Rumour Mill: Netherlands looks to ban all non-electric cars by 2025

[SirEdward]

How so? If my solar panels generated excess electricity, storing that in my neighbour's BEV would be virtually zero transport loss compared to storing that in some battery facility in the middle of nowhere.

If you are generating excess energy, your neighbour is doing that too, otherwise it wouldn't be -excess- energy. If your cars are not charged yet, it's not -excess- energy. Probably someone needs that energy, somewhere else, but that's not near.

Same in reverse, if a supercharger creates a demand peak, fulfilling that peak from nearby BEVs would also mean virtually zero transport loss.

That loss will arrive when you have to recharge those cars of the energy they have lent to someone else. It depends on how the car is used. If you use it during the peak production, you are not storing energy. If you are recharging during the peak demand, -you- are the peak demand.

But again, I'm not saying it can't work on small scales, I think it won't work on a mass scale.

Nuclear is the big issue here, many fossil plants can be ramped up and down by time of day.

yes. But we have cheaper prices during the night too, so it seems to be quite a structural problem for not renewable sources.

Yeah... the key job done by pumped storage is very short peaks.

Of course. It was just to say that similar ideas and technology already exist.

Think of the transfer losses when wind blows up here and is stored 1000km further south or even further north! How much better would it be to have a fleet of BEVs closer to the wind farms...

Why don't use storing facilities located near the wind farms rather than private vehicles, then? It's even less distance.

 

[prizrak]

Assuming there's a ubiquitous charging infrastructure, this would become second nature. The seconds wasted per parking would be saved for not having to drive to a gas station, wait for a pump, get out, pay, pump, get back in, drive back to where you came from.
In my mind, authentication and payment would be done by the car and charger - no dozen of cards for the various charger operators to carry around with you as it can be today.

People don't think that way, I'll give you a simple example, parking lot for my building has manual gates, there are usually only a couple of cars parked there because people don't feel like opening closing gate. They all park on the street risking theft, vandalism, or just a shitty driver. Of the three cars there regularly one doesn't run, one is mine because I don't drive daily, and another is a work van. Now keep in mind that every household there has at least two cars and NYC has alternate side parking.

Least you think it's a one off a buddy of mine who works for dept of sanitation was complaining that people don't park their cars in their own driveways so he can't plow the snow on narrower streets.

Humans are lazy by nature, getting gas is rarely done as a separate trip it's usually on the way somewhere and for most people it's just a quick thing to do once in a while. You gotta plug in *every* time you park in your scenario.

Those would be ideal for BEVs - short urban trips. Carshares already have designated parking spots, so having a charger there would be really easy. Keeping track of and billing energy used per user would be simple and automated, and the cars can automatically request "supercharge me nao!" when they approach the next booked time, remain in mid-high charge grid stabilization mode if the next booked time is further away.

Missing the point here, for one people generally don't book cars in advance, it's more like "oh I gotta go somewhere let me get an Uber". For two most ride sharing services around here don't have their own parking lots, they park on the street. For three the crucial part of your plan is that cars are parked a lot, however ride sharing cars are parked for relatively short periods of time, they are usually on call as there are much less of them than 1 per driver.

 

[GRtak]

Re: remote storage,

Remote storage away from the generating facilities makes sense for areas that are at the fringe edge of the grid. These areas are the ones that experience the brownouts frequently. They will sense when there is a slight drop in power and pick up the slack during the peak hours and stop the brownouts, much like an Uninterruptible Power Supply. There is much less loss for the UPS closer to the area to be without power than if it were closer to the generating station.

 

[prizrak]

Re: remote storage,

Remote storage away from the generating facilities makes sense for areas that are at the fringe edge of the grid. These areas are the ones that experience the brownouts frequently. They will sense when there is a slight drop in power and pick up the slack during the peak hours and stop the brownouts, much like an Uninterruptible Power Supply. There is much less loss for the UPS closer to the area to be without power than if it were closer to the generating station.

That's only the case now because we mostly use stable ways of generating energy, with something fickle like wind/solar you would have no way to project grid demand vs generation and storage would be required everywhere

 

[narf]

If you are generating excess energy, your neighbour is doing that too, otherwise it wouldn't be -excess- energy. If your cars are not charged yet, it's not -excess- energy. Probably someone needs that energy, somewhere else, but that's not near.

It's excess energy if my neighbour's (or my) car isn't going to be driven long-range soon, even if the batteries were at say 80%.

