  politics

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

How frustrating is that ?  I really admire  people like him  , still be able to promote renewables in a playful optemistic way ,   Tilting at windmills ( is an English idiom that means attacking imaginary enemies. The expression is derived from the 1605 novel Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes, and the word "tilt" in this context comes from jousting.
  or nowadays against Fossil fuel lobby


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: biff on December 03, 2018, 05:57:33 PM
I think it is excellent that our members can debate these very important matters thoroughly.
                                    and not get carried away into ranting at each other. It is a sign of sure maturity and decent company. That is precious folks.
     Debate is important just like Marshman said,,Roger nailed it.
                            Biff


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: oliver90owner on December 03, 2018, 07:15:49 PM
So my statement does relate to generation, not nameplate, and therefore seems fine to me.

So be it.  Just a shame that you forget that instantaneous generation may be very close to zero for quite prolonged periods (several hours is more than long enough).  Take 12 hours at only 20GW - that is 240GWh of storage required to get over a lull in windspeed.

I am realistic.  The time will come, but it is not now, or in the next couple or three years- at least!

Surplus storage requires an excess of renewables - perhaps around 100% capacity, to allow a relatively large storage to be re-assembled before the next lull, to allow for the intermittency.  That requires far more investment than we are currently experiencing.  Battery storage will take us ‘how far along that route’, do you think?  Let’s get real - we are not doing anything near sufficient to make the base loads obsolete, as of yet.  We need a few more Dinorwigs, for a start.


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: Philip R on December 03, 2018, 11:49:33 PM
If you are serious about hydro storage, have to read up the WordPress article by the mad scientist. His proposal was for a two stage pumped storage in Scotland, moving sea water inland. His proposal was colossal, the only way renewables can truly fill in all the load gaps when their is no wind and sun for extended periods. Only problems is the cost.

Philip R


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: billi on December 04, 2018, 01:33:12 AM
sure , the only chance we have is ..... drilling holes into our planet and explpoit what we have in the Matrix , because just cheap operation

superb stradegy since decades  , drill for oil  and produce plastics and complain about it after   ...

 people that tell me that renewables are Intermittent, should please provide facts of their idea ,  about their safe supply of energy , its kind of wierd to  explain  again and again , that its the only chance we have , is  based on renewables ,   surely some still believe in a holy ghost ,  but why  on EARTH  should i trust on something we do not have  endlessly


and to be frank it does not matter what it costs to  convert to 100% renewables , because of the simple fact  it will be way cheaper than if we dont


Billi


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: RIT on December 04, 2018, 02:51:58 AM
If you are serious about hydro storage, have to read up the WordPress article by the mad scientist. His proposal was for a two stage pumped storage in Scotland, moving sea water inland. His proposal was colossal, the only way renewables can truly fill in all the load gaps when their is no wind and sun for extended periods. Only problems is the cost.

Philip R

The link is

    https: //scottishscientist.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/worlds-biggest-ever-pumped-storage-hydro-scheme-for-scotland/

I use this as an example of just how big storage could become to allow the use of intermittent energy sources. Its scale is beyond anything that is likely to be built in our lifetimes, but it shows that unlike most solutions scale is possible.


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: todthedog on December 04, 2018, 06:52:25 AM
Billi +1



Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: M on December 04, 2018, 07:39:07 AM
So my statement does relate to generation, not nameplate, and therefore seems fine to me.

So be it.  Just a shame that you forget that instantaneous generation may be very close to zero for quite prolonged periods (several hours is more than long enough).  Take 12 hours at only 20GW - that is 240GWh of storage required to get over a lull in windspeed.

Do I? But nowhere do I state that RE generation doesn't vary. It's throwaway negative (and false) statements like that, that I find so tiresome these days. Why consider the issues, when you can simply claim they are TOO BIG and state that those who are being positive, haven't considered, or aren't aware of the real situation.

I think the biggest mistake that supporters of RE make, and it's the same one that critics make, is to confuse the scale of the job with the scale of the problem. There is no scaleability issue with RE, storage or EV's.


