Carbon footprint and public transport

[AndrewE]

It could be an interesting model, but is it really one we want to be propping up the national grid?

It's not propping up the grid, it is helping to even out flows.

Whether at the domestic level (e.g. if I top up or fill my battery in the small hours on the Octopus flux tarrif, then discharge in the evening peak) or "industrially", as in a megawatt-hour fixed installation somewhere/anywhere - or an airport car-park, which seems a very good idea, it is already working. It means that at times of low demand, i.e. flow through the grid, you can charge batteries, then when my neighbours want power in the early evenings it comes in part from my and other batteries, meaning that it doesn't have to come through cables on pylons or undersea links.

It is a clever way to help the transfer to renewable electricity without having to build as much interconnector or grid capacity.

 

[Bantamzen]

It's not propping up the grid, it is helping to even out flows.

Whether at the domestic level (e.g. if I top up or fill my battery in the small hours on the Octopus flux tarrif, then discharge in the evening peak) or "industrially", as in a megawatt-hour fixed installation somewhere/anywhere - or an airport car-park, which seems a very good idea, it is already working. It means that at times of low demand, i.e. flow through the grid, you can charge batteries, then when my neighbours want power in the early evenings it comes in part from my and other batteries, meaning that it doesn't have to come through cables on pylons or undersea links.

It is a clever way to help the transfer to renewable electricity without having to build as much interconnector or grid capacity.

I'm not saying its not a clever idea, but more selling & buying energy back and forth constantly is going to add cost (none of this happens for free) which is a problem, just as it is on so many commodity markets. In terms of green energy storage, I would much rather focus on the large scale installations that have fixed costs, and are therefore much more accountable and reliable (in so much that you can better guarantee what surplus energy is available at any given time).

The other problem with schemes like this is that sometimes they become distractions for politicians, and they fixate on these ideas as wider solutions rather than focus on the bigger projects because they see them as easy wins and perhaps don't think through issues that may arise.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not suggesting building new gas generating plants, just scaling up storage to something that meets our needs all the time, not just when individual users plug it in.

What technology are you thinking of? Pumped storage is proven and probably fairly efficient with a low capital cost per unit stored, but only a few sites are suitable and they tend to be in sensitive environments. I've seen compressed air storage in Cheshire, which I'm guessing would be less efficient and only works when there's a handy abandoned mine. Or you could wait until all those EV batteries are shot and use them on a fixed site.

I'm not saying its not a clever idea, but more selling & buying energy back and forth constantly is going to add cost (none of this happens for free) which is a problem, just as it is on so many commodity markets. In terms of green energy storage, I would much rather focus on the large scale installations that have fixed costs, and are therefore much more accountable and reliable (in so much that you can better guarantee what surplus energy is available at any given time).

There's a certain amount of cost involved, some of which is paying the car owners for the right to use their batteries. But that should be offset by the ability to use a lot of free energy (renewables in marginal time) that would otherwise be wasted.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I think you need to check where you are sourcing your figures from as they seem on the low side. On Saturday the average for the day was 16.58GW and on Sunday it was 15.75GW, and the peaks for those days will likely have been higher.

Its from Electricity Supply Operator data site https://bmrs.elexon.co.uk/generation-by-fuel-type which only aggregates wind turbines that are metered by NG so will miss the many smaller sites which are embedded with the distribution operators. They, however, supress national demand seen by the ESO so its a realistic comparison to other large power stations.

 

[Bald Rick]

but more selling & buying energy back and forth constantly is going to add cost (none of this happens for free) which is a problem

it adds a small amount of cost, but much less than providing another multiple GW / GWh solution and the grid connections to them.

Edit:

On reflection I’m struggling to see wherre the extra cost is for consumers.

The individual EV owner will be paying for the cost of the kit, and will have a flexi tarriff with feed in arrangements - and that’s it. The electricity supplier and Grid will ‘see’ the same as someone who has solar panels on their roof.

Octopus flux tarrif

Is that the one you need if you have a special DeLorean?

 

[Noddy]

View attachment 147096
Its from Electricity Supply Operator data site https://bmrs.elexon.co.uk/generation-by-fuel-type which only aggregates wind turbines that are metered by NG so will miss the many smaller sites which are embedded with the distribution operators. They, however, supress national demand seen by the ESO so its a realistic comparison to other large power stations.

Does your installed capacity figure of 26.9GW also exclude these smaller sites?

