Electric cars?

[over9k]

What you are failing to understand is that stuff like this cannot be determined by punching numbers into a spreadsheet. There's, you know, a little bit more to it.

What you're also failing to understand is that any report I linked you saying the opposite would ALSO not have any credibility.


The idea that a grid needs to have billions of dollars spent on it to enable an increase in demand for OFF PEAK power quite literally violates the laws of physics. Your very own report even points out that the buildout is needed because of an assumed increase in PEAK power demand. Nobody's arguing against that! In fact, we've all been saying precisely that from the beginning!

I'll state this flatly to you: An increase in PEAK power demand that comes as a result of electric cars would need an electricity generation and grid improvement/spend, just like KPMG say.

There, is that what you wanted to hear?


Why do you think I & everyone else have been saying that the key is how to move the demand to OFF PEAK and talking about how do to it?

What I am trying to say to you is that you have been arguing against a point that hasn't been made. You have misunderstood what people have been saying to you. Nobody disputes that an increase in peak demand = infrastructure spend. What we're saying is that if you can move the increase in demand to off peak, you don't need to undertake said infrastructure spend.

KPMG's report assumes an increase in peak demand. That is the very assumption I was talking about which results in the final conclusion. Remove that assumption, and you remove the necessity for the infrastructure spend. I don't know how else I can put this to you.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

What you are failing to understand is that stuff like this cannot be determined by punching numbers into a spreadsheet. There's, you know, a little bit more to it.

What you're also failing to understand is that any report I linked you saying the opposite would ALSO not have any credibility.


The idea that a grid needs to have billions of dollars spent on it to enable an increase in demand for OFF PEAK power quite literally violates the laws of physics. Your very own report even points out that the buildout is needed because of an assumed increase in PEAK power demand. Nobody's arguing against that! In fact, we've all been saying precisely that from the beginning!

I'll state this flatly to you: An increase in PEAK power demand that comes as a result of electric cars would need an electricity generation and grid improvement/spend.

There, is that what you wanted to hear?


Why do you think I & everyone else have been saying that the key is how to move the demand to OFF PEAK and talking about how do to it?

What I am trying to say to you is that you have been arguing against a point that hasn't been made. You have misunderstood what people have been saying to you. Nobody disputes that an increase in peak demand = infrastructure spend. What we're saying is that if you can move the increase in demand to off peak, you don't need to undertake said infrastructure spend.

KPMG's report assumes an increase in peak demand. That is the very assumption I was talking about which results in the final conclusion. Remove that assumption, and you remove the necessity for the infrastructure spend. I don't know how else I can put this to you.

Where is your credible sources and references?

Your words mean little. Don't you see how I post?

I write what I have to say, I quote and then I reference. This is just basic stuff that is expected when studying at university and when writing professional reports.

If you wish to be taken seriously by people, you need to find credible sources and references to support your assertions, claims, allegations, and opinions.

 

[over9k]

I actually facepalmed reading that. My entire post, entire point, everything, clean over your head. I'm not disputing the kpmg conclusion ffs, I am disputing the assumption on which it is made.

But if you want to go down that road: If you approached 99% of business owners telling them they should be making business decisions based on "credible sources" and "references" and academic reports etc they would actively laugh at you, just like I am now.

Investment decisions are not made on what can be proven, they are made on what is believed to be true. These are rarely the same thing. Even if we ignore that inconvenient little truth, your report "proves" absolutely nothing other than an increase in peak demand needs an increase in infrastructure spending, which nobody is even disputing.

I just don't know how else I can put this: Nobody's disputing the conclusion, they're disputing the assumption on which it is made.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

I actually facepalmed reading that. My entire post, entire point, everything, clean over your head. I'm not disputing the kpmg conclusion ffs, I am disputing the assumption on which it is made.

But if you want to go down that road: If you approached 99% of business owners telling them they should be making business decisions based on "credible sources" and "references" and academic reports etc they would actively laugh at you, just like I am now.

Investment decisions are not made on what can be proven, they are made on what is believed to be true. These are rarely the same thing. Even if we ignore that inconvenient little truth, your report "proves" absolutely nothing other than an increase in peak demand needs an increase in infrastructure spending, which nobody is even disputing.

I just don't know how else I can put this: Nobody's disputing the conclusion, they're disputing the assumption on which it is made.

Well; if you want to go around to businesses, and just tell them to believe you and take your word for it, I think that they would be laughing at you actually.

Now, if you're disputing the assumptions. State your reason and provide credible sources and references to support your challenge of the assumptions.

I am amazed that you find it strange that you are being asked to provide credible sources and references for your own claims that the assumptions are wrong. Really, this is just high school stuff.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

I actually facepalmed reading that. My entire post, entire point, everything, clean over your head. I'm not disputing the kpmg conclusion ffs, I am disputing the assumption on which it is made.

But if you want to go down that road: If you approached 99% of business owners telling them they should be making business decisions based on "credible sources" and "references" and academic reports etc they would actively laugh at you, just like I am now.