So, am I being overly optimistic? I'm sure many might say or think that. But I genuinely don't believe I am. I'm reading and watching 'stuff' every day on these issues and the solutions (affordable) are out there and are happening.

Can we build a wind farm, can we build a PV farm ... yes. Building one is difficult, building one profitably is difficult, but once that's been achieved there is no scaleability issue. So we can build 100. Is 100 farms 100x more difficult? No, in fact the difficulty per farm, will reduce as we build more.

Let's look at the problem of transport, one way to think about changing UK cars to BEV's is to consider the number on the road and the average cost of a replacement BEV. Let's assume 30m cars and an average BEV cost of £30k.

Is 30m cars and a cost of £900,000,000,000 scary ..... damn right it is. But is it a giant, vast, enormous problem, no. We need to step back and look at the issue rationally.

Can we build a BEV that does the job and people want? Yes, already there and the range of vehicles (in more ways than one) will keeping increasing.

Are the vehicles affordable? Yes, the latest studies show that BEV's have a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) than ICE's. [PHEV's have a slightly higher TCO v's an ICE.]

Can the BEV's be built profitably? Yes, Tesla have gone profitable after reaching the required production numbers on the TM3. They previously went profitable for one quarter after the TMS reached the required production numbers, before going into the red again whilst ramping up TMX production. They again went profitable for one quarter with the TMX, before investment spending on the TM3.

So do we focus on the scale of the task, 30m BEV's and £900bn, or do we accept that the money is already there (we spend it on ICE's today), and that we will naturally transition to BEV's over time?


The same issues seem to come up regarding nuclear, RE and storage - the problem is so big. No the task is big, the problems have largely been solved. You state that we will need 240GWh of storage for a wind lull, but 'those' BEV's will create ~1,500GWh of storage to supplement the grid, able to absorb cheap excess or provide support at peak evening times. The article I posted in June and referenced earlier deals with the shorter term battery storage, and longer term chemical storage in a 100% RE world. By all means provide facts and figures to show that 'they' are wrong, but don't go down the 'TOO BIG' rabbit hole just because the scale of the task is vast.

At this point I think I should also mention overcapacity as an addition to storage. It may sound like a waste, and possibly counter-intuitive, but as RE gets ever cheaper, this is an acceptable way to tackle the issue of intermittency.

Back to storage and costs. How big and how much will it cost? Here's a fun thought, this decade off-shore wind contracts have fallen from approx £160/MWh to £60/MWh, and the government is hoping for figures closer to £50/MWh next year. So as I've mentioned, they hope that the auction next year will provide for upto 3.2GW of capacity for £60m in subsidies. So £120m to match HPC's annual generation. That's £120m in subsidies v's £45,000m in subsidies.

Yes I'm knocking nuclear, but I'm trying to show that the money exists already for storage. So let me take that £44.88bn in savings and buy some storage with it. Rather than consider large scale storage, I'm going to be silly and simply price in Powerwall II's. So a large (insanely large) order with a small discount down to £5k a unit, what would we get:

£44.88bn / £5000 = 8,976,000 units
at 13.5kWh each that's 121GWh.

That's almost exactly half the 240GWh you mention, and from just the subsidy savings on one nuclear powerstation, and assuming we (the government) have to subsidise the batts 100%.

I know it's a silly example, but I just wanted to show that scale can be used both ways, as a negative, or as a positive.


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: desperate on December 04, 2018, 08:47:20 PM
Hi Mart,

I agree with most of what you say above, I know we CAN do something about it, I know it is technically possible to do something about it, I used to be as optimistic as you, that it was only a matter of time before we did. Back in '76 when it was lower than 340ppm it was absurd to think it would break the 350ppm barrier. I spent a lot of time agitating others to try and make a difference. It didn't work sadly.

Fast forward 40 years  410ppm, yet the same arguements about a lot of new hopefull technology that given time will save the world.............

https://www.co2.earth/show-co2

Cut to the chase time, it aint gonna happen because it is politically too difficult for our incompetent leaders grasp and sell to us, and the vast majority of us don't want to hear.

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/12/04/green-quantitative-easing-could-pay-for-climate-change-invetsment-we-need-why-arent-we-using-it/

Honestly mate, Ive given up but I take my hat off to you all



Nuff said.