That loss will arrive when you have to recharge those cars of the energy they have lent to someone else. It depends on how the car is used. If you use it during the peak production, you are not storing energy. If you are recharging during the peak demand, -you- are the peak demand.

That loss happens regardless of how you store energy. Question is, how big is it?
If you store it in pumped storage, you get about 75-80% back from your reservoir.
If you store it in batteries, you get about 70% back from your battery.
If you store it in hydrogen through electrolysis, you get about 40% back from your fuel cell.

Pumped storage is still most efficient, but geographically restricted.

Why don't use storing facilities located near the wind farms rather than private vehicles, then? It's even less distance.

Several reasons:
- many of our wind generators are distributed, so BEVs being naturally distributed would match well already
- many of our non-distributed wind generators are off-shore, putting battery facilities there seems nonsensical
- during times of sunshine and calm weather, you'd have to transport solar electricity to the wind farm's storage facility... instead, just transport it to the consumer directly and maybe transport it elsewhere later, or maybe use it right there when the car gets going.


To throw some numbers out there, this guy estimates up to $4000 per car and year in value to the utility company: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071203133532.htm
That's old and from a triple-digit-per-barrel era, but those times will inevitably return.

 

[SirEdward]

It's excess energy if my neighbour's (or my) car isn't going to be driven long-range soon, even if the batteries were at say 80%.

I said another thing. I said that if you are producing excess energy through, let's say, a solar panel, your neighbours can't store the electricity you produce because they'll be producing excess energy too, and they'll have to store -their- energy. You could only store it somewhere else, or transporting it to be used, in which case, you don't need to store it. In both cases, my point remain: either your own BEV is storing your own energy, in which case it's smart, or it's storing energy that someone else will use, in which case, you'd better have stationary batteries than rely on BEVs.

That loss happens regardless of how you store energy. Question is, how big is
If you store it in pumped storage, you get about 75-80% back from your reservoir.
If you store it in batteries, you get about 70% back from your battery.
If you store it in hydrogen through electrolysis, you get about 40% back from your fuel cell.

Pumped storage is still most efficient, but geographically restricted.

First of all, your calculations are not valid if you don't consider time as a factor in energy storage. Hydrogen maybe at 40%, but the losses if you don't use it soon is negligible compared to batteries.

However, that is already out of the point: I haven't said battery can't be a good way to store excess energy, I said BEVs' batteries are a worse way to do so than stationary storage facilities, even battery ones.

Please,why answer "France" if I ask you "what time is it"?

Several reasons:
- many of our wind generators are distributed, so BEVs being naturally distributed would match well already

You're not storing any -excess- energy if you are charging a BEV, because it's meant to be used before the energy dies out to nothing. If you charge a car and not use it before the charge dies out naturally, you don't have excess energy, you have an excess car that you could do without by only having a stationary battery doing exactly the same thing.

One for each wind generator, as an extreme example, or local storage facilities.

- many of our non-distributed wind generators are off-shore, putting battery facilities there seems nonsensical

Then put it right next to the shore, or wherever it is best suited that is not so far from them. I never said you have to build batteris right next to the generator (although that would be the perfect scenario), I said you should avoid moving electricity around if you can avoid it, because it's expensive and the losses raise with each km.

- during times of sunshine and calm weather, you'd have to transport solar electricity to the wind farm's storage facility... instead, just transport it to the consumer directly and maybe transport it elsewhere later

You see? My point. You are already saying that charging the BEV and then taking the energy away has much more distance to cover more than simply storing in a stationary battery and transporting it directly where it's needed.

Of course if you build your wind generators in Kiel and your storage facility in Garmisch-Partenkirchen is stupid, the main advantage of stationary storage facilities is you can build them in a strategic place to avoid unnecessary energy transportation...

, or maybe use it right there when the car gets going.

That wouldn't be -excess- energy anymore, would it?

To throw some numbers out there, this guy estimates up to $4000 per car and year in value to the utility company: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071203133532.htm

And we're back to my point. Whatever the utility company saves in -battery- costs, the user will pay (lower battery life, less energy returned than that sold, etc.), unless you can prove to me that what money you lose in car battery degradation and transportation losses is inherently less than running large storage facilities. Which I don't think because of economies of scale.

That's old and from a triple-digit-per-barrel era, but those times will inevitably return.

