electricity and electric cars going forward?

johnwilliams

Registered User
Messages
237
this may end up as rant so putting it here instead or other forum
relatives came over at christmas so one of the conversions that came up (every one converting to electric cars in a couple of years) got me thinking
so for you guys in the know and good at maths ,give it to me in layman terms if you can
how much electricity do we currently produce in this country ?
how much electricity do we currently use in this country? (imported electricity may not be option if my hunch is right)
how many cars (petrol/ diesel) total on roads today
if all above cars change to electricity +include household/business electricity etc ,will it be possible to supply all ?
 
I did the figures not too long ago, but have forgotten the precise details. There are quite a few variables. Electric cars in themselves are much more efficient than internal combustion engines. But then you have to ask where the electricity is coming from. If it is from burning fossil fuels such as natural gas there is the generation efficiency to consider, plus transmission losses, plus battery charging losses. The "well-to-wheels" efficiency for fossil fuels turns out not to be enormously different whether you burn them in an ICE or burn them to generate electricity for an EV. Once you have a comparison of ICE and EV efficiency, with assumptions about the source of electricity, you can look up today's usage of electricity and fossil fuels for transport. A good starting point is this [broken link removed], which handily gives you energy use by sector in various comparable units such as toe (ton of oil equivalent).

Other sources ([broken link removed], ) say that Ireland uses 14.6 million toe in primary energy, of which all but 1.9 mtoe is imported. 47% of that is actual oil, and 70% of the oil is used for transport. That is 4.8 mtoe, which equates to 56 TWh. Our total current electricity generation is 27 TWh.

Being pessimistic, that means we would have to triple current electricity production to cater for EVs. Various points are debatable. We already have one of the highest penetrations of renewable energy in the world at about 25%, mostly from wind. It might be difficult to do any better than that as intermittent renewables start to destabilise the grid beyond a certain penetration level. But then, a smart charging infrastructure for a large number of EVs might make it possible to use higher wind penetration.

Solar power has been growing at exponential rates around the world. But there are limits to solar in our part of the world. There is simply not enough sunlight in winter to power the domestic car fleet in the British Isles. This highlights one of the drawbacks and current unknowns about future solar -- will we ever be able to store electricity on long time scales of weeks or months? There is also the question of the rate of growth of solar in mature markets. Technology optimists say that continued exponential growth will make solar the number one source of power worldwide in just a few short years. But in Europe it is showing signs of following a sigmoid curve -- slow early adoption, followed by a period of exponential growth, then a gradual plateau. Shortening the exponential growth phase by just a couple of years means that solar becomes a significant part of the energy mix but not the magic bullet that some claim.

A pragmatic point is that right now in Ireland we manage to increase the electricity generation capacity by 20% every decade. And that is just enough to satisfy ordinary electricity demand increases. If EVs require an additional 100% or more capacity increase, you are realistically talking about a transition period of many decades. The current electricity infrastructure in developed countries has taken a hundred years to build. Big energy projects work on those sorts of time scales. Anyone telling you that the electrification of the entire car fleet is just around the corner has not thought it through. (Also get ready for the reversal of tax incentives for buying EVs, plus electricity taxes to replace the huge revenues that currently come from fossil fuel taxes). The national grid company in the UK has said that beyond a few percent of EV penetration the electricity grid infrastructure would be creaking under the strain, unless capacity planning is undertaken now.

Needless to say, all predictions about the future must be taken with a grain of salt, as there are many uncertainties.
 
Microsoft had to build their own gas turbine generator to power their data center as Eirgrid couldn't meet the demand. The power demands of a number of other data centres at the planning stages around Dublin exceeds the total current Dublin load.

will we ever be able to store electricity on long time scales of weeks or months?

You can store the potential with hydro...pump water to the upper reservoir with excess renewables, then release at times of higher demand. Not cheap to build new capacity of course.
 
Pumped hydro is great but it isn't really suitable for buffering renewables. Apart from suitable natural sites being very few and far between, it's typically good for storage over a time frame of hours. If we were to achieve very high penetration of renewables we'd need storage on the order of weeks for wind, and months for solar.
 
I suspect Smart Technology redirecting off peak surplex power to car batteries instead of Pumping hydro as a buffer over a 24 Hr cycle should help even out power supply,

Centrica's along Bord Gas Energy are building a 100MW battery energy storage system in Kilkenny projects like this should even out power requirements over time,

Using batteries storage to level out power requirements well be the way to go,
 
Last edited:
Modern Nuclear power generation is the only green energy which is viable and stable enough to replace hydrocarbons in the medium term (in the next 50-100 years). Europe seems to be moving away from this which is disastrous from an environmental point of view.
 
Another issue to ponder here is if every car is electric then the que at service stations to charge up will be ridiculously long. Not everyone will be as organised as some to have their car charged up the night before.
 
Wouldn't worry about "everyone" converting, rates are very low, and until we get the likes of the VW promised €25k EV then its likely to be a minority sport for a while yet. One of the main problems with electrical generation is you have to try to meet peak demand, but peaks are short & you can't ramp up and down that quickly. So 1 theory I saw years back was that cars would help even it out, i.e. when get home plug into grid, sell the remaining energy in your battery to meet the peak (evening time, lights, dinner, heaters, kettles, TV etc). Then charge up overnight on cheap electricity when demand is lower.

On the "wheels to wheels" energy calculations, I think this misses 1 practical point. I'd rather everyone's pollution happens at one location (a power plant) because then it is feasible to treat it, monitor it, its ultimately getting emmitted a few hundred feet up in the air, usually not in that densely populated an area. Contrast that with rows of ICE's belching out fumes and noise at ground level in among the people walking to school etc. So air quality and noise pollution levels experienced by people would be hugely improved even if the CO2 effect for the planet was much the same.

Overall I'm optimistic on this one. London pollution levy type charges will incentive EVs in cities, where they are most practical (shorter distances, not burning energy when in traffic), range anxiety should not be an issue. I see in Sweden they have created a road (o.k. its only 2km or something) that charges as you drive but is safe to walk across. Lithium shortages are one thing I'd be concerned about (where will all the batteries come from...). My next car will be an EV (I hope), probably a 2nd hand Leaf from the UK (if that Brexit doesn't kill the trade!!).
 
The current electricity infrastructure in developed countries has taken a hundred years to build. Big energy projects work on those sorts of time scales. Anyone telling you that the electrification of the entire car fleet is just around the corner has not thought it through.

Its also the case that this infrastructure was put in when ireland was rural and very underdeveloped, people were open to building this huge infrastructure then because they saw it as new and modern which they were desperate for. Today there is huge resistance to any big encroachment of electricity pylons and big infrastructure close to peoples houses. They simply will not accept a tripling of pylons etc across the countryside in order to facilitate this. Its not just in Ireland, there is even more resistance to building huge projects like this in densely populated countries like the UK.
If ireland is really serious about changing from petrol and diesel to electric then it needs to start building nuclear power plants, that is the only zero carbon energy source that can hope to replace fossil fuels.
 
Modern Nuclear power generation is the only green energy which is viable and stable enough to replace hydrocarbons in the medium term (in the next 50-100 years). Europe seems to be moving away from this which is disastrous from an environmental point of view.

If ireland is really serious about changing from petrol and diesel to electric then it needs to start building nuclear power plants, that is the only zero carbon energy source that can hope to replace fossil fuels.

My old physics professor is often on the radio promoting nuclear power, he thinks he is an expert in the field.

I asked him what he knew about environmental protection policies in the Elizabethan age. He said he is a physicist not an historian. I suggest that he knows nothing about the society of the 2400s either and if it will have the political or social capacity to store our nuclear waste.
 
My old physics professor is often on the radio promoting nuclear power, he thinks he is an expert in the field.

I asked him what he knew about environmental protection policies in the Elizabethan age. He said he is a physicist not an historian. I suggest that he knows nothing about the society of the 2400s either and if it will have the political or social capacity to store our nuclear waste.
We already have the technology to ensure that storage of radioactive waste is not a factor.
 
We already have the technology to ensure that storage of radioactive waste is not a factor.

The technology is not the issue. My point is that we know nothing of the social or economic conditions that will prevail over the next 400 years.

Would you trust ISIS with the responsibility of storing nuclear waste.

How confident are you that an ISIS regime will not come to power at some future time.

If the trend that has brought us Trump and Brexiteers were to continue and get worse it is entirely conceivable that a regime might come to power which would not store nuclear waste carefully.
 
The technology is not the issue. My point is that we know nothing of the social or economic conditions that will prevail over the next 400 years.
If we continue to burn hydrocarbons at the rate we are doing now things will be pretty dire in 400 years. That's for certain.

Would you trust ISIS with the responsibility of storing nuclear waste.

How confident are you that an ISIS regime will not come to power at some future time.
I'm more worried about North Korea now. Even if a group like ISIS get the waste it's a big technical challenge to weaponise it and there is already plenty of nuclear waste going around. Newer technology is much cleaner and the technology exists in theory to use existing nuclear waste in molten salt reactors, giving a free fuel source and using up existing radioactive waste.

If the trend that has brought us Trump and Brexiteers were to continue and get worse it is entirely conceivable that a regime might come to power which would not store nuclear waste carefully.
It is but I'm more worried about what will happen, i.e. climate change.

Think of it like wearing safety gear on a noisy building site;
If you don't wear eye protection you may have an accident which could blind you or damage your sight, an immediate event with a defined and potentially life changing outcome. That's Nuclear Power.

If you don't wear ear protection you will damage your hearing. It will be slow and incremental but after 30 years you will be deaf. That's Oil and Gas fuelled power.
 
The Spirit Of Ireland group thought that there was a large number of suitable sites.

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

I followed that with great interest when it was first mooted. It's a pity it wasn't progressed, but it's not surprising there are huge hurdles. It needs a lot of capital investment and nobody has stumped up the money. The sites are on the west coast so there is a lot of transmission infrastructure needed to get the power to where it's in most demand. Permissions for that are difficult to get. The proposal is to pump seawater uphill into hanging valleys which would be artificially lined for the purpose. That carries a lot of environmental risk (more objections) and could also be an issue for the life of the machinery. A single large reservoir could store 100 GWh of energy -- about a day of Ireland's average usage. It's impressive, but many of them would be needed to buffer wind and solar.
 
You can store the potential with hydro...pump water to the upper reservoir with excess renewables, then release at times of higher demand.
Such storage is only 75% efficient.
Modern Nuclear power generation is the only green energy which is viable and stable enough to replace hydrocarbons in the medium term (in the next 50-100 years).
Yes. I been hoping we'd build 3 nuclear power stations for at least 10 years.
if it will have the political or social capacity to store our nuclear waste.
At least nuclear waste is stored. Most waste from hydrocarbons is pumped into the atmosphere.
 
Such storage is only 75% efficient.

Yes, but the key factor here is you use excess generated or renewable energy that is otherwise dumped. That's how the likes of Turlough Hill currently operates, they divert excess to pumping as demand falls below what's available to the grid.
 
Back
Top