Desp


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: desperate on December 04, 2018, 08:58:35 PM
PPPS

Mart, anyone?   if you want to make a difference support Caroline Lucas in her efforts to get this done, I've gone hoarse trying to convince people in the past you might have better luck :crossed

http://www.financeforthefuture.com/GreenQuEasing.pdf

she's the only politician with the jingle bells jingle bells to try and sell this.

Desp


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: M on December 05, 2018, 07:11:04 AM
Hi Mart,

I agree with most of what you say above, I know we CAN do something about it, I know it is technically possible to do something about it, I used to be as optimistic as you, that it was only a matter of time before we did. Back in '76 when it was lower than 340ppm it was absurd to think it would break the 350ppm barrier. I spent a lot of time agitating others to try and make a difference. It didn't work sadly.

Fast forward 40 years  410ppm, yet the same arguements about a lot of new hopefull technology that given time will save the world.............

https://www.co2.earth/show-co2

Cut to the chase time, it aint gonna happen because it is politically too difficult for our incompetent leaders grasp and sell to us, and the vast majority of us don't want to hear.

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/12/04/green-quantitative-easing-could-pay-for-climate-change-invetsment-we-need-why-arent-we-using-it/

Honestly mate, Ive given up but I take my hat off to you all



Nuff said.

Desp

Don't give up mate. Politically we're screwed, inaction, or too little action is dooming us. We are behind the curve and politicians (rightly or wrongly) concentrating on the short term instead of the medium to long term are not likely to do enough soon enough. However, that's why I go on and on and on and on ......... and on and on and on ....... and on about the shifting economics, since that will drive change fast, and the environment wins simply by default/accident.

But that's not my concern here, I'm more than happy to challenge FUD, spin and trolling on other forums, I almost see it as my small contribution to renewables. But, ironically, I don't have the patience nor energy to do it on here. Navitron used to be my safe place where I saw support and positivity for the technological options, but now I'm having to argue for the renewables options, I'm having to deal with claims that I don't understand capacity factors, despite my posts (on this thread) addressing that, I have to deal with claims that I don't appreciate the scale of the issue or storage, despite many, many large, boring and waffling posts over the years dealing with exactly that point. I'm accused of forgetting that RE generation is intermittent, despite years of chatting about RE mixes and storage options. I'm not moving the discussion forward, I'm simply responding to negativity and having to defend my position and that of RE, which is "so 2010" ...... so what's the point in bothering anymore, what will be will be.


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: brackwell on December 05, 2018, 08:23:20 AM
well i for one are very optimistic about the way we are going both in the UK and the wider world.

Just in the UK in 5/6yrs,

We have gone from coal leccy production being 65% to just a few % and diappearing fast

We have increased renewables from a few % to 30% and clean energy to 50%+ and is still increasing

We have reduced our leccy demand significantly.

There is a transition to EVs

I dont see any gloom in that.

EVERYBODY on this forum is in favor of RE in all its guises and want to see more.

Where some have a problem is when they hear 100% RE mentioned particularly if they interpret this as 100% for every second 24/7 .  Their concerns may ease a little if they realised the Gov means NET 100% over the yr.  Their concerns will ease further if what is really meant we will try for net100% but fully accept that in a prolonged winter we will need to use gas,coal,etc.

We need EVERY form of leccy production and storage if we are to crack this and yes that includes peoples anti gas and nuclear in the next 10yrs at least. Rome was not built in a day

PS near me the next French Interconnector is coming ashore and they are now digging the chanel for it across Lee on Solent airport and the land infrastructure is well under way.