Why are you so sure the oil prices will revert back to the peak we experienced? The more new viable power sources will be created and put into service, the less oil will be needed, and the less it will cost, at a constant rate of production. And what we see now is too much production, or a war of some producers to bankrupt the competitors out of the race to avoid losing their edge in a world where oil can indeed be too much for the demand. (incidentally, I think this mechanism is also one of the reasons behind ISIS, because when the oil dominance is waning, then why not use those money to build other forms of dominance? But that's another topic). I won't be too sure oil is going to get so high in price as it was.

 

[narf]

I said another thing. I said that if you are producing excess energy through, let's say, a solar panel, your neighbours can't store the electricity you produce because they'll be producing excess energy too, and they'll have to store -their- energy. You could only store it somewhere else, or transporting it to be used, in which case, you don't need to store it. In both cases, my point remain: either your own BEV is storing your own energy, in which case it's smart, or it's storing energy that someone else will use, in which case, you'd better have stationary batteries than rely on BEVs.

Forget that I said "my neighbour's car" and think "my car" instead. It doesn't really matter if it's my car, my neighbour's car, his neighbour's car, etc.

First of all, your calculations are not valid if you don't consider time as a factor in energy storage. Hydrogen maybe at 40%, but the losses if you don't use it soon is negligible compared to batteries.

I'm not sure I understand that sentence - are you referring to battery self-discharge? Taking LiIon as an example, they lose about 5% per month. In a grid stabilization scenario that's negligible.
Negligible - why? The only large-scale storage we have today is pumped storage. Germany has about 40GWh of pumped storage capacity... and those plants put out over 4000GWh per year, that's over 100 times the full capacity. On average, you'd have a full charge-discharge cycle every 3-4 days, in theory an individual unit of energy stored doesn't remain stored for a long enough time to even get that one month 5% loss.
Additionally, you'd be driving the car regularly - the grid stabilization part should only be a few percent of your battery's life, else it's really just a stationary plant with wheels. That alone means self-discharge is a non-issue.

You're not storing any -excess- energy if you are charging a BEV, because it's meant to be used before the energy dies out to nothing. If you charge a car and not use it before the charge dies out naturally, you don't have excess energy, you have an excess car that you could do without by only having a stationary battery doing exactly the same thing.

See above, for meaningful LiIon self-discharge you'd have to leave your car sitting around for months.

One for each wind generator, as an extreme example, or local storage facilities.

Then put it right next to the shore, or wherever it is best suited that is not so far from them. I never said you have to build batteris right next to the generator (although that would be the perfect scenario), I said you should avoid moving electricity around if you can avoid it, because it's expensive and the losses raise with each km.

Linking a wind generator or solar array to geographically-dedicated storage means you have a very short distance to store energy from that source, but a very long distance to store energy from other sources.
Linking the consumers to storage means you transport the energy long-distance to the consumers once, say offshore wind farm over here and solar arrays over there both to a metropolitan area, and then use it where it's needed next.

Of course if you build your wind generators in Kiel and your storage facility in Garmisch-Partenkirchen is stupid, the main advantage of stationary storage facilities is you can build them in a strategic place to avoid unnecessary energy transportation...

You can't be more strategically placed than literally everywhere. Distributed redundant networks implicitly boost resilience as well - if your suburb gets disconnected from the grid you could still have a basic PV/BEV generation and storage grid up and running. With large-scale stationary facilities elsewhere, you'd be cut off from storage and your PV arrays generate electricity when you maybe don't need it.

And we're back to my point. Whatever the utility company saves in -battery- costs, the user will pay (lower battery life, less energy returned than that sold, etc.), unless you can prove to me that what money you lose in car battery degradation and transportation losses is inherently less than running large storage facilities. Which I don't think because of economies of scale.

You won't get any proof, just logic.

A big cost factor in BEVs is capacity to allow for a great range... yet most people don't use all that range most days. So you have bought that capacity, and aren't using it most of the time - might as well make money off the investment you already made, and sell some of that capacity to the grid on days you don't need it.
The wear on the battery might be identical, whether in a car or in a warehouse somewhere, so I don't see why the grid shouldn't compensate you for that wear just as they'd pay for that wear to their own batteries. However, they don't need to invest in capacity up front so logically your compensation can be higher than the cost of battery wear alone.
Transportation losses would be lower because you don't need to transport power from distributed generation to centralized storage back to distributed users, instead you generate power locally and use it locally, with as little repeated long-distance transfer as possible. Transporting long-distance once won't be avoidable, e.g. offshore wind has to get to shore regardless.

