If your looking at having a large number of EVs charging off the grid, one other fact to consider is that not everyone will be charging their cars every night.

They may charge every 4 days or maybe even only once a week.

I just checked this thread and I saw your post, looks like we are the last two standing.

The whole scenario depends on lots and lots of variables. So to try and put some figures on it I picked one vehicle only.

This vehicle takes 1.5kw per hour to charge up approximately. But full recharging takes about 9 to 10 hours.

Its a bit like filling a 15 litre tank at a rate of 1.5 litres per hour. After 10 hours your tank is full. Its the same with the battery.

So if each vehicle takes 1.5 kw per hour then how many vehicles can we recharge? Again it depends on how much generation capacity is available and how big each battery is.

If we have 800,000 kw available (about 2 medium size power stations) then 800,000 / 1.5 = 533,000 EV’s of this type can be charged every hour.

As Cian correctly points out the target is about 2000 EV’s for the first year, so we have loads of capscity available as we stand right now.

We could easily power 53,000 vehicles of this type right now as it is. But if we were to change the entire car population to EV’s then you are talking about 1.9 million EV’s. We only have capacity for about 533,000 of them. So you would have to build a few more power stations.

But as time moves on, and battery development continues (ie batterys get bigger and better, EVs will go faster, more people will be attracted to buying them) then a snowball effect will start. That is where you might run out of power station capacity. But to be honest I think that scenario will not come to pass for at least 10 to 15 years.

In relation to 8 Gw of nuclear power, no I don’t think we need to go that big. I think it is best to leave Nuclear out of the debate and concentrate on EV’s against exisiting capacity right now. Not that I am against Nuclear but I am trying to keep the debate simple.

Its going to be a interesting time over the next 10 years to see how it all pans out.

Sorry I could not keep up with this thread. So if no one sees this. I won’t be surprised.

Surely your calculation implies (for a “wholesale roll-out” of say 500,000 vehicles) that the additional demand would be in the region of 8 Gw?

Thats a serious figure! Now we are really talking nuclear.

It seems to me that the whole debate about EV’s is predicated on the assumption that the generating capacity will be forthcoming ( but not based on carbon) and that the battery capacities of these EV’s will be superior by a significant margin to that available now.

Any significant increase in electricity generating capacity screams Nuclear as the only possible solution. We should be discussing how we go about getting (I have said 5 plants) built.

@Denis

All discussion of renewables and other pie-in-the-sky notions must be put aside. We cannot allow more time to be wasted on this. Energy serfdom beckons.

Indeed, our prospects as a nation depend on us getting a small number of critical things right; our energy policy, our economy and our system of government. No worries there then.

The first really big critical issue is “How to keep the lights on going forward?” The obvious answer is the construction of Nuclear power plants. It is the right answer. We need to start now.

I take your point, its not the case they are planning to make the entire country all EV’s. Agreed. But Mokabaybob specifically asked about a wholesale roll out and I was trying to put some rough figures on a scenario which had a lot of variables. The post above was aimed at Mokabaybobs question.

However as I mentioned it is a fact that battery development is continuing apace. That is a fact of life.

If you look at the development of the motor car from 1901 to the present you will see big changes. EV’s may follow this path also (may being the key word). If batteries become more powerfull, and EV’s become bigger and faster, longer ranges etc then they could increase in popularity to the extent that more power stations have to be built. It’s just too early to say yet.

As I said before I am not totally against EV’s, I do believe they have a role to play, and I can see benefits in city commuting etc. If you are towing a caravan, or working on a farm pulling cattle trailers then based on present technology these would not be the vehicles for you.

It’s horses for courses as they say!!

Your repeating that same erroneous assumption, that they’re planning on having all cars electric. This is not the case. They’re hoping to have just a small percentage, which is reasonable. They’re looking at 2000 over the next 2 years.

Rough back of fag packet calculations, peak demand = 4.6GW, Max supply = 6.1GW. But if the economy grows again the difference would lessen.