Ken


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: biff on December 05, 2018, 09:09:58 AM
Ah dear members
           Do not feel so despondent  and let down. We are all doing our best and will continue to do our best well into the future until this problem is righted. It is also the SADS time of year where we suffer from lack of sunshine and are getting depressed because of it.
    Every little counts.  We take a few knocks and bangs but we get up again and march on. RE is the greatest lift to  mankind. We do the best we can. We cannot possibly  think of everything  but at the same time we are not alone. Other countries  who we once scorned as mass polluters are now working  hard to  right the wrongs this is not some form of decoration.  This is absolute necessity. We are waking up. Ignore the orange faced quiff heads climate denying outbursts. He is only looking for attention. Certain US states like Texas almost leads the world in RE. Oil companies have been steadily investing heavily in all forms of fossil fuel free ambitions. Sir David is right we need to  get a move on but we are not beat yet.
          Biff


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: kristen on December 05, 2018, 10:22:01 AM
So what should I be saying to 99.9999% of my friends at Dinner Parties that are doing too little? My wife jokes that we don't get any invitations because I harangue my hosts!

I'm fed up with most of my rich Barsteward mates waiting for government subsidy before they act; using their Range Rovers for the school run - they, after all, could easily afford an additional Eco car for those journeys where it makes sense; I'm happy they keep their Range Rover for when they need to drive across a ploughed field.  Installing Biomass boilers only when they are paid a massive wedge ... and then deliberately not installing any metering so that their Tied Cottage occupants use it full tilt, with the windows wide open, to maximise the subsidy.  I kid you not ...

Discussion of Eco came up recently with my hairdresser. In response to "Us little people can't do anything" I replied that at the recent climate change talks a recommendation had been made to move Electricity supply to a Green vendor; because that would put pressure on the non-green-vendors. Simple thing, probably no cost involved, possible even a saving and all that Feel Good Factor to enjoy. Her husband (also a hair dresser there) piped up that they had already done that :), and most of the other Punters (ear-wigging, obviously!) did too. Very heartening ... but not convinced that my Richard Barsteward mates have all done that ...

I need a list of action points to make sure that I am haranguing on every possible, but SENSIBLE, count please.


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: dickster on December 05, 2018, 11:15:55 AM
Don't give up,

Because of this forum and the Green Building ditto, we have built a reasonably eco friendly house, recycle our rain water for flushing and clothes washing, use logs to heat the whole house (and 2 x 47kg propanes for gas cooking/hot showers per year) and will have 2.3 kWp solar and Tesla 2 battery installed next week. Use 5 kWh per day, 500 litres of drinking water a week. Hopefully next car will be an EV.

It all costs money, but without the internet and forums, would never have had the confidence to do what we've done. Some of our friends think like us, some of our friends simply don't understand, but they're still our friends, the penny will drop, sooner or later.

Don't give up. :)


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: brackwell on December 05, 2018, 11:51:00 AM
Kristen,
Your friends by now probably have "got" what you are preaching but they and that kind of person do not like being told they have got it wrong and will defend their position accordingly. They particularly want to "keep up with the jones,s" and if that means a Range Rover so be it.  What they will find is that the Joneshave moved on and then they will also. People are very much like sheep with few having the ability to work things out for themselves and even fewer willing to put their hands up and say they have got it wrong. Stop the lecturing and keep the friends,if they are worth keeping, they will get there under their own steam.

They open the windows because they cannot control or know how to control the heating, it is not RHI payments as that is linked to the EPC rating of the property if not metered.

The ability of people to defend what they inwardly know to be suspect always amazes me.

Ken


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: kristen on December 05, 2018, 12:17:04 PM
Because of this forum ...

Yes, me too. Just gone back and looked at my posting history; back on 10-April-2007 I rocked up here asking for advice about Solar Thermal tubes based on a cold call I got from a local installer. My boiler was dying and I thought at the same time as replacing it I might put some Solar Thermal and a Thermal Store in.

I don't know at quite what point I thought that I might replace the dying boiler with Biomass, rather than a new Oil one ... but with encouragement from @lightfoot we stuck a 60KW Log batch boiler in and 5,000L of thermal store (https://www.navitron.org.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5875.0.html), with some solar thermal.

(https://www.navitron.org.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5875.0;attach=2360;image)

Since then we've added more Solar Thermal, PV and EV, and built a Passive House extension.  Battery is "soon" (some falling-dominoes involved in the timing), and I am planning on some more PV before the FITs run out.

I doubt that any of that would have happened without this forum, in particular getting the confidence to do it, and the ability to do it right-first-time.