I would ask what would happen if you did the same for solar?

 

[The Ham]

Moving multiple people in a single vehicle is generally going to result in lower carbon emissions on a per person basis than I'd you carry the same number in multiple vehicles (yes fuel source and efficiencies come into play).

At a very basic level, a family of four is going to produce less carbon traveling in one car and two couples travelling in two cars, but that's still better than 4 people travelling in their own car.

One area which is often overlooked is that even a diesel bus is likely to reduce the emissions of the cars around it, as the bus is likely to reduce congestion. 13 people in a bus (taking up the road space of 2 cars) would (on average) mean 10 fewer cars on the roads. Going through a signal junction (single lane approach) that's the same as an extra 20 seconds of green time for that approach (I've already allowed 3 second for the bus).

13 on a bus is a fairly low number at peak time, so chances are a lot of buses in urban areas would be removing the need for quite a lot of extra green time. As such the queues at those junctions would be much shorter and the water energy from the other vehicles would be significantly reduced.

It's unlikely that a diesel bus with 39 people on would make enough of a difference if all the cars around it were EV's, but that's not where we are at. Buses are probably switching away from diesel faster than the average car owner (at least for the urban areas where they are likely to bring the largest benefits).

Whilst EV's are a useful part of decarbonisation, they can't be the only solution and it's likely that rail's average carbon emissions per person per km is likely to be broadly the same as EV's (i.e. currently loads better than the average car, even with circa 1/30th of the fleet being EV's).

Obviously there's a lot to be done with DMU's, however even then over time it's likely that the number of pure DMU's is likely to reduce and even if we don't electrify lines the rail emissions will fall (including from the fact that EMU emissions will fall at the grid greens) as there more bimodals, more battery trains and more hybrid trains (maybe even green hydrogen trains).

 

[miklcct]

Buses are probably switching away from diesel faster than the average car owner (at least for the urban areas where they are likely to bring the largest benefits).

I disagree with this. Non-diesel buses are still a novelty in Hong Kong because it hasn't been proven that electric buses with air conditioning are reliable enough for heavy daily use.

 

[Bald Rick]

I disagree with this. Non-diesel buses are still a novelty in Hong Kong because it hasn't been proven that electric buses with air conditioning are reliable enough for heavy daily use.

Pretty obvious that @The Ham was talking about buses in urban areas of the UK, such as London, where 10% of TfL buses ar enow electric, and all of them will be by 2034 and probably earlier.

 

[miklcct]

Pretty obvious that @The Ham was talking about buses in urban areas of the UK, such as London, where 10% of TfL buses ar enow electric, and all of them will be by 2034 and probably earlier.

So that's only the UK but not in some other parts of the world, although in Shenzhen buses are now fully electric as they are single-decker buses. The problem is only in air-conditioned double-decker buses where the battery is not powerful enough for production use.

The first purely-electric double-decker bus as was introduced in Hong Kong last year but on the second day in service, the air conditioning broke down. The weight and the reduction of the capacity of the bus are also concerns as well.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Does your installed capacity figure of 26.9GW also exclude these smaller sites?

Yes thats the declared nett capacity of all wind turbines that are either connected to NG or a DSO in England, Wales & Scotland. In terms of metered wind visible to ESO its c17-18GW. So the range i quoted above should be judged against that figure.

I would ask what would happen if you did the same for solar?

It would be Zero as no Solar is visible to the ESO as its all connected at DSO level mainly 11kV or 33kV or 132kV for the bigger installations. Grid sites that show Solar output are generally leveraging off https://www.solar.sheffield.ac.uk/pvlive/ There is also several million domestic solar installations as well but most is sub 4kwp.

The ESO have their own forecasting models to take account of embedded solar and onshore wind as it now has high impact in reducing the overall demand on the NG 275/400kV system and thus determines how many big power stations it needs to manage.

 

[Bald Rick]

Wind capacity was 27.9GW in June - it will be nudging 29GW by now!

Wind capacity overtakes gas | Q2 2023 Quarterly Report | Electric Insights

reports.electricinsights.co.uk

After more than a century of fossil fuel infrastructure dominating our electricity system, Britain has now installed more wind capacity than any other type of power station. In June, the nation’s fleet of wind farms reached 27.9 GW of capacity, overtaking combined cycle gas power stations for the first time. This makes Britain only the fifth country in the world to have built more wind farms than any other form of power station.

 

[Noddy]

Yes thats the declared nett capacity of all wind turbines that are either connected to NG or a DSO in England, Wales & Scotland. In terms of metered wind visible to ESO its c17-18GW. So the range i quoted above should be judged against that figure.

It would be Zero as no Solar is visible to the ESO as its all connected at DSO level mainly 11kV or 33kV or 132kV for the bigger installations. Grid sites that show Solar output are generally leveraging off https://www.solar.sheffield.ac.uk/pvlive/ There is also several million domestic solar installations as well but most is sub 4kwp.

The ESO have their own forecasting models to take account of embedded solar and onshore wind as it now has high impact in reducing the overall demand on the NG 275/400kV system and thus determines how many big power stations it needs to manage.

My bold. This is the point I’m making. By excluding these small installations from your figures (whether wind or solar) you are missing out on GWs of installed capacity and production, which is both widely reported elsewhere, and is a significant issue when understanding the relationship between wind and solar production against demand.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Wind capacity was 27.9GW in June - it will be nudging 29GW by now!

The figure i quoted is declared nett capacity to the ESO which is generally lower than installed as it takes account of any specific site/equipment constraints.

Moray East has been commissioned this year (+0.45GW) and Dogger Bank is still testing but looks like its starting to produce limited power as soon as individual turbines are commissioned so not sure we will be at 29GW yet.

Wind capacity overtakes gas | Q2 2023 Quarterly Report | Electric Insights

reports.electricinsights.co.uk

That site is interesting although its run by DRAX who like to espouse there renewable credentials which is debatable but thats for another thread. Still prefer Gridwatch but all source the raw data off Elexon but that is limited to units that are registered with the ESO and doesn't include the majority of embedded units as majority of sites are sub 5MW.

 

[Bald Rick]

Moray East has been commissioned this year and Dogger Bank is still testing but looks like its starting to produce limited power as soon as individual turbines are commissioned.

Dogger Bank is generating now (albeit not much, but 3.6GW before long!). Plus Neart na Gaoithe, Sofia, and Viking all going to start intial generation in the next few months.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Dogger Bank is generating now (albeit not much, but 3.6GW before long!). Plus Neart na Gaoithe, Sofia, and Viking all going to start intial generation in the next few months.

Isn't Viking the Danish interconnector?

 

[Bald Rick]

Isn't Viking the Danish interconnector?

Also the name of a 440MW onshore farm in Shetland. All the turbines are up, just the subsea cable to finish and then we’re off!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Also the name of a 440MW onshore farm in Shetland. All the turbines are up, just the subsea cable to finish and then we’re off!

Arghh yes commissioning 2024 although it will further add to excess wind generation in North of Scotland that can't be shifted South due to inadequate transmission capacity until the new DC links are completed towards end of decade. Its the Ordsall Link parallel without Castleford.

62GWh of wind already constrained off today

 

[Bald Rick]

Arghh yes commissioning 2024 although it will further add to excess wind generation in North of Scotland that can't be shifted South due to inadequate transmission capacity until the new DC links are completed towards end of decade. Its the Ordsall Link parallel without Castleford.

62GWh of wind already constrained off today

Yup. Would be a lot more useful if EVs in Scotland could use vehicle to grid…

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yup. Would be a lot more useful if EVs in Scotland could use vehicle to grid…

The other thing we need to get on with is building more pumped storage. SSE's scheme at Coire Glas would have the potential to soak up 30GWh. SSE also want to retrofit the Sloy complex to convert it to pumped storage. Both schemes bogged down in all the palaver infrastructure projects have to jump through nowadays. Just as well none of this existed on this scale in the 50/60's when the National Grid and super sized power stations were built that allow us the benefits we all take for granted and expect now.

​

 

[Bantamzen]

What technology are you thinking of? Pumped storage is proven and probably fairly efficient with a low capital cost per unit stored, but only a few sites are suitable and they tend to be in sensitive environments. I've seen compressed air storage in Cheshire, which I'm guessing would be less efficient and only works when there's a handy abandoned mine. Or you could wait until all those EV batteries are shot and use them on a fixed site.

Pumped storage is one option, though as you note suitable locations are limited. But large scale battery farms, well these could be installed pretty much close to wherever green energy is produced. That's what I'm thinking.

There's a certain amount of cost involved, some of which is paying the car owners for the right to use their batteries. But that should be offset by the ability to use a lot of free energy (renewables in marginal time) that would otherwise be wasted.

Not if storage were scaled, EV use shouldn't be prioritised over large schemes (which is the political risk here) if for no other reason than the generators / suppliers don't have direct control over them. Its no use having reliance on EV storage solutions if those EVs aren't online when you need to store or draw.

it adds a small amount of cost, but much less than providing another multiple GW / GWh solution and the grid connections to them.

A small amount of cost on a large scale becomes a large amount, and one that will always be passed to the consumer.

Edit:

On reflection I’m struggling to see wherre the extra cost is for consumers.

The individual EV owner will be paying for the cost of the kit, and will have a flexi tarriff with feed in arrangements - and that’s it. The electricity supplier and Grid will ‘see’ the same as someone who has solar panels on their roof.

Its not the same as solar though, solar is generating new energy, EV storage is, well storing energy already in the grid. So if you then attach financial transactions to every move, you add more overall cost. And if as in the example linked above, you introduce a new company to buy from EV owners to sell back to the grid, well they are going to want their share of the profits as well. Its no wonder energy companies are looking at solutions like this, the shareholders and investors must love it. Making more money from the market from the same units of energy, its a great way to boost profits, but its s*** for the end consumers.

Just think about it for a moment, we are generating more and more green energy than ever. And we were promised lower energy costs as this began to happen, but what has really happened? There is no way with the current energy market set-up that this kind of scheme won't cost the consumer more. I can even imagine energy companies putting prices up as EV stored energy is not as predicable, and so surge pricing occurred as a result. I can see it coming. Quite honestly if anything needs brining back into more national control, its energy production, storage and distribution.

Buses are probably switching away from diesel faster than the average car owner (at least for the urban areas where they are likely to bring the largest benefits).

Not in my area. Currently within Bradford and Leeds where I regularly commute, there is one electric bus being trialled in Bradford on Transdev route 662 Keighley-Bradford, and used throughout on one route in Leeds, route 5 Leeds-Halton Moor. More are promised, but as yet there are no indications as to when they might land.

 

[edwin_m]

Pumped storage is one option, though as you note suitable locations are limited. But large scale battery farms, well these could be installed pretty much close to wherever green energy is produced. That's what I'm thinking.


Not if storage were scaled, EV use shouldn't be prioritised over large schemes (which is the political risk here) if for no other reason than the generators / suppliers don't have direct control over them. Its no use having reliance on EV storage solutions if those EVs aren't online when you need to store or draw.


A small amount of cost on a large scale becomes a large amount, and one that will always be passed to the consumer.


Its not the same as solar though, solar is generating new energy, EV storage is, well storing energy already in the grid. So if you then attach financial transactions to every move, you add more overall cost. And if as in the example linked above, you introduce a new company to buy from EV owners to sell back to the grid, well they are going to want their share of the profits as well. Its no wonder energy companies are looking at solutions like this, the shareholders and investors must love it. Making more money from the market from the same units of energy, its a great way to boost profits, but its s*** for the end consumers.

Just think about it for a moment, we are generating more and more green energy than ever. And we were promised lower energy costs as this began to happen, but what has really happened? There is no way with the current energy market set-up that this kind of scheme won't cost the consumer more. I can even imagine energy companies putting prices up as EV stored energy is not as predicable, and so surge pricing occurred as a result. I can see it coming. Quite honestly if anything needs brining back into more national control, its energy production, storage and distribution.


Not in my area. Currently within Bradford and Leeds where I regularly commute, there is one electric bus being trialled in Bradford on Transdev route 662 Keighley-Bradford, and used throughout on one route in Leeds, route 5 Leeds-Halton Moor. More are promised, but as yet there are no indications as to when they might land.

The economics of large scale battery farms probably rely on getting degraded but still useable batteries from EVs, so you still need the EVs to exist as part of the ecosystem. If they don't then the battery farms need to use new batteries and become more expensive as well as using scarce materials. (That's a musing, not necessarily a disagreement with the above). How do the economics of battery farms (capex per kWh and efficiency) compare with other storage solutions?

New solar and wind do generate new electricity (not strictly new energy, only nuclear can do that), but storage reduces wastage of energy already being produced and some of the energy that this new infrastructure will produce. Use of EVs may not be the perfect solution, but the necessary hardware will exist anyway so it's essentially a zero-cost and zero-impact option. There's a bit of cost in administration, but the same is true of any provider that attaches itself to the grid and therefore participates in the energy market.

 

[Noddy]

Pumped storage is one option, though as you note suitable locations are limited. But large scale battery farms, well these could be installed pretty much close to wherever green energy is produced. That's what I'm thinking.


Not if storage were scaled, EV use shouldn't be prioritised over large schemes (which is the political risk here) if for no other reason than the generators / suppliers don't have direct control over them. Its no use having reliance on EV storage solutions if those EVs aren't online when you need to store or draw.


A small amount of cost on a large scale becomes a large amount, and one that will always be passed to the consumer.


Its not the same as solar though, solar is generating new energy, EV storage is, well storing energy already in the grid. So if you then attach financial transactions to every move, you add more overall cost. And if as in the example linked above, you introduce a new company to buy from EV owners to sell back to the grid, well they are going to want their share of the profits as well. Its no wonder energy companies are looking at solutions like this, the shareholders and investors must love it. Making more money from the market from the same units of energy, its a great way to boost profits, but its s*** for the end consumers.

Can I ask do you own an electric car? Because my experience is that when I get home I automatically plug in (unless maybe I’ve only used a few %) and don’t unplug till I leave home the next time. Clearly not everyone will be like that but I suspect the majority will be. The other thing is this control by energy companies is already there. I’m on Intelligent Octopus Go which gets very cheap rates (7.5p kWh). I tell Octopus what time I want the car to be charged by the next day and they control when it is charged. Most of the time this is overnight, but can be during the day/evening if there is excess energy on the grid. V2G will work in much the same way, and I don’t see why it would add excessively to the cost to consumers. Most of the issue will be that existing home chargers will I imagine need to be replaced by bi-directional units. But that cost will fall on ‘early adopters’ and individuals like me, not on general consumers energy bills.

 

[Bald Rick]

The other thing we need to get on with is building more pumped storage. SSE's scheme at Coire Glas would have the potential to soak up 30GWh. SSE also want to retrofit the Sloy complex to convert it to pumped storage. Both schemes bogged down in all the palaver infrastructure projects have to jump through nowadays. Just as well none of this existed on this scale in the 50/60's when the National Grid and super sized power stations were built that allow us the benefits we all take for granted and expect now.

​

AIUI Coire Glas has all the consents it needs, it just needs financial close on the deal, which i gather is expected next year. They have certainly started pre construction activity (I was up there last year and saw it) so SSE must be pretty serious.

Its not the same as solar though, solar is generating new energy, EV storage is, well storing energy already in the grid. So if you then attach financial transactions to every move, you add more overall cost.

I’m clearly not explaining this well.

As far as the grid and distributors see, it is exactly the same. Industry supplies new electricity to consumer at some points at x pence / kWh, and receives electricty from consumers at some points at y pence / kWh.

EV storage is not storing electricity ‘already in the grid’. No battery storage is. It is storing electricity that would otherwise not be produced*, which in the case of wind and solar would be free* electricity that we would effectively be wasting. Therefore we are taking essentially free* electricity, storing it, and then using it at a time when there is demand for it (and therefore has a value). The alternative is to waste the ‘free’ energy, but have to install more primary generation (at capital cost), hook it up to the grid (more cost), and have it doing nothing except in the peakiest demand times, and/or waste more energy by standing idle when it is sunny / windy.

I’m not quite sure if your issue with this is the concept of battery storage itself, or of battery storage using lots of (very) small scale batteries that happen to be in people’s cars. The principle in energy and transaction terms is exactly the same. In practice, because vehicle to grid involves no new major DNO infrastrucutre, it should be cheaper to provide. The uncertainty comes through knowing in advance how much capacity is available, but I’m reasonably sure the pricing mechanisms and an app or two will deal with that. In terms of transaction costs for the EV users who choose to do it, that‘s no more than the transaction costs of receiving a current (ho) electricity bill.

* It’s not quite that simple, but that is the high level principle.

And if as in the example linked above, you introduce a new company to buy from EV owners to sell back to the grid, well they are going to want their share of the profits as well.

In this example yes - But in this respect it’s no different to a grid scale battery storage firm - just instead of 100 containers each with a 500kwh battery inside, they have 1000 containers with a 50kwh battery inside that also happen to have 4 wheels and some seats.

Just think about it for a moment, we are generating more and more green energy than ever. And we were promised lower energy costs as this began to happen, but what has really happened?

I’m not sure we were promised lower energy costs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Nov 2023 ==

Most of the issue will be that existing home chargers will I imagine need to be replaced by bi-directional units.

If you’ve got solar panels, send it via the inverter…

 

[Class 317]

Pumped storage is one option, though as you note suitable locations are limited. But large scale battery farms, well these could be installed pretty much close to wherever green energy is produced. That's what I'm thinking.


Not if storage were scaled, EV use shouldn't be prioritised over large schemes (which is the political risk here) if for no other reason than the generators / suppliers don't have direct control over them. Its no use having reliance on EV storage solutions if those EVs aren't online when you need to store or draw.


A small amount of cost on a large scale becomes a large amount, and one that will always be passed to the consumer.


Its not the same as solar though, solar is generating new energy, EV storage is, well storing energy already in the grid. So if you then attach financial transactions to every move, you add more overall cost. And if as in the example linked above, you introduce a new company to buy from EV owners to sell back to the grid, well they are going to want their share of the profits as well. Its no wonder energy companies are looking at solutions like this, the shareholders and investors must love it. Making more money from the market from the same units of energy, its a great way to boost profits, but its s*** for the end consumers.

Just think about it for a moment, we are generating more and more green energy than ever. And we were promised lower energy costs as this began to happen, but what has really happened? There is no way with the current energy market set-up that this kind of scheme won't cost the consumer more. I can even imagine energy companies putting prices up as EV stored energy is not as predicable, and so surge pricing occurred as a result. I can see it coming. Quite honestly if anything needs brining back into more national control, its energy production, storage and distribution.


Not in my area. Currently within Bradford and Leeds where I regularly commute, there is one electric bus being trialled in Bradford on Transdev route 662 Keighley-Bradford, and used throughout on one route in Leeds, route 5 Leeds-Halton Moor. More are promised, but as yet there are no indications as to when they might land.

The point I think that your missing is that in essence the excess energy stored has very little or no marginal cost. It's therefore being brought for storage at virtually zero cost and then released back to the grid during high demand when wholesale prices are higher. As the EV already exists for use as an EV there is little marginal cost to using it as an energy storage for the 95% of the time it's not in use as a car.
Given this it's only going to reduce the cost of storage not increase it.

Yes a company managing the infrastructure to enable this will expect to take a share of the price difference between the generating costs and resale prices but it will be far outweighed by the reduction in storage costs.

 

[yorksrob]

Pumped storage is one option, though as you note suitable locations are limited. But large scale battery farms, well these could be installed pretty much close to wherever green energy is produced. That's what I'm thinking.


Not if storage were scaled, EV use shouldn't be prioritised over large schemes (which is the political risk here) if for no other reason than the generators / suppliers don't have direct control over them. Its no use having reliance on EV storage solutions if those EVs aren't online when you need to store or draw.


A small amount of cost on a large scale becomes a large amount, and one that will always be passed to the consumer.


Its not the same as solar though, solar is generating new energy, EV storage is, well storing energy already in the grid. So if you then attach financial transactions to every move, you add more overall cost. And if as in the example linked above, you introduce a new company to buy from EV owners to sell back to the grid, well they are going to want their share of the profits as well. Its no wonder energy companies are looking at solutions like this, the shareholders and investors must love it. Making more money from the market from the same units of energy, its a great way to boost profits, but its s*** for the end consumers.

Just think about it for a moment, we are generating more and more green energy than ever. And we were promised lower energy costs as this began to happen, but what has really happened? There is no way with the current energy market set-up that this kind of scheme won't cost the consumer more. I can even imagine energy companies putting prices up as EV stored energy is not as predicable, and so surge pricing occurred as a result. I can see it coming. Quite honestly if anything needs brining back into more national control, its energy production, storage and distribution.


Not in my area. Currently within Bradford and Leeds where I regularly commute, there is one electric bus being trialled in Bradford on Transdev route 662 Keighley-Bradford, and used throughout on one route in Leeds, route 5 Leeds-Halton Moor. More are promised, but as yet there are no indications as to when they might land.

This a fascinating thread with lots of interesting information.

However your point is correct that all the infrastructure in the world won't make the necessary difference to prices, until the supply is split off from a global energy market which key suppliers are prepared to manipulate for their own benefit.