Extra available = 1.5Gw, take away one station down for maintenance 400Mw then you are left with 1.1 GW. Then spinning reserve 300MW

So all in all that leaves you with 800Mw to power Ev’s as we stand right now, roughly I hasten to say. How many batteries will 800Mw power up? Depends on the type of battery. Taking this link here,

http://www.greenmachines.ie/mega_city_car/product.aspx

This car uses 1.5Kw to charge this car per hour.

800,000 Kw divided by 1.5kw = 533,333 cars of this type can be charged.

But you would have to maintain this for 9 hours approximately. Not to mention transmission losses or other factors. But again this is for peak times, you might have 1200Mw available at night, maybe even more.

So no, it does not look like we are going to power the entire country for EV’s as we stand right now. But still 53,000 Ev’s of the type above is a considerable start.

But one thing is certain, you can’t stop progress. Battery research and development is continuing apace. So even if we have the generation capacity to run EV’s right now, that is not too say we will have the capacity to power more of them in 10 years time.

There is a link here…

http://www.eirgrid.com/media/Winter%20Outlook%202009-2010.pdf

Basically saying peak demand is expected around 4600 Mw and max supply is at around 6000 Mw. Very interestingly on page 3 is Chart 4, showing how variable wind generation is. Wind does not look too impressive.

But this is where the smart metering will come in. Basically if there is not enough power to meet demand then signals will be sent out to your home, turning off your fridge / freezer for a few hours, maybe even your immersion or oven. In other words your Smart metering will regulate the supply to your house. If Smart metering is used to charge your EV, then charging your EV can be halted remotely. If things are really desperate and they know peak demand will exceed available generation capacity then the smart meter will take power from your EV and supply the grid.

You may be well compensated for your loss of energy (personally I would doubt it, you get what you are given and told to put up or shut up), but you could end up being seriously inconvienced.

Appreciate you comment. You are not alone in your despair as to the ability of any Irish government as presently constituted to lead us out of this debacle. My own view is that the resolution of the current economic problems are beyond them and what is needed is a more radical approach.

On the EV issue, you would concede I hope, that additional capacity would be required if wholesale roll out of EV’s occurred? If not what number of such vehicles could be catered for given current capacity?

As to the ability of the more learned and wiser commentators on this blog to get to the bottom of the EV scam, (if that is what it is?) I would not hold my breath.

In relation to electricity at night for recharging. It’s not really like that.

Electricity is cheaper at night (am) because it is an incentive to people / users to use electricity at night.

Not everybody is boiling their kettle at 3 am. The vast majority of the population is asleep.

Demand for electricity is at its highest during the day, not at night.

However boilers are used to produce steam to drive a generator to make electricity. But boilers are not flexible. They are not like a kettle which can be switched on, brought up to full power rapidly and then switched off.

Hence when a large boiler is brought up to pressure and temperature it might take a number of days, depending on the design and materials used. So boilers run at full power during the day to meet demand, but at night when demand is low, you can’t just switch the boiler off, you have to keep it running at reduced power keeping it hot. There are costs as well as you have shift workers and equipment has to be maintained 24/7 not just during the day.

If 1/2 the population worked at night and the other 1/2 worked dayshift and shops were open 24 hours then we could get close to equal demand day and night. You could then run your power station a full tilt.

But electrical demand varies, that is just a fact of life. But power stations cannot switch off like a car engine can.

In addition most steam plants only get into their max efficiency when close to their full rated power. That is the way they are designed.

Hence power is available from the grid to charge up EV’s at night. This would help bring more balance to the system in terms of electrical demand etc.

There are other factors as well, but that basically is the rough overall idea.

Personally myself I do believe EV’s have a role in our society. Fine for city commuting. But it depends on how complex the implementation is. Using EV’s to reverse power the grid does not sound like a good idea. It might be economically worthwhile but it is not efficient in terms of energy use. Where there is inefficiency there is a loss. Somebody will have to pay for this loss. It’s going to be you and me.

In addition it is clear that there is a certain fear factor at work. More learned and wiser commentators on this blog are looking to see where is the money going? Who is subsidising the costs? Who is paying for the EV? Who is picking up the tab. And more importantly who is making the gains?