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: kristen on December 05, 2018, 12:21:52 PM
Your friends by now probably have "got" what you are preaching but they and that kind of person do not like being told they have got it wrong and will defend their position accordingly. They particularly want to "keep up with the jones,s" and if that means a Range Rover so be it

Yes, I do know those type of people, but that isn't the category I'd like to influence, its the ones who are being tardy for no good reason. They can afford it, they have no reason not to do it, they would definitely prefer to have/wait for Subsidy (I see that is being a stumbling block ... sadly) and they are extremely jealous of what I have achieved ... still doesn't galvanise them though!

They remain friends ... but I keep lecturing them. Intransigence is something this issue doesn't have time for.  Politicians are bad enough, grown, intelligent, people are something else.

Quote
They open the windows because they cannot control or know how to control the heating, it is not RHI payments as that is linked to the EPC rating of the property if not metered.

You may well be right, and I may have got the facts wrong, but they did tell me they were not installing metering because if tennants used less that would effect their payments :(

So I'd like some new drums to able to bang pls :)


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: M on December 05, 2018, 12:27:09 PM
The ability of people to defend what they inwardly know to be suspect always amazes me.

Ken

Does that include those that support new nuclear, but never provide any information to support the economics now that RE is already the vastly cheaper option? Or fail to realise that as they both share the same subsidy pot nuclear spending directly impacts and restricts the earlier deployment of a greater volume of RE generation at a lower cost (£120m v's £45,000m)?


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: offthegridandy on December 05, 2018, 12:51:19 PM
Hi Mart, I thought I'd pitch in before people start cutting their wrists and totally giving up.

Personally I find my self strangely optimistic.  Back in the 60's and 70's Joni Mitchell and others were trying to wake the world up, I didn't see any sign of progress and with the Cold War possibly imminent I did fear that we wouldn't see the millennium.  In those days I always had an emergency grab bag with water treatment tablets and a survival kit, included in it were a selection of seeds (simple corn, wheat etc). I figured if I survived "the event" there'd be no hand outs and to survive I'd need some kit. I used to replace the seeds every couple of years.

With the digital revolution. internet, massive computing power and a real understanding that action is needed now; plus a fresh generation of bright young people that care I still think we might not be too late. Of course the youngens will come up with daft ideas along the way, but you've got to have them to get to the real technology break through(s).

 I suspect that the solutions that will actually change societies direction are still filed under Science Fiction.  Wind, wave and solar are really old hat, all we've done so far is improve them to the point that they are economically viable. BUT the SUN delivers to us in 8 minutes enough power for the whole planet to run for 24 hrs.  To me a dream answer is to use that energy directly.  Perhaps solar PV panels in fixed orbit above and power transfer down to the planet surface. I did say Sci Fi!!  Putting things in orbit we can do now.  Energy transfer who knows, but it must be do-able.

The digital revolution has ramped up the pace of change for good and bad. Think back to the year 2000 and consider how much has changed in all directions that were unforeseen. All the vested interest in power and politics could be upset or overturned by a single break through as ideas and information can be shared so easily now. Imagine the revolution that would take place if basic energy was "free" Putin, Trump, Agri business, "et al" would be stuffed and left on the margins. But the social revolution could be massive and unpredictably painfull and a slower rate of change may be what suits best. That said, the rate at which (staid straight) British people seem ready to embrace new stuff i.e tablets and devices I do find suprising and encouraging.  I think one trick to encourage changes in direction is to find the correct levers, I rarely agree with direct government intervention in the markets as theoir track record is dubious but finding suitable vested interest to encourage changes of view point can be done.

So whilst I have no answers I do think that even now, close to the predicted tipping point on global warming the human race will avoid driving of the cliff.  So please M don't give up, we all choose our own path. You may have to kiss a lot of frogs before you find your princess but you are not alone and are making a difference. A lot of us "small people" making small changes does have a positive effect just perhaps not where we are looking; inside peoples heads.

Cheers.