Investment decisions are not made on what can be proven, they are made on what is believed to be true. These are rarely the same thing. Even if we ignore that inconvenient little truth, your report "proves" absolutely nothing other than an increase in peak demand needs an increase in infrastructure spending, which nobody is even disputing.

I just don't know how else I can put this: Nobody's disputing the conclusion, they're disputing the assumption on which it is made.

I think that you also forgot that the peak energy association of Australia, who represents big business, reviewed, supported and endorsed the KPMG assumptions publicly!

Who are you to challenge the KPMG assumptions without credible sources and references?

 

[basilio]

What you are failing to understand is that stuff like this cannot be determined by punching numbers into a spreadsheet. There's, you know, a little bit more to it.

What you're also failing to understand is that any report I linked you saying the opposite would ALSO not have any credibility.


The idea that a grid needs to have billions of dollars spent on it to enable an increase in demand for OFF PEAK power quite literally violates the laws of physics. Your very own report even points out that the buildout is needed because of an assumed increase in PEAK power demand. Nobody's arguing against that! In fact, we've all been saying precisely that from the beginning!

I'll state this flatly to you: An increase in PEAK power demand that comes as a result of electric cars would need an electricity generation and grid improvement/spend, just like KPMG say.

There, is that what you wanted to hear?


Why do you think I & everyone else have been saying that the key is how to move the demand to OFF PEAK and talking about how do to it?

What I am trying to say to you is that you have been arguing against a point that hasn't been made. You have misunderstood what people have been saying to you. Nobody disputes that an increase in peak demand = infrastructure spend. What we're saying is that if you can move the increase in demand to off peak, you don't need to undertake said infrastructure spend.

KPMG's report assumes an increase in peak demand. That is the very assumption I was talking about which results in the final conclusion. Remove that assumption, and you remove the necessity for the infrastructure spend. I don't know how else I can put this to you.

Some good points Over9k but on any analysis we will need to build more energy infrastructure to support a mass movement to EV. Certainly the management of when vehicles will be charged will be critical and timing this across the off peak times will be essential.

Smurf noted elsewhere that with strong solar production during daylight hours EV charging during the day to use this power would be an important option.

On every analysis Australia will be renewing its power systems massively in the next 30 years. Coal fired power stations are reaching the end of their operating life. Economically and environmentally solar, wind, pumped hydro and battery systems (with others ?) offer the most appropriate engineering mix to power a decentralised society. Their build costs are cheaper and the running costs are also far cheaper. Its a no brainer.

It will also result in substantial financial savings for the community.

http://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/publications/assets/100renewables.pdf
https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2020/mar/renewable-energy-investment-in-australia.html
https://reneweconomy.com.au/new-report-shows-100-renewable-by-2030-can-save-australia-money-93765/

 

[over9k]

I've never said to take my word for it - I've said this is my word and this is why it is my word. Yet another lack of understanding.

I also don't need to provide "credible sources" and "references" in order to be right. Some things simply cannot be empirically demonstrated to be true OR false. Yet another thing you fail to understand.


The KPMG report assumed a particular increase in peak demand, and then assumed a particular lower increase in peak demand based on a particular pricing structure which assumes a particular demand elasticity.

NONE of which can be proven or even reliably estimated, which is what I've been trying to say to you all along. They have simply ASSUMED these increases and elasticities.

But ignoring that completely, there's more than just kpmg's single solitary instrument to move (some of) the demand from peak to off peak. In other words, they've made an estimate using just ONE method. I.e there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Hence why everyone else are saying "yeah but if you did B and C and D and E as well, then the peak demand would drop even more".

KPMG's report does not factor in doing B and C and D and E as well. It only factors in A.

 

[sptrawler]

Some good points Over9k but on any analysis we will need to build more energy infrastructure to support a mass movement to EV. Certainly the management of when vehicles will be charged will be critical and timing this across the off peak times will be essential.

Smurf noted elsewhere that with strong solar production during daylight hours EV charging during the day to use this power would be an important option.

On every analysis Australia will be renewing its power systems massively in the next 30 years. Coal fired power stations are reaching the end of their operating life. Economically and environmentally solar, wind, pumped hydro and battery systems (with others ?) offer the most appropriate engineering mix to power a decentralised society. Their build costs are cheaper and the running costs are also far cheaper. Its a no brainer.

It will also result in substantial financial savings for the community.

http://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/publications/assets/100renewables.pdf
https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2020/mar/renewable-energy-investment-in-australia.html
https://reneweconomy.com.au/new-report-shows-100-renewable-by-2030-can-save-australia-money-93765/

Good summation Bas, one thing I will say, the excess solar during the day has to not only charge the cars, it has to fill the pumped storage and standby batteries. That is why we will need so much.

 

[over9k]

We don't have to use solar to charge them. Power stations are much, much, much more efficient use of fossil fuels than internal combustion engines.

Why do everyone keep thinking the only way to charge an electric car is with solar or wind generated electricity?

That's not to say it can't be used, but it's not the only way.