I am beginning to sense that the population of Ireland is starting to lose faith in our own ability to govern ourselves, to make the right decisions. After 25 five years the health system is still third world. We introduced competition in the electricity market, but we went from having one of the cheapest electricity costs to the most expensive. Our track record is not good.

Personally myself I am very very skeptical if we will get EV’s just right.

In some respects I have lost faith in the country. Is the taxpayer just going to be screwed again??

And sure why not…. The spin says we are the second richest country in Europe.

If you really want to reduce transport carbon, you should concentrate on modes where vehicles are in service several hours a day, not a couple of hours in the morning and a couple in the afternoon. Start by making every local service bus in Ireland diesel-hybrid as each comes up for replacement, every new/replacement taxi in major cities a plug-in hybrid (using a leasing scheme) and expedite the electrification of the railway to Maynooth, Drogheda and Kildare.

Buses, commuter trains and taxis use more fuel in a day than the average car uses in a week or more, given their longer service hours and acceleration profiles. If “hotel power” was provided at city centre termini perhaps the buses would not need to be kept running with consequent noise and fuel saving, and charging points could also be provided for taxis during offpeak periods. More importantly, the technology to do all of the above is mature compared to the EVs under discussion.

Emphasising privately-owned EVs is a subsidy for car dealers who get to sell higher markup vehicles while imposing costs on independent garages who will find it onerous to retool to service these cars, if they are not excluded altogether.

5 plants and we are there. Ever at 1.6Gw output potential this will barely cover a fully electrified transport system for cars and trains plus growth in population. Unless people are suggesting that we should not grow our population?

5 plants -20 years. Thousands of valuable construction jobs, massive new national capital assets, great earning potential as countries like the UK will be desperate for capacity during the coming two decades if it is to remain its current size as a nation. (Actually the UK will very likely decline further.)

Ireland needs valuable assets. Nuclear power plants would fit the bill.
Fiat currencies are on the way out and we will need assets to trade with. The most fungible and readily available of such would be electricty generation capacity in a Europe that needs such capacity and which is likely to forced back onto the Gold Standard in order to extricate itself from this debt apocalypse.

We have no gold!

An analysis of what should (or should not) be involved in an economic analysis is probably worthy of its own thread!

@denis - I’ll have to leave this til the morning.

“Your first mistake is your clear intent on basing such a decision on such a narrow economic assessment.”

I understood from that that I was (seen as) suggesting economic analysis and that you were suggesting reliance instead on “many other facts to consider”.

Now, it may be that I have misinterpreted your position: that to you the important lexical unit was “narrow” whereas to me it was “economic assessment”. In other words, your position may have been that the “other facts” would be included in an economic assessment (but not in a narrow economic assessment), and that I was at fault for being too narrow.

If we are arguing just about what should be included in economic assessment, rather than about whether such assessment should be conducted, then I am happy to concede the ground and to accept that it should include lots of things.

Furthermore, I am all in favour of the employment of economists in the conduct of such assessments: time hangs heavily on their hands, alas. I am not in favour of (a) accepting every proposal that comes along if the costs and benefits (however broadly defined) are not made clear and (b) the identities of those receiving the benefits and those paying the costs are not shown: “Cui bono?” comes first. It seems that I may have misinterpreted your position on the nature and value of economic analysis and for that I apologise.

On energy generally, as I mentioned to Pat Gill, I accept the idea of peak oil and the desirabillity of finding alternatives, but I’d like them to make economic sense. I say that just to clarify my position, not to start a new argument.

bjg

It is very possible to seperate the subjects of wind energy, preservation of bogland and CO2 emissions.

The west of Ireland is largely bogland, however that should not mean that windfarms should not be built in the west.

Algae are at least as efficient as bogs at absorbing CO2 and as their lifecycle is fast a given area of algae outperforms the same area of bogland in CO2 absorbtion

However I fear that we have veered way off topic

If renewables are not supported by greater interconnectivity or storage, then yes they do need back up. BUT I do believe (*gasp* is a religious statement to follow??) that with the right approach, 100% renewables is possible in electricity generation.

“Renewables need CCGT or similar technology that can ramp up and down quickly to tie in with wind.”

Be careful now young lady, I can bite, lets try again, renewables need ….!!

Re: nuclear plant size. The smaller pebble bed and IRIS reactors are not yet commercially available. The issue with the size of a nuclear plant in relation to the grid it’s placed in is that nuclear plants suffer from intermittency, ie sudden failures, more than is publicised. If a large nuclear power plant goes down, it is incredibly difficult to compensate for it. Wind is not intermittent, it is variable (the difference is predictability), meaning that reductions in generation can be forecast and compensated for far more easily. Plus the more spread around the wind turbines, the more likely it is that some will be turning at one point in time (See this study from Stony University on benefits of linking wind farms:http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-04/sbu-pwp040110.php).

My other issue with nuclear is that it is not very compatible with renewables. Renewables need CCGT or similar technology that can ramp up and down quickly to tie in with wind. Nuclear cannot do that.

the estimate of wind power co2 emissions include manufacture & construction only. they don’t include massive emissions when a windfarm is built in a peat bog. ireland boasts the most polluting wind industry in the world, probably comparable to gas plant or worse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/13/wind-farm-peat-bog

” given that the size of commercially available nuclear plants would swamp the Irish grid, effectively wiping out renewables, I cannot see how nuclear is a viable option for Irish powergen.”

so the irish grid can accomodate 6GW of stochastic wind power but not a 1GW nuclear plant? that makes no sense.

And I have not suggested anything that I haven’t backed up. Dismissing my suggestions, yet at the same time finally admitting that “they might be considered in an economic analysis” is disingenuous to say the least. Not to mention lazy debating.

I suggest you read up on my “religious icons” (whatever that means) in this publication, drawing heavily on the application of portfolio theory to power generation as advised by Shimon Awerbuch:

http://ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/reports/Economics_of_Wind_Main_Report_FINAL-lr.pdf

I’d also advise you to keep accusations of those who you don’t agree with as relying on “faith” out of the debate as you really do yourself no favours.

I wasn’t aware of that. If you told me before, I forgot, and apologise. I am delighted to find that you are spending your own money.

bjg

“So you don’t think ….”

They might be considered in an economic analysis, but waving them around as religious icons won’t do.

bjg

@denis-I understand the appeal of nuclear but there are a few problems. Firstly, it is equal in carbon emissions, all embodied energy of manufacturing, transport etc included, to wind (likewise embodied:

Nuclear: 7-22g CO2e/kWh (UK Government White paper)
Wind: 4-10g CO2e/kWh (IEMA report “Nuclear energy-the great carbon debate”).

There is also the issue of lengthy lead in times. Admittedly, much of this is due to planning and local objections but whatever the cost, they still exist.

Given these two facts, and given that the size of commercially available nuclear plants would swamp the Irish grid, effectively wiping out renewables, I cannot see how nuclear is a viable option for Irish powergen.

It’s also important not to view these issues from a singular point of view - there is more to consider than just carbon to consider, as you touch on when you mention nuclear waste.

No I was not referring to S of I, David Connolly has modelled the Irish energy system in its present format and various other permutations inc a 100% renewable solution. Anyone with an interest in same should have a close look at his work and those of his colleagues in UL.

Interestlingy he has also modelled the effect of EV’s on the Irish energy system.

@Brian J

You are aware that my friends and I are indeed spending our own money researching and developing one of the energy solutions for Ireland and will be announcing a major investment during this year.

“Good oh. So if Ireland is a good place in which to do renewable energy, we can rely on the Gulf chaps to make the requisite investments here. They could even pay us a small royalty.”

I believe that they will pay rather more than a small royalty.

I agree that the state can achieve a lot, without spending large amounts of public money, simply by creating a welcoming environment and regulatory system, for the wealth of companies who wish to build the energy systems of the future, in the Ministers own words today at the Energy Show in the RDS, “we must combine the can do spirit of the start up with the scalability of a country”.

And in many respects he is correct, Irelands size is ideal for doing research into grid scale solutions which are scalable for implementation in larger countries. I suspect that this would be one of the reason’s that Renault/Nissan have agreed to participate in this initiative with the ESB.

@Brian Woods

In the developed world we have come to depend on the ability, provided by fossil fuels, to spend an average of 150,000 kcals of energy per person per day, this allows us to enjoy a pleasant standard of living complete with modern conveniences such as health care and the world wide web, planes, trains and automobiles.

We CAN have all of these things on a budget of 80,000 kcals of energy each per day, but we must work now to achieve this goal.

And a budget of 80,000 kcals per day, can be provided by renewables.

So on the one hand backing wind is a loser because it’s going to be another bubble but backing EV is silly because it hasn’t been established. Hmm.

“The “other facts” you mention sound like the sort of special pleading put forward by interest groups seeking the protection of the state. So I’d like to start with the economics to see the costs and the benefits of your proposals and the identities of those who will pay the costs and gain the benefits.”

Special pleading?How dismissive. So you don’t think issues like import substitution, cost of carbon, economic impact of fossil fuel price volatility are valid economic factors to consider? Not sure what to say to that tbh!

REM: EV penetration will not be successsful unless a mininum of 36% of the actual private vehicle fleet are EVs. And is the existing PV fleet increasing or decreasing?

Some mention was made of the absolute requirement for Fossil Fuels. This is correct. Our economy is absolutely dependent on a specific amount of its total energy requirement (for all uses) on liquid fuels: there is no chemical substitute for this type of fuel. None! If anyone tells you otherwise he/she is either a fool or a knave.

Export-land Model of Fossoil Fuel Production and Depletion. Please familiarize yourself with same - if you have not already done so. Just make sure you are securely strapped in when you study it.

A while back, crude went to $147 bbl. Lots of controversy about this. But it did trigger a very nasty credit/debt predicament - which we are still attempting (unsuccessfully) to deal with. Crude has risen significantly in price. But of much greater concern is the increase in price of ‘finished product’. This price increase will get fed into ALL commodities and services. What do we use to generate a proportion of our electricity with? Still want an EV?

Conservation of use of electricity is the ONLY route. Some of you gave the Gulf States as examples of ‘Second Adopters’ of renewable (an oxymoron) energy. They’re producers. They are looking down the barrel of the Export-land Model. Oh! - they are a tad deficient in water also! Now, there’s a good business opportunity.

“That’s All Folks”

B Peter

You can’t deduce that from what I wrote. I’d be inclined to start with the economics, though, given as taxpayers are being asked to pay for stuff. Just as I would with NAMA, public sector pay, “investment” in inland waterways, protection for closed shops (lawyers, doctors and so on). The “other facts” you mention sound like the sort of special pleading put forward by interest groups seeking the protection of the state. So I’d like to start with the economics to see the costs and the benefits of your proposals and the identities of those who will pay the costs and gain the benefits.

bjg

Good oh. So if Ireland is a good place in which to do renewable energy, we can rely on the Gulf chaps to make the requisite investments here. They could even pay us a small royalty.

I do accept the peak oil idea; I’m not convinced that the solution is to spend non-existent money on unproven and unexamined technologies. If citizens want to spend their own money, that’s fine, but the state has enough problems.

bjg

Not all renewables are the same.

Only 2% of the solar energy incident on the earth is converted into mechanical energy (wind). Even in dark, cloudy Ireland the mean solar resource is at least one order of magnitude greater than the mean wind resource, per unit land area. The solar resource in southern europe/north africa is staggering, up to 1000W/m2 during daytime (for comparison irish windfarms yield 1-4 W/m2). The natural competitive advantage of solar will win out in the end.

Ireland’s committment to wind is a classic example of politicians picking winners. A few years ago our politicians were backing property, now they are backing wind energy. Like the property bubble, the huge bet on wind may prove to be a disastrous mal-investment. Once again consumers will pick up the tab. High energy prices will be locked in and competitiveness destroyed.

This is not a view you will hear in the mainstream media, nor, sadly, from ESRI.