Andy



Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: biff on December 05, 2018, 01:24:29 PM
Excellent post Andy,
                        :)  Biff


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: brackwell on December 05, 2018, 01:38:36 PM

1) i do not know of anyone on this forum who supports nuclear to the exclusion of supporting more RE and storage

2) there are many ways of comparing business decisions and whilst cost may be one of them it is far from the only or most important one.



Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: billi on December 05, 2018, 01:41:17 PM
when i read that

Quote
Key Insights at a Glance
1.
2.
3.
4.
Solar photovoltaics is already today a low-cost renewable energy technology.
Cost of power from large scale photovoltaic installations in Germany fell from over 40 ct/kWh in 2005 to
9ct/kWh in 2014. Even lower prices have been reported in sunnier regions of the world, since a major share
of cost components is traded on global markets.
Solar power will soon be the cheapest form of electricity in many regions of the world.
Even in conservative scenarios and assuming no major technological breakthroughs, an end to cost
reduction is not in sight. Depending on annual sunshine, power cost of 4-6 ct/kWh are expected by 2025,
reaching 2-4 ct/kWh by 2050 (conservative estimate).
Financial and regulatory environments will be key to reducing cost in the future.
Cost of hardware sourced from global markets will decrease irrespective of local conditions. However,
inadequate regulatory regimes may increase cost of power by up to 50 percent through higher cost of
finance. This may even overcompensate the effect of better local solar resources.
Most scenarios fundamentally underestimate the role of solar power in future energy systems.
Based on outdated cost estimates, most scenarios modeling future domestic, regional or global power
systems foresee only a small contribution of solar power. The results of our analysis indicate that a
fundamental review of cost-optimal power system pathways is necessary.

https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/AgoraEnergiewende_Current_and_Future_Cost_of_PV_Feb2015_web.pdf


i have to say those  years here with sometimes  endless discusions   and  time elsewhere   i spent promoting PV ,  (sometimes hard to convince people when i had to pay about  4 Euro per watt  out of my pocket , when i started years back   )

I would say we are allowed to get a bottle of champange  out  to celebrate that massive sucsess  of Photovoltaic  (sure wind too)

Thanks to all you believers  and   as well some politicians and countries  too,  for installing Renewables even  at time,  subsidises where needed


Have a good new year  all

Slante

Billi



Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: MeatyFool on December 05, 2018, 02:03:58 PM
Perhaps solar PV panels in fixed orbit above and power transfer down to the planet surface. I did say Sci Fi!!  Putting things in orbit we can do now.  Energy transfer who knows, but it must be do-able.

Yes, putting stuff into orbit would be a good idea.

Research has already been done regarding a solar shade. 

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

This would reduce insolation so that the planet would cool thus mitigating the increases we are creating ourselves.

The further away it is the smaller I imagine it would need to be, but the cost of getting that much farther away is likely prohibitive.

I like the idea that we now have swarming drone software that should be able to cope with the miniature sail concept, with the drones using thrusters to line up just how they need to.

Meatyfool..


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: M on December 05, 2018, 04:38:00 PM

1) i do not know of anyone on this forum who supports nuclear to the exclusion of supporting more RE and storage

2) there are many ways of comparing business decisions and whilst cost may be one of them it is far from the only or most important one.



1. Nicely dodged.

2. Yes there are many ways, but to most people and politicians, cost is the main driver, so nuclear not being economic against RE and RE + storage, should put an end to support on that front. The only 'front' left in that particular battle.

Given that the other considerations, fear of nuclear, public support for RE v's nuclear, global economic collapse of nuclear viability/competitiveness (outside of China), nuclear subsidies preventing pro-rata a larger amount of RE generation being delivered, and nuclear funding delaying the arrival of FF displacing generation (RE is quicker to build, is delivered modularly (multiple farms), and individual farms come on line in a modular fashion too) ....... it seems there is no longer any business case whatsoever for nuclear anymore, a massive shift in just a few short years.

But as you say, and I agree 100% - "The ability of people to defend what they inwardly know to be suspect always amazes me." Although perhaps I would say support not defend, as to defend would require a counter argument, rather than just the dismissal of evidence.


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: M on December 05, 2018, 04:55:29 PM
Hi Mart, I thought I'd pitch in before people start cutting their wrists and totally giving up.

Cheers.

Andy

Hiya Andy and thanks for a great post, but just to be clear, I'm not giving up on my optimism for renewables, I suspect that's now a slam dump as growth/shifts won't happen linearly, but more likely exponential. A bit like the BEV example I gave, they are now being produced to a standard folk want, at a price that's affordable (don't laugh, I acknowledge they cost a fortune, but so long as TCO is lower, then that's comparatively affordable), with a range that's enough, with recharge speeds quick enough* to be acceptable. They are also of course, a step up in power, so no complaints there. From this point forward I suspect BEV sales will be supply limited, not demand limited, and people may even start to delay new purchases of ICE's in order to wait for BEV's. So that problem is pretty much sorted ..... just needs a dash of time.

* I recently heard a suggestion that seemed very reasonable to me, BEV's need to be able to charge 200 miles in 15mins. That's comparable to a sensible ICE break and leg stretch. That would require 50kWh in 15mins, so 200kW charge rate. Tesla's are already at 120kW, so not far away.

But I digress, I'm not giving up on RE, EV's and storage, and I will continue to fight the trolls, FUDsters and those 'JAQ'ing off' (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=JAQing%20off) on other forums, but weirdly and ironically, I find it too tiring to do so on here when ancient arguments such as 'the wind doesn't always blow' has been addressed 1,000's of times with long lists of RE generation methods, battery storage, chemical storage, gas generators running on bio-methane or hydrogen, interconnectors etc etc etc.

Shouldn't we be passed imagining problems now, and instead enjoying all the articles Stannn posts explaining the multitude of solutions instead? I'm not joking, I take a trawl of news articles each day on multiple sites, and You-tube (an excellent source for what's happening) and anything we can think of that will hold back RE, EV's and storage is already being addressed in numerous ways. As Mulder and Scully might say - the truth is out there.


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: kristen on December 06, 2018, 08:41:56 AM
* I recently heard a suggestion that seemed very reasonable to me, BEV's need to be able to charge 200 miles in 15mins. That's comparable to a sensible ICE break and leg stretch. That would require 50kWh in 15mins, so 200kW charge rate. Tesla's are already at 120kW, so not far away.

I take a different view, but it requires a lifestyle change for the user.  I think Capacity is King. My BEV has 220 miles real-world range, and I leave home every morning with a "full tank"  :), but about twice a month I have a > 200-mile-day. Rapid charging is nice, but increasing battery capacity (i.e. energy density up, and price down) will reduce that need. 300 miles is currently within reach, albeit expensive, 400 miles would mean very few out-of-range journeys

I'm not driving across transcontinental-America ... so most of my >200 mile days are "a bit more", and days over 300 mile are very rare  - once a year? So currently I mostly need somewhere between 1-and-100 mile topup. Tesla Supercharger is 10% every 5 minutes(*) (up to 70%), so for me adding 100 miles is 22 minutes. Seems quite long, but for many topups I need less than that and by the time I've walked to shops-area, had a pee and got a coffee the charging is done, and given I'm on a 300 mile journey the 20 minute break is no bad thing for a driver - not so much fun for a passenger whose journey just got 20 minutes longer.

Significantly faster Rapid Charging obvious "nice to have", but IMO definitely not essential for up to an extra 100 miles and no more than a couple of times a month.

Flip side, at 27K miles per annum I used to have a petrol-stop once a week ... that's about 8 hours total p.a..  And that's all Stand-and-Pump and Stand-and-Queue to pay ... whereas BEV is plug in and then do something else.  If I do Emails in that time, that I would otherwise do the moment I got home, its time neutral - better in fact, 'coz the Customer has got my answer today, not tonight :)

8 hours a year is equivalent to 2 x 20 minute Rapid charge stops a month  ... hence my "lifestyle change" comment. QED :)

If I were to drive to South of France I would have to charge 80%, 176 miles, at each stop and that would take 45 minutes and give me about 2 hours driving time. So for every 2 hours the journey got longer by 45 minutes :( Those journeys would benefit from very fast charging ... but that is a tiny portion of all journeys made.

(*)  i.e. bigger battery adds same percentage, but more miles, per unit of time


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: brackwell on December 06, 2018, 09:28:08 AM
Kristen,
Whilst i am total BEV enthusiast i still think it is the wrong choice of tool to do the length of France ??  As against fly/train/ hire a car  or even a ICE for that one journey a yr and not have to lug around 600kg/ of batts for the rest of the yr.  All the big batts cars are very heavy and therefore inefficient often only achieving 2.5mls/kwh whereas lighter weight counterparts are 4mls/kwh or more. Just thinking horses for courses. I always envisage the ideal batt size to be that that allows 90% of journeys without even thinking about range,5% that requires careful driving and 5% that definetely requires a on route charge.

Ken


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: kristen on December 06, 2018, 10:10:33 AM
Whilst i am total BEV enthusiast i still think it is the wrong choice of tool to do the length of France ??

Fully agree. Dunno what the right solution is though.  I read people in USA discussing cross-country-drives and some people says "its nuts (in any car). Just fly"

We like to drive to France, e.g. to Ski, even though most people fly. We can take all our clobber with us, have none of the airport-stress / herded-like-cattle etc., and "holiday-mode" starts the moment we leave home. I have friends who have taken BEV to France and says that its absolutely fine (and of course, for early Tesla adopters who have lifetime-free-charging, the fuel is Free ...) but we think its too inconvenient, so take the ICE.

I know people who have ditched their ICE 2nd cars though, and become only-BEV.  I applaud them, but I'm not there yet.

We take BEV for all for-pleasure journeys in UK, regardless of how "difficult", but for business journeys its a toss up with convenience.  To get to Oxford I have to drive 20 minutes out of my way to get to Supercharger - so in addition to charging-time, when I could do emails, I've consumed 20 minutes of the working day ... and if I would have to charge on outbound journey, to client, I wouldn't do it (as charging time is unpredictable - e.g. if I have to "pair" [Tesla pairs A/B stalls and last person to arrive gets a lot less juice, until first person leaves] ... or if delayed because all-stalls-full).

But if I had 400 mile range, and assuming it would still charge 10% per 5 minutes (i.e. Rapid chargers upgraded accordingly) I would get twice the addition in my 45 minute stop, so adding 320 miles to my starter 400 miles, 720 miles is pretty much enough for a day I reckon, and I'm sure I could juggle to do Lunch etc. during the refuelling stop.

But, yeah, lugging around ANOTHER tonne of battery would be not-much-cop, so need improvement in energy-density too

Quote
I always envisage the ideal batt size to be that that allows 90% of journeys without even thinking about range,5% that requires careful driving and 5% that definitely requires a on route charge.

I'm onboard with that too, but not sure that 90% is good enough for a business traveller. I suppose "by then" Rapid Chargers will be abundant, and drive-out-of-way to get to one won't be necessary, and no doubt they will get faster.  Probably? battery technology is going to have to change to allow even faster rapid-charging without damage? Tesla already reduces rapid-charge rate on vehicles that have been frequently Rapid-charged - to prevent (further? ...) battery damage

I think battery-density tech may happen as fast as more-rapid-charge tech ... in which case Rapid-charge may be a rare thing - exceptional journeys only.

But even though I am in the Capacity-is-King camp, most people I know are buying smaller Teslas (ie. the 75 instead of the 100) and spending the time at Superchargers - so i am in fact wrong and of course Cash-is-King  ;D


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: MeatyFool on December 06, 2018, 10:15:33 AM
Something I don't see much on forums ...

The saving in fuel from owning a BEV is large enough that if you have a once or twice a year requirement that would be difficult in a BEV, you could hire a car/book a taxi for that requirement if you are at all concerned about range/recharging.

Meatyfool..


Title: Re: 42%of coal generators run at a loss.
Post by: kristen on December 06, 2018, 10:28:06 AM
Renault used to have (still have?) a straightforward car-hire arrangement,so that their BEV owners could effortlessly (i assume?  whistle !) use Rental-ICE for the difficult X% of journeys. Seemed like a good idea to me. Every time I hire a vehicle, admittedly adhoc, I find the "paperwork time" annoying.