Why are you so sure the oil prices will revert back to the peak we experienced? The more new viable power sources will be created and put into service, the less oil will be needed, and the less it will cost, at a constant rate of production. And what we see now is too much production, or a war of some producers to bankrupt the competitors out of the race to avoid losing their edge in a world where oil can indeed be too much for the demand. (incidentally, I think this mechanism is also one of the reasons behind ISIS, because when the oil dominance is waning, then why not use those money to build other forms of dominance? But that's another topic). I won't be too sure oil is going to get so high in price as it was.

You're providing the answer yourself. Right now, producers are hurting themselves/each other with low prices - e.g. Saudi Arabia vs Iran. Logically, this can't go on forever.
I obviously don't know if, nay, when there will be a new peak above $145, but near $100 is likely to happen once this war of attrition comes to an end.
As for new power sources, those hardly offset the increased demand globally... especially while oil is cheap. Economically, running on oil today is much cheaper than building a wind farm. Once oil is back around $100 that'd be a different story.

 

[prizrak]

I'm not sure I understand that sentence - are you referring to battery self-discharge? Taking LiIon as an example, they lose about 5% per month.

You are assuming 0 draw, how long does your laptop stay charged when on standby? You can assume similar levels of discharge in a car on "standby" as it would have to have some systems powered especially with all the wireless connectivity stuff cars have these days.

 

[narf]

You are assuming 0 draw, how long does your laptop stay charged when on standby? You can assume similar levels of discharge in a car on "standby" as it would have to have some systems powered especially with all the wireless connectivity stuff cars have these days.

Those would draw power regardless of BEV, FCEV, etc.

 

[GRtak]

That's only the case now because we mostly use stable ways of generating energy, with something fickle like wind/solar you would have no way to project grid demand vs generation and storage would be required everywhere

That is the point anyway as you can never tell where and when there will be a power shortage. It is much harder to make up that difference when it is a distance away from the UPS too. That also still leaves areas that would be intermittent drops from downed wires, or other problems to be without power. With a distributed system there is not one power source that covers an area, so why not distribute the back ups around too?

 

[eizbaer]

You are assuming 0 draw, how long does your laptop stay charged when on standby? You can assume similar levels of discharge in a car on "standby" as it would have to have some systems powered especially with all the wireless connectivity stuff cars have these days.

do you have any idea what kind of energy is stored in a car and what kind of draw those standby-systems have?

in addition to what narf said, that kind of power draw is utterly insignificant and can probably be equated to driving the car an additional meter or two a day... if that.

 

[prizrak]

Those would draw power regardless of BEV, FCEV, etc.

do you have any idea what kind of energy is stored in a car and what kind of draw those standby-systems have?

in addition to what narf said, that kind of power draw is utterly insignificant and can probably be equated to driving the car an additional meter or two a day... if that.

Both good points, though batteries are also highly affected by ambient temperatures. Not as big of an issue in a building simply because those can be well insulated with minimal entry points to keep certain temperature even without active HVAC systems. It's a much bigger issue in a car that is normally parked outside and as we all know changes temperature quite quickly.

There is also the issue with temperature changing during the day, over the past couple of weeks you could see a 20F change over the course of the day.

That is the point anyway as you can never tell where and when there will be a power shortage. It is much harder to make up that difference when it is a distance away from the UPS too. That also still leaves areas that would be intermittent drops from downed wires, or other problems to be without power. With a distributed system there is not one power source that covers an area, so why not distribute the back ups around too?

You are assuming that those cars will be where they need to be in order to prop up the fickle renewable infrastructure. Say that it's a still cloudy morning, people are getting ready to go to work so the cars are topping up, heating/cooling themselves, people are showering, cooking, etc... So now you have useless power generators that aren't giving enough energy, no UPS, and a huge draw.

 

[GRtak]

You are assuming a distributed system but that's a different conversation altogether. Think about it this way say around 5PM everyone's cars stop selling energy back because everyone is about to go home and the wind dies down.... This is my point, it sounds good to have existing mobile batteries as a grid back up but the fact that they're mobile makes them less than ideal. Those batteries might not be where they need to be because they drove to work.

We already have a distributed energy system. There are many power plants that are scattered about and interconnected, so why not continue that with the very large UPS?

 

[prizrak]

We already have a distributed energy system. There are many power plants that are scattered about and interconnected, so why not continue that with the very large UPS?

I ninja edited above

 

[narf]

You are assuming a distributed system but that's a different conversation altogether. Think about it this way say around 5PM everyone's cars stop selling energy back because everyone is about to go home and the wind dies down.... This is my point, it sounds good to have existing mobile batteries as a grid back up but the fact that they're mobile makes them less than ideal. Those batteries might not be where they need to be because they drove to work.