 

[basilio]

We don't have to use solar to charge them. Power stations are much, much, much more efficient use of fossil fuels than internal combustion engines.

Why do everyone keep thinking the only way to charge an electric car is with solar or wind generated electricity?

That's not to say it can't be used, but it's not the only way.

The point we are making over9k is that there will be huge changes in our power generation systems in the next 30 years. On all economic, environmental and decentralization questions the replacements will not be coal (or nuclear..) Wind and solar will be the mainstays with pumped hydro and batteries balancing the system.

For the short term coal fired power stations can indeed recharge EVs during off peak periods. And has been noted this will help balance the current power systems and allow the stations to run more efficiently with less cycling.

 

[over9k]

Sure, I get that there's going to be renewable energy etc. What I'm saying is that it has nothing to do with electric cars when the current grid can charge them. Literally nothing. It's just not a precondition for electric cars to make sense.

 

[over9k]

The key to making electric cars work without a massive infrastructure buildout is getting them charged either off grid or at off-peak hours.

As best I can tell, solar's the only way for the average punter to do it off grid. That's a discussion that can be had, but as far as I can tell, current tech is uneconomical, and there are some places it will never make financial sense.

But off peak charging already has a whole stack of different ways it can be accomplished - if we want an idea of whether electric cars are ever really going to become a thing, we should be thinking about if (and if so, how) we can get the general populace charging them off-peak.

As best I can tell, we can do this right now with either home batteries (which themselves charge off peak) that you plug the car into and fast charge it any time, or with easily installed beefier connections like 15 amp circuits or 3 phase power, which are on types of timers/controllers which only charge the car off peak.

If I'm right, then the only thing stopping electric cars becoming ubiquitous right now is battery life of the car itself, i.e the ability to use it for purposes other than just as a commuter.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

I've never said to take my word for it - I've said this is my word and this is why it is my word. Yet another lack of understanding.

I also don't need to provide "credible sources" and "references" in order to be right. Some things simply cannot be empirically demonstrated to be true OR false. Yet another thing you fail to understand.


The KPMG report assumed a particular increase in peak demand, and then assumed a particular lower increase in peak demand based on a particular pricing structure which assumes a particular demand elasticity.

NONE of which can be proven or even reliably estimated, which is what I've been trying to say to you all along. They have simply ASSUMED these increases and elasticities.

But ignoring that completely, there's more than just kpmg's single solitary instrument to move (some of) the demand from peak to off peak. In other words, they've made an estimate using just ONE method. I.e there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Hence why everyone else are saying "yeah but if you did B and C and D and E as well, then the peak demand would drop even more".

KPMG's report does not factor in doing B and C and D and E as well. It only factors in A.

I have quotes from Sydney Uni and KPMG, then I have added in my own assumptions on top. They are calling it in the 10s of billions, I reckon easily above 100 billion for a 100% EV uptake to ensure a fully functional and productive society.

You can do what you like.

Anyway, I got more important things to do. See Ya

 

[qldfrog]

The terrible thing is that the way chronos mismanaged it is that even valid points become rubbish
While we agree that offpeak is the time to load, we should also acknowledge that 25kwh consumption between 6pm and 7am per household will not be easy to handle and off peak will not remain off peak gor long, then green energy will be useless unless storage
Ideally recharge car 10am to 2pm
But that will not happen for the majority.
Yes it will be s very expensive exercise, yes appartment and off street parking will be screwed
But it is manageable as long as the change is gradual
I live 27km from brisbane cbd, i i ha to have sat internet and people 1km from my place have no mobile service at all.we are 2020, mobiles are 20y+ old...
I doubt Australia will be to the task of having a proper infrastructure for ev but as long as not mandated it is not a problem

 

[over9k]

I have quotes from Sydney Uni and KPMG, then I have added in my own assumptions on top. They are calling it in the 10s of billions, I reckon easily above 100 billion for a 100% EV uptake to ensure a fully functional and productive society.

You can do what you like.

Anyway, I got more important things to do. See Ya

You quite literally do not even understand the very report on which you are staking your claim.

Even if their figures were reliable (and I have explained why they are not), they are still not even using them to say what you think they are.

 

[bux2000]

And I thought an FI Hybrid was a selectively breed Tomato Plant



All the best
bux

 

[Smurf1976]

The idea that a grid needs to have billions of dollars spent on it to enable an increase in demand for OFF PEAK power quite literally violates the laws of physics.

Looking at NSW, Vic, SA and Tas combined, as of right now:

*All hydro generation in NSW and Vic is off. In Tas about 30% of available capacity is running with heavy southbound flow on the Tas - Vic interconnector. There's no hydro of significance in SA.

*200 MW of hydro pumping load is on in NSW.

*All diesel / kero plant in NSW and SA is off completely. There's none in Vic or Tas other than as fuel backup in gas-fired plant.

*All gas-fired plant in NSW, Vic, Tas is off completely.

*SA gas-fired plant is running at the minimum technically safe configuration for system strength. That has 1 x CCGT (one gas turbine + one steam turbine) and 2 x separate steam units on all at minