[alancalverd]

That just adds emphasis! The object of Economy 7 was to spread the load between peak daytime consumption and night time (7 hours) so that conventional and particularly nuclear stations worked at optimum capital efficiency (i.e. 90% or more uptime). Not sure how you can do this with unreliable sources, though offshore wind has less diurnal variation than onshore. You certainly want to recharge vehicles as far as possible when other demand is lowest and true Econ 7 would be ideal, but the economics of reliable baseload stations are severely distorted once you get above 20% renewables - and there's no solar contribution at night!   

So it looks as though you could have electric vehicles or zero carbon electricity, but not both - unless you go to an intermediate storage system like hydrogen, in which case synthetic liquid fuel would be a better solution in the medium term.

[Bored chemist]

The object of Economy 7 was to spread the load between peak daytime consumption and night time (7 hours)

Yes, but the point wasn't to shift all electricity use into the small hours.
The fact that, for many people, it will be simple (and may be profitable) to do so is not some magical command that nobody can charge a car during the day.
That was some b*****ks you made up.

Please don't try to pretend that your straw men are something I said.
It just ends up with you looking silly.

Incidentally, the grown ups will recognise that grid capacity is not the same as generation capacity.
The grid really does have more capacity than the grid.

Even if we were still running mainly on coal fired power stations there  would be a question about the  cables being thick enough to charge the cars- until you realise that most of them can be charged at night.

Storage is a separate, though related issue.
I fairly recently had occasion to look over the design of some quite big batteries.

[alancalverd]

The grid really does have more capacity than the grid.

Why? Surely that represents a pointless overinvestment in capital? Transmission systems, whether for liquids, gases or electricity, are designed and built to carry anticipated demand. If you want to extract more than 100A from your street supply, you may find yourself having to pay for a significant upgrade beyond your premises, and as the OP pointed out, we don't have the distribution infrastructure required to charge vehicles at the kerbside.   

"National" Grid (which does not cover Scotland) plans to spend £8,000,000,000 in the next 5 years to add 25 GW transmission capacity down to 132 kV - and that's just the easy bit. It's about half of what we need for "all electric" transport, but doesn't deliver the low voltage supply to the kerbside, or even the street.

[evan_au]

The object of Economy 7 was to spread the load between peak daytime consumption and night time (7 hours)

Economy 7 is a UK commercial construct that was developed in a different commercial environment. We have a similar commercial construct in Australia.

However, the commercial environment now has daytime rooftop solar generation that is cheaper than nighttime generation (although probably more so in Australia than in the UK). So generators and distributors really need to produce a more up-to-date commercial construct that takes advantage of cheap daytime power.

One of the barriers is that the large central generators can bill large electricity distributors who then bill individual consumers. Rooftop solar inverts that distribution network, but the billing system is resistant to the reversal, so often daytime solar is disabled on sunny days.

I see this as a problem that can be solved by information technology (provided the Silicon Valley "disruptive" mindset can be applied to the heavily-regulated monopolies that currently control the power grid),

The state of California now has an opportunity to think laterally about this, as the heavily-regulated electricity distributor (Pacific Gas & Electricity) has been driven into bankruptcy by the responsibilities imposed by the regulation.

If the iPod, Uber and AirBnB show anything, it is that established regulators, monopolies and distributors are stressed during disruptive transitions - but usually the consumer sees some benefit in the process...

[Bored chemist]

Why? Surely that represents a pointless overinvestment in capital?

No
The infrastructure has to carry peak demand. But that is a relatively rare state of affairs.
So, most of the time it is not "full".

[alancalverd]

Peak demand is currently estimated around 61 GW, average 38 GW

But National Grid publications are to say the least confusing. A 2017 paper estimates the peak demand from EVs by 2050 to be no more than 6 GW, which makes one wonder why they need to install another 25 GW transmission capacity by 2025 as industrial consumption is declining. And just to make it interesting for the anti-carbon lobby, they assume it will all be generated from gas, because you can't use nukes or windmills to meet peak demand.

Even so, assuming NG get their sums right, and we can ignore the CO2 used to power the electric cars, they still haven't explained how the low voltage stuff will be distributed because it isn't their problem! LV metering and distribution is a retail activity to be carried out (or more likely not) by friendly sharks like Centrica and EoN, whose internecine price war has seen retail electricity prices increase by 30% in 10 years thanks to free market "competition". Whoever first contracts to dig up a city and supply kerbside charging points is going to watch their share price slide down the toilet as lawyers get their teeth into delaying tactics (if you don't believe me, ask to see the HS2 accounts). So the distribution network will have to be publicly funded, and the kerbside power will have to be expensive to offset the Treasury tax loss from not using liquid fuel.     

Most of the LV distribution network will of course be installed by "UK Power Networks", a Hong Kong company, so any profit will be taxed by a communist regime, just like the Russian natural gas used to generate the electricity. Who says communism doesn't work?   

Not that it matters. Developing nations will continue to emit vast amounts of CO2 and the taxpayer will eventually have to cough up to subsidise electric vehicle infrastructure in order to meet the absurd deadline. Massive traffic disruption, huge costs, no benefits. But what political kudos!

[Bored chemist]

Peak demand is currently estimated around 61 GW, average 38 GW

Thirty something  vs sixty something.
My guess at "twice" was pretty close.
Thanks for the confirmation.

which makes one wonder why they need to install another 25 GW transmission capacity by 2025 as industrial consumption is declining.

Unless they expect other demands- like air source heat pumps to increase.

Who says communism doesn't work?   

Me.
Not least because neither Russia nor China are actually communist.
Do you remember when East Germany called itself the "German 'Democratic' Republic"?
It turns out that their dictatorship wasn't democratic at all.
Well the Chinese "communist" party is similar.

[evan_au]

Peak demand is currently estimated around 61 GW, average 38 GW

Unless my statistics is very rusty, those two numbers imply that at some periods in the early morning, electricity demand in the UK could drop as low as 25 or even 20 GW.

That makes it sound like a few hours around 2am is an ideal, regular time to charge electric vehicles.
...plus a few hours around noon (due to rooftop solar)
...Neither of which will stress the current long-distance grid.

However, if we get the communication infrastructure and market indicators right, other good (but irregular) times to charge electric vehicles will be:
- When the wind is blowing strongly (somewhere)
- When the tide is rushing in or out (somewhere)
- Both of which require shuffling electricity long distances (higher grid capacity),
- and electronically shuffling pence/cents in the other direction at some dynamic rate which depends on the instantaneous supply and demand
- via some end-user accessible communications mechanism and market mechanism that does not currently exist
- Including a willingness by electricity companies and regulators to allow individuals to sell electricity at a profit if they have charged their cars (or houses) overnight or at midday, and want to sell off the long-distance capacity from their car (without endangering their regular daily commute)

Currently, electricity companies (in Australia) sell you power at much higher rates than they buy from you for rooftop solar.
- This archaic attitude has to change if we are going to effectively use the electricity storage increasingly becoming available today in cars and homes.

[alancalverd]

The point of a car, horse, wheelchair, or even legs, is to go where you want, when you want.

For those who do not live on the ground floor, this will require the siting of at least 10,000,000 metered kerbside charging points near people's homes, and about as many in places where they might want to be at some time. That is the engineering challenge, and I don't see a socially acceptable answer that can be adopted in 30 years.

The physics challenge remains to generate the required electricity without politically unacceptable carbon dioxide. You can forget solar in the UK. There is usually a bit of wind somewhere but the average offshore windmill only produces 20% of its rated capacity over a year, so if you want to generate the additional 160GW required to power all our surface transport and industry you need to install 800 GW of new generating capacity - that's 100 times as much as our present offshore installed base. Then there's the problem of "usually". 5 day periods of "zero" wind occur several times each year. You might try to persuade people not to charge their vehicles at such times, but the demand the next day will, surprisingly, be 5 times the normal load. Unless, of course, you have installed 5 days' storage  capacity somewhere, the capital and maintenance cost of which is unlikely to be recouped during the half dozen or so calm periods.

So it's back to horses for reliable travel when required. Problem is that a horse standing still actually produces more CO2 in a year than a small car covering 8000 miles!

[alancalverd]

Currently, electricity companies (in Australia) sell you power at much higher rates than they buy from you for rooftop solar.

I think that's called "business". Pretty much the same with any commodity.

The idea of everyone using everyone else's car to store surplus energy is delightful and would  probably work in an ant colony, but you'd have difficulty translating it to a society where some people drive BMWs and everyone's stored energy is a depreciating asset. Suppose my charger is 90% efficient, the battery loses 10% in a week (it's an old battery), I resell the electricity at 90% conversion efficiency, and the power company makes 5% on every deal. Then I can buy 1unit for £1, say, and sell 0.73 unit for 65p. My chariot has now become a charity, where I donate 35% of my money to those with more!

Compare this with liquid fuel. I can buy a unit for £1, lose almost nothing in storage, and sell it direct at a price I negotiate with my customer

[alancalverd]

Interesting to compare charging rates. Fast road diesel pumps deliver about 1liter/second. That's 40 MW - 1000 times the transfer rate for a 100A 400V charger. Refuelling an aircraft at 40 l/sec is equivalent to 1.6 GW. The National Grid forecast 6 GW will not match the consumption of Luton airport with four turnrounds. We are going to have to adapt to a much slower lifestyle, where recharging times become as significant as feeding and watering a horse.

[Bored chemist]

Unless, of course, you have installed 5 days' storage  capacity somewhere,

If we have batteries that are good enough for vehicles then we have batteries that are good enough for energy storage.

You seem determined to talk about the problems of doing this- which are obviously large.
You see to forget to compare them to the problems of not doing it.

[Bored chemist]

The point of a car, horse, wheelchair, or even legs, is to go where you want, when you want.

In my case (and I think it's common enough) the point of the vehicle isn't to get to where I want to be; it's to commute to work.

[alancalverd]

If we have batteries that are good enough for vehicles then we have batteries that are good enough for energy storage.

That's a big if. Let us suppose that you have a lossless battery in your car. You drive 50 miles to a destination and back home. That's more than half the range of a £30k Leaf after 18 months. Now the wind has dropped, not only for you but for everyone else, so if you want to get to work tomorrow you are relying on there being another battery the same size as yours, available somewhere to recharge yours. And if there's no wind for a week, we need 5 batteries for every car. No problem, but the cost of putting your car on the road is now £100k or more, £70 k of which you won't often use, and you have to put the storage batteries somewhere.

You seem determined to talk about the problems of doing this- which are obviously large.You see to forget to compare them to the problems of not doing it.

Not every turkey looks forward to Christmas. It is entirely feasible to move to an all-electric and all-renewable transport system, but the impact on society will be far bigger than that of a few Teslas (and I'd love to have one) mingling with today's traffic. I thoroughly enjoy using a small plane to go to work, along with a few hundred other UK private and business pilots, but I'm acutely aware that this is a rare privilege and if 10,000,000 of us took to the skies every rush hour, there would be a lot of problems. Same applies to electric vehicles: great for the few, wholly impractical for everyone. And no reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide for the next 30 years.

If we scrapped child benefits and paid every woman £500 every 6 months for not being pregnant, anthropogenic carbon emissions would drop by 30% in 30 years, pensions would increase and famine would be completely eliminated in 50 years. That is the "zero cost, do nothing" solution.  Problem is, that there's no profit in it, so economists won't understand it.

[syhprum]

I think electric vehicles were quite common in the 1890,s but as soon as the petrol and Diesel fuel distribution system got going it was seen as the better way to go but we learn nothing from history.

[evan_au]

this will require the siting of at least 10,000,000 metered kerbside charging points near people's homes...

This assumes that rates of car ownership remain at current levels.

Many large cities are actively discouraging private car ownership, because of the congestion and pollution problems it brings. In some places, it's not unusual to see a shopping mall or business surrounded by a car park many times larger than the focus of the business; that's a poor use of space.

Perhaps more surprisingly, people in inner-city suburbs seem to be increasingly ok with not having a private vehicle, using bicycles or public transport most of the time, and ride-share or internet taxi if they want to go somewhere unusual. Economists can finally place a (real-estate) value on access to public transport, which might encourage its provision in areas where it is now lacking...

If private car ownership drops, then we reduce the amount of energy/CO₂ going into car manufacturing, and the number of required charging points drops to something more comprehensible (although the transport energy consumption does not decrease significantly).

Now, if only self-driving cars could also be self-charging cars, we solve the problem of someone having to remember to move their car when it is fully-charged....

PS: I know that vehicles that are in continual use most of the day (like public transport or taxis) are not your usual market for electric vehicles - but I did see a bus line in Shanghai where the electric bus recharged at every stop, while it was picking up or dropping off passengers.

[teragram]

I think electric vehicles were quite common in the 1890,s but as soon as the petrol and Diesel fuel distribution system got going it was seen as the better way to go but we learn nothing from history.

True, in fact EV production in the USA did not stop until I think the early 1930's.

[teragram]

The National Grid forecast 6 GW will not match the consumption of Luton airport with four turnrounds.

So, drastic reductions in air travel are required then.

[teragram]

Same applies to electric vehicles: great for the few, wholly impractical for everyone.

Or rather, great for the many, impractical for the few. So we should scrap the whole project just because it doesn't favour the few?

[teragram]

As a non-scientist (in fact not well educated at all) might I make some comments?
These arguments are becoming tedious. We have known since the 1980's that burning fossil fuels will severely damage the environment. It was Exxon I believe who employed a team of scientists to assess the risks involved. I understand that those scientists' predictions tallied closely with ones made by more recent research. Exxon of course did not make their findings public.
Since those days the arguments have continued with monotonous regularity, with much fossil industry funded propaganda. Since the 1980's we could have been working to solve the problems, leading perhaps to a point where we would now be much more prepared to complete the transition to a non fossil fuel regime.  Instead we now find ourselves in the position where the arguments continue and the time we have left to make the required changes is frighteningly short.  Many people and institutions seem adamant that nothing should be done.
When the time has finally expired (I don't know how that will be defined), I foresee headlines such as "WHY DID THEY NOT TELL US!! WHAT MUST WE DO NOW?? WHOSE FAULT WAS ALL THIS??"
At least a start has been made, we have advances in electric transport and in sustainable energy production. They have not solved the problem YET. But to carry on as normal until we reach the point where it is too late to start trying is surely madness. In other words, can we say that after all of mankind's marvellous achievements in science, technology and engineering in the last couple of centuries, this is where we fail?