If literally everyone were on the road, there would be no need for lots of power - all the factories are down, all TVs are off, and so on

In reality though, most cars are parked most of the time. You won't have the entire city leave work at the exact same time. Some leave sooner, some leave later, some go shopping (chargers in the car park, obviously), others go to the gym (chargers!), some work the night shift with their cars at home around 5pm (chargers!), some work part-time, and so on.

- - - Updated - - -

You are assuming that those cars will be where they need to be in order to prop up the fickle renewable infrastructure. Say that it's a still cloudy morning, people are getting ready to go to work so the cars are topping up, heating/cooling themselves, people are showering, cooking, etc... So now you have useless power generators that aren't giving enough energy, no UPS, and a huge draw.

If people are about to commute to work they can spare a few percent of charge from their battery in exchange for a hot shower. The fraction of commuters needing nearly the full range to get to work should be tiny, the average 'Murican spends less than half an hour commuting, mostly driving: http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2014/us-commuting.aspx - the average European should be driving less, obviously. All those average or shorter commuters can easily spare half a battery, and recharge over their working day!

 

[prizrak]

In reality though, most cars are parked most of the time. You won't have the entire city leave work at the exact same time. Some leave sooner, some leave later,

Vast majority works normal 9-5 especially in non-Murrica where from everything I have read you don't generally have stuff open super late or 24 hours. Even if there is say half hour spread in when people leave they are still not likely to want their car to discharge because they are going to be using them.

some go shopping (chargers in the car park, obviously), others go to the gym (chargers!), some work the night shift with their cars at home around 5pm (chargers!), some work part-time, and so on.

Again you are completely ignoring basic human nature. Who is going to bother plugging a car in at a shop or gym? Car sitting around for an hour or two is not enough of a drain on the battery (as you yourself pointed out) to bother plugging it in. I would be willing to bet money that vast majority of EV owners only plug in overnight when they are going about their normal daily business*

*One can assume that anyone who got a non 200mile/charge EV doesn't cover much distance in a day.

If people are about to commute to work they can spare a few percent of charge from their battery in exchange for a hot shower. The fraction of commuters needing nearly the full range to get to work should be tiny, the average 'Murican spends less than half an hour commuting, mostly driving: http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2014/us-commuting.aspx - the average European should be driving less, obviously. All those average or shorter commuters can easily spare half a battery, and recharge over their working day!

Absolutely they can, and yet you are again forgetting about human nature. If my car is already in a garage/car park on a charger I would rather have 100% charge when I leave and *not* have to plug in when I'm at work. I could go about my day completely unplugged, like a normal car, and then plug it in when I get home. Think of it this way, do you plug your phone in at every single charging opportunity or do you only do it when battery is low?

What you are saying can work but would require induction chargers everywhere, which is hugely inefficient and quite expensive.

 

[SirEdward]

Forget that I said "my neighbour's car" and think "my car" instead. It doesn't really matter if it's my car, my neighbour's car, his neighbour's car, etc.

No, I can't. You brought it up to negate one of my points, now I should forget it because it doesn't do what you want? Also, when I followed in including your neighbour into the discussion, my point wasn't limited to selectively picking one person, it referred to a situation.

My first point was, however, that if you produce the energy somewhere, it doesn't make sense to transport it somewhere else to store it in a BEV to then sell it to someone probably quite far away again (because at that level your neighbour can't have a shortage in production if you're having a surplus in production), then retransporting other energy to the parked car. It is much simpler to design storing facilities next to the production sites.

I'm not sure I understand that sentence

Either you are trying to change the topic of the discussion, or you don't read what I said. I'll repost it:

"However, that is already out of the point: I haven't said battery can't be a good way to store excess energy, I said BEVs' batteries are a worse way to do so than stationary storage facilities, even battery ones."

Please,why answer "France" if I ask you "what time is it"?"

See above, for meaningful LiIon self-discharge you'd have to leave your car sitting around for months.

no, no no.

I'll repost my sentence with explanation, to show how you interpreted what I said in the wrong way:

"You're not storing any -excess- energy if you are charging a BEV, because it's meant to be used before the energy dies out to nothing."
(i.e. before whatever time it takes for the battery to die out naturally, as long as it may be; a car -is made- to be driven)

"If you charge a car and not use it before the charge dies out naturally, you don't have excess energy, you have an excess car"
(because if you don't drive it for that long, what the heck have you bought a car for?)

"that you could do without by only having a stationary battery doing exactly the same thing."
(If that's the case, it' way less expensive to build a stationary battery than a car you won't use)

Everything started because I said that -excess- energy is not -excess- energy if it's stored in a car, because that car is designed to use that energy to move around; excess energy only starts to be produced when the car is fully charged.

Linking the consumers to storage means you transport the energy long-distance to the consumers once, say offshore wind farm over here and solar arrays over there both to a metropolitan area, and then use it where it's needed next.

You don't know if it'll be near to the cars you put it into.

Linking a wind generator or solar array to geographically-dedicated storage means you have a very short distance to store energy from that source, but a very long distance to store energy from other sources.

You are willingly misinterpreting my words and overcomplicating them. For the last time, I'll put it to you in a simple way:
1)you produce energy.
2)you store the excess energy you produced next to where you have produced it.
3)you transport the excess energy to sell it once you know where it's needed. Having storing facilities -next- to the production sites, or as close as possible, means less transport losses than moving it around to store it in countless BEVs on the territory without even knowing where it will be needed again before transporting it again.

On average, the distance covered for bringing it from the production sites to the BEVs will be higher than storing it into nearby storing facilities. To that, add again that the energy stored in a car is not -excess- energy, because the car is -meant- to use it by driving around, so it will need to be recharged again to be used as a car, whereas a storing facility doesn't -need- to be charged if there is no excess energy produced.

You can't be more strategically placed than literally everywhere. Distributed redundant networks implicitly boost resilience as well - if your suburb gets disconnected from the grid you could still have a basic PV/BEV generation and storage grid up and running. With large-scale stationary facilities elsewhere, you'd be cut off from storage and your PV arrays generate electricity when you maybe don't need it.

You don't have to renounce private PV... I never made that point, and you putting things in my mouth I haven't said is a fallacy.

You won't get any proof, just logic.

You aren't answering what I have asked.

A big cost factor in BEVs is capacity to allow for a great range... yet most people don't use all that range most days. So you have bought that capacity, and aren't using it most of the time - might as well make money off the investment you already made, and sell some of that capacity to the grid on days you don't need it.

Buying energy from the grid to sell it to the same grid is not an investment, it's madness. The same subject who gave you an amount of energy for a fee won't pay you higher for -less- energy (take into account tranportation losses). It simply won't work. Either you or the utility company will lose the money relative to the transportation losses, and it won't be them.

The wear on the battery might be identical, whether in a car or in a warehouse somewhere, so I don't see why the grid shouldn't compensate you for that wear

So you're getting free battery wear? Nice investment for sure. Go on and continue like that, you'll be amazed by how much the company will love you for paying their costs.

just as they'd pay for that wear to their own batteries.

To put it even clearer: if I was the company, I'd much rather have -you- pay for the battery then be paying it myself. FAR less problems and risks...

However, they don't need to invest in capacity up front so logically your compensation can be higher than the cost of battery wear alone.
Transportation losses would be lower because you don't need to transport power from distributed generation to centralized storage back to distributed users

Again, you are putting words and concepts in my mouth which I have never uttered.

You're providing the answer yourself. Right now, producers are hurting themselves/each other with low prices - e.g. Saudi Arabia vs Iran. Logically, this can't go on forever.

No, it can't. But I think you haven't fully understood why it's happening.

As for new power sources, those hardly offset the increased demand globally

Wasn't Germany producing 30% off of renewable sources? And growing? Your idea is a bit too old. It is one of the reasons why oil is so low in price.

However, that's another point, and I don't want to get into it, seen how you handle the others.

---

Narf, you have several problems following what I said and not going out of the things and not misinterpreting my words. Please stop, or I won't continue this talk.




P.S.

Edited for bad quoting comands.

 

[narf]

No, I can't. You brought it up to negate one of my points, now I should forget it because it doesn't do what you want? Also, when I followed in including your neighbour into the discussion, my point wasn't limited to selectively picking one person, it referred to a situation.

"My neighbour's car" doesn't refer to one person either, it's a way of saying "a car near me" because you frequently bring up transport losses.

My first point was, however, that if you produce the energy somewhere, it doesn't make sense to transport it somewhere else to store it in a BEV to then sell it to someone probably quite far away again (because at that level your neighbour can't have a shortage in production if you're having a surplus in production), then retransporting other energy to the parked car. It is much simpler to design storing facilities next to the production sites.

Let me paint a picture for you. To simplify, I'll use offshore wind in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea as the sole source of power; and Hamburg in the middle as the sole consumer. To keep up the grid even during calmer days, you might need two units of energy storage (in reality, many GWh) - where to put those?

If you put them near the generation, you'd have facilities on the North Sea coast where the offshore power lines meet the shore maybe providing capacity for one unit of energy; and facilities on the Baltic Sea coast providing capacity for another unit of energy. If there's some wind in both seas over night, the route generator->storage is short, and the route storage->consumer is short as well - great! However, if there is plenty of wind in the North Sea but no wind in the Baltic Sea (or vice versa) over night, you'd have to take a massive detour to fill the Baltic Sea storage facilities once the North Sea facilities are full. You'd roughly double the trip taken by half the electrons.

On the other hand, if you distribute the capacity for those two units of energy throughout the consumers, there's no huge detours to be done after storage - it's already stored close to the consumers. If you have wind in both seas, or wind only on one side of the country, the distance remains similar. The cars tend to be where the people are, and the demand tends to be where the people are - great!

Third option: Put capacity for two units of energy near each groups of wind farms... short trips, but you have to spend twice the investment.

Everything started because I said that -excess- energy is not -excess- energy if it's stored in a car, because that car is designed to use that energy to move around; excess energy only starts to be produced when the car is fully charged.

It doesn't have to be fully charged. Most daily commutes are fairly short, way below even today's BEV ranges. On most days, even a e.g. 75% charged BEV has excess energy to sell at that time.

You don't know if it'll be near to the cars you put it into.

Statistically, you do know that. If there's a country full of BEVs, there will always be a BEV near some peak demand to supply power or at least halt charging - or near peak generation to resume or speed up charging.

You are willingly misinterpreting my words and overcomplicating them. For the last time, I'll put it to you in a simple way:
1)you produce energy.
2)you store the excess energy you produced next to where you have produced it.
3)you transport the excess energy to sell it once you know where it's needed. Having storing facilities -next- to the production sites, or as close as possible, means less transport losses than moving it around to store it in countless BEVs on the territory without even knowing where it will be needed again before transporting it again.

See top of the post. For the same total capacity installed, installing it near consumption needs less transport distance because generation from all directions can send to it. If you install capacity near generation, you will need to transport electricity from generation plant A to storage facility at plant B once the storage facility at plant A is full - unless you install much more total capacity, at increased cost.

You aren't answering what I have asked.

Providing proof is impossible - for both our points of view. If you're asking the impossible, don't be surprised you're not getting it.

Buying energy from the grid to sell it to the same grid is not an investment, it's madness. The same subject who gave you an amount of energy for a fee won't pay you higher for -less- energy (take into account tranportation losses). It simply won't work. Either you or the utility company will lose the money relative to the transportation losses, and it won't be them.

Supply and demand. Buy low, sell high.

Looking at the actual spot prices over the past few days at https://www.energy-charts.de/price_de.htm I see a range of roughly -25 to 150 ?/MWh. Those are extremes of course, and in reality you would of course not get actual spot prices and have to account for charging, conversion, transport losses... Common lows hit every day are around 0?/MWh, common highs are around 50?/MWh. That's still quite a spread.

The week before had even bigger extremes:

So you're getting free battery wear? Nice investment for sure. Go on and continue like that, you'll be amazed by how much the company will love you for paying their costs.

Read again. I said "I don't see why the grid shouldn't compensate you".

Wasn't Germany producing 30% off of renewable sources? And growing? Your idea is a bit too old. It is one of the reasons why oil is so low in price.

Yeah, but there's virtually no relationship between oil-based transportation (cars) and renewable power generation (electricity) - as long as there is no wide spread use of BEVs (or PHEVs, or power-to-fuel, etc.).

 

[SirEdward]

"My neighbour's car" doesn't refer to one person either, it's a way of saying "a car near me" because you frequently bring up transport losses.

That's exactly what I have said. But if you are producing more renewable energy than you use, the same will be done at the same time by "your neighbour", otherwise, it wouldn't be your neighbour.

Let me paint a picture for you. To simplify, I'll use offshore wind in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea as the sole source of power; and Hamburg in the middle as the sole consumer. To keep up the grid even during calmer days, you might need two units of energy storage (in reality, many GWh) - where to put those?

If not possible directly off-shore, whhy not one in Lubeck and one at the mouth of th Elbe?

If you put them near the generation, you'd have facilities on the North Sea coast where the offshore power lines meet the shore maybe providing capacity for one unit of energy; and facilities on the Baltic Sea coast providing capacity for another unit of energy.

Good to go.

If there's some wind in both seas over night, the route generator->storage is short, and the route storage->consumer is short as well - great!

Great. So you can charge the storage facility.

However, if there is plenty of wind in the North Sea but no wind in the Baltic Sea (or vice versa) over night, you'd have to take a massive detour to fill the Baltic Sea storage facilities once the North Sea facilities are full. You'd roughly double the trip taken by half the electrons.

You don't need to charge the one with no wind. It has already been charged -before- the wind stopped, and the energy contained in it can be used as a backup for the other facility, so to have an even consumption of the stored energy, while selling the energy from the other wind farm directly to the users. That's why you built it in the first place.

It will be recharged next day by the wind, because if it doesn't (on average), then you have a shortage of power production, not a problem of power storage.

On the other hand, if you distribute the capacity for those two units of energy throughout the consumers, there's no huge detours to be done after storage

Nor there is if you do things properly. Clearly, the dimension of your wind farms and storage facilities have to be scaled properly, but that's no impossible task at all. And economies of scale help you reduce costs.

- it's already stored close to the consumers. If you have wind in both seas, or wind only on one side of the country, the distance remains similar. The cars tend to be where the people are, and the demand tends to be where the people are - great!

Not necessarily. how do you know the amount of BEVs ready to give energy that are next to the area you have peak demand?

In my scenario, you simply transport it where it's needed once it's needed.

Third option: Put capacity for two units of energy near each groups of wind farms... short trips, but you have to spend twice the investment.

Why? you don't have to charge the storage facility when its allocated wind farm is stopped; it is already charged: that's why you have a storage facility in the first place, to store the excess energy produced by the wind farm during peak production.

The size of the storage facility doesn't depend on the size of the wind farm alone, it depends on the size and duration of the excess energy production vs excess demand for that specific wind farm. You have a farm which is mostly overproducing? You need a big battery. You have a farm mostly inactive? You need a small battery.

It doesn't have to be fully charged. Most daily commutes are fairly short, way below even today's BEV ranges. On most days, even a e.g. 75% charged BEV has excess energy to sell at that time.

That energy is already allocated to vehicle use. it will be, given enough time. It is not excess energy.

Statistically, you do know that. If there's a country full of BEVs, there will always be a BEV near some peak demand to supply power or at least halt charging - or near peak generation to resume or speed up charging.

Statistics doesn't take into account specific scenarios. And statistical averages don't take into account variabilty. And that's what can break your power supply.
People may be queing on the Autobahns going towards holiday resorts. The number of parked cars is low, or they are by the seaside, but the city has a baseline production and air conditioning consumption which can't be ignored.

Providing proof is impossible - for both our points of view. If you're asking the impossible, don't be surprised you're not getting it.

It's not impossible to prove whether BEVs or storage facilities are more efficient. It's that neither of us has the ability to do it. I know, I'm glad if you accept this truth too.

Supply and demand. Buy low, sell high.

Looking at the actual spot prices over the past few days at https://www.energy-charts.de/price_de.htm I see a range of roughly -25 to 150 ?/MWh. Those are extremes of course, and in reality you would of course not get actual spot prices and have to account for charging, conversion, transport losses... Common lows hit every day are around 0?/MWh, common highs are around 50?/MWh. That's still quite a spread.

If the utility company would lose money in BEVing away energy the way you propose, they would build storage facilities to begin with. In your scenario, the entirety of the consumers won't make any more money that they would if the energy was stored in storage facilities; the company would, because they have the productive power and can set the prices. The users can't set any prices in all this. Hence, they won't earn anything, only lose.

Read again. I said "I don't see why the grid shouldn't compensate you".

It will compensate you. Just not enough to actually cover all your visible and hidden costs.

Yeah, but there's virtually no relationship between oil-based transportation (cars) and renewable power generation (electricity) - as long as there is no wide spread use of BEVs (or PHEVs, or power-to-fuel, etc.).

Actually, yes. The less request for oil, the less its price. Power the industry with renewables and the oil for cars will be cheaper. Apart form that, I'm ano against BEVs per se, I just don't think they can be used as moving storage facilities, like you propose.

 

[prizrak]

Sorta tangential to the discussion but found it to be pretty cool, shows what type of power generation is used and where. Only thing I'm not sure if renewables includes hydro or not.
http://www.gocompare.com/energy/what-powers-the-world/