 

[Bantamzen]

The economics of large scale battery farms probably rely on getting degraded but still useable batteries from EVs, so you still need the EVs to exist as part of the ecosystem. If they don't then the battery farms need to use new batteries and become more expensive as well as using scarce materials. (That's a musing, not necessarily a disagreement with the above). How do the economics of battery farms (capex per kWh and efficiency) compare with other storage solutions?

I would hope that EV batteries are not the main source, if so then the long term solution is a long way off. Maybe we should have stuck to nuclear.

New solar and wind do generate new electricity (not strictly new energy, only nuclear can do that), but storage reduces wastage of energy already being produced and some of the energy that this new infrastructure will produce. Use of EVs may not be the perfect solution, but the necessary hardware will exist anyway so it's essentially a zero-cost and zero-impact option. There's a bit of cost in administration, but the same is true of any provider that attaches itself to the grid and therefore participates in the energy market.

It isn't zero cost when you sell energy at a low rate, then but back at a higher one though.

Can I ask do you own an electric car? Because my experience is that when I get home I automatically plug in (unless maybe I’ve only used a few %) and don’t unplug till I leave home the next time. Clearly not everyone will be like that but I suspect the majority will be. The other thing is this control by energy companies is already there. I’m on Intelligent Octopus Go which gets very cheap rates (7.5p kWh). I tell Octopus what time I want the car to be charged by the next day and they control when it is charged. Most of the time this is overnight, but can be during the day/evening if there is excess energy on the grid. V2G will work in much the same way, and I don’t see why it would add excessively to the cost to consumers. Most of the issue will be that existing home chargers will I imagine need to be replaced by bi-directional units. But that cost will fall on ‘early adopters’ and individuals like me, not on general consumers energy bills.

No, I don't drive at all. However, I do live in an area where large scale, overnight charging is problematic to say the least, with a considerable proportion of terraced and apartment buildings making up housing stock.

I’m clearly not explaining this well.

As far as the grid and distributors see, it is exactly the same. Industry supplies new electricity to consumer at some points at x pence / kWh, and receives electricty from consumers at some points at y pence / kWh.

EV storage is not storing electricity ‘already in the grid’. No battery storage is. It is storing electricity that would otherwise not be produced*, which in the case of wind and solar would be free* electricity that we would effectively be wasting. Therefore we are taking essentially free* electricity, storing it, and then using it at a time when there is demand for it (and therefore has a value). The alternative is to waste the ‘free’ energy, but have to install more primary generation (at capital cost), hook it up to the grid (more cost), and have it doing nothing except in the peakiest demand times, and/or waste more energy by standing idle when it is sunny / windy.

My point is that it would be better for the generator to store excess energy (after all wasn't this always the plan before this EV idea came along), then release it as required. Putting more reliance on a less reliable source of storage seems like folly to me, and of course with more buying and selling its going to cost more at the end of the day.

The flow of green energy should be: Generation > Mass Storage > Grid > Supplier. What this idea proposes is Generation > Grid > EV Storage > Grid > Supplier, with a possible further step between EV Storage and Grid. Again I'm sorry but I don't see how this won't increase costs.

I’m not quite sure if your issue with this is the concept of battery storage itself, or of battery storage using lots of (very) small scale batteries that happen to be in people’s cars. The principle in energy and transaction terms is exactly the same. In practice, because vehicle to grid involves no new major DNO infrastrucutre, it should be cheaper to provide. The uncertainty comes through knowing in advance how much capacity is available, but I’m reasonably sure the pricing mechanisms and an app or two will deal with that. In terms of transaction costs for the EV users who choose to do it, that‘s no more than the transaction costs of receiving a current (ho) electricity bill.

* It’s not quite that simple, but that is the high level principle.

I think I've made it very clear I'm not against battery storage, but that I prefer large scale, accountable systems that don't involve extra financial transactions which invariably add cost. Unless of course all concerned do it for no profit.... (yeah, right!)

In this example yes - But in this respect it’s no different to a grid scale battery storage firm - just instead of 100 containers each with a 500kwh battery inside, they have 1000 containers with a 50kwh battery inside that also happen to have 4 wheels and some seats.

Storage that might suddenly not be on the grid when you need it.

I’m not sure we were promised lower energy costs.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this comment....

The point I think that your missing is that in essence the excess energy stored has very little or no marginal cost. It's therefore being brought for storage at virtually zero cost and then released back to the grid during high demand when wholesale prices are higher. As the EV already exists for use as an EV there is little marginal cost to using it as an energy storage for the 95% of the time it's not in use as a car.
Given this it's only going to reduce the cost of storage not increase it.

Yes a company managing the infrastructure to enable this will expect to take a share of the price difference between the generating costs and resale prices but it will be far outweighed by the reduction in storage costs.

Will it though. Having a fixed solution over one that might be driving around or simply not plugged in when you need it seems, well naïve in the least. And as I say, at every financial transaction will be an expectation of profit. The more you have, the more the end product will cost.

This a fascinating thread with lots of interesting information.

However your point is correct that all the infrastructure in the world won't make the necessary difference to prices, until the supply is split off from a global energy market which key suppliers are prepared to manipulate for their own benefit.

Exactly. All of this is profit driven. And profit driven tends not to be great for the consumer, especially when it comes to energy.

 

[talldave]

Whilst the concept of distributed storage in EVs is interesting/exciting (depending on how much of geek you are), here in London we have the problem that TfL hate cars and their owners and are doing everything they can to get us to abandon them. There's also a limit to the number of homes that can actually charge a car and the fact that lower income households can't afford to get on the EV ladder (second hand EVs are seen as toxic due to battery costs). I wonder if domestic powerwalls will be more successful? I'm not sure I'd sleep soundly at night upstairs from a cheap Chinese Lithium Iron firework in waiting!!

 

[Class 317]

I would hope that EV batteries are not the main source, if so then the long term solution is a long way off. Maybe we should have stuck to nuclear.


It isn't zero cost when you sell energy at a low rate, then but back at a higher one though.


No, I don't drive at all. However, I do live in an area where large scale, overnight charging is problematic to say the least, with a considerable proportion of terraced and apartment buildings making up housing stock.


My point is that it would be better for the generator to store excess energy (after all wasn't this always the plan before this EV idea came along), then release it as required. Putting more reliance on a less reliable source of storage seems like folly to me, and of course with more buying and selling its going to cost more at the end of the day.

The flow of green energy should be: Generation > Mass Storage > Grid > Supplier. What this idea proposes is Generation > Grid > EV Storage > Grid > Supplier, with a possible further step between EV Storage and Grid. Again I'm sorry but I don't see how this won't increase costs.


I think I've made it very clear I'm not against battery storage, but that I prefer large scale, accountable systems that don't involve extra financial transactions which invariably add cost. Unless of course all concerned do it for no profit.... (yeah, right!)


Storage that might suddenly not be on the grid when you need it.


I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this comment....


Will it though. Having a fixed solution over one that might be driving around or simply not plugged in when you need it seems, well naïve in the least. And as I say, at every financial transaction will be an expectation of profit. The more you have, the more the end product will cost.


Exactly. All of this is profit driven. And profit driven tends not to be great for the consumer, especially when it comes to energy.

I think what your not considering is that storage via V2G involves no real capital outlay as the infrastructure is in essence already required for other uses eg as a car. Grid level storage will come with costs for grid connections and the hardware etc. V2G will not have these costs so will be cheaper.In reality a mix of both large scale and V2G will probably be deployed.

On a side note fleet owners will have the potential of another revenue source. I'm working on a scheme to use electric dustcarts and V2G is part of the plan.

 

[AndrewE]

Whilst the concept of distributed storage in EVs is interesting/exciting (depending on how much of geek you are), here in London we have the problem that TfL hate cars and their owners and are doing everything they can to get us to abandon them.
There's also a limit to the number of homes that can actually charge a car and the fact that lower income households can't afford to get on the EV ladder (second hand EVs are seen as toxic due to battery costs).

I feel that in any city or conurbation public transport should be good enough to do most of the heavy lifting, with reasonably priced taxis seen as an extension. This removes most of the need for any private vehicle ownership/use, which in turn deals with the exclusion of poorer households..

I wonder if domestic powerwalls will be more successful? I'm not sure I'd sleep soundly at night upstairs from a cheap Chinese Lithium Iron firework in waiting!!

Powerwalls (Tesla ones) i believe do use lithium ion batteries and if I had one it would be on the outside of a brick wall.
However lots of others, e.g. Pylontech, are lithium iron phosphate (sometimes called Li ferrous phosphate to get away from the similar sound) and do not suffer from the runaway thermal breakdown (fire or explosion) that the ion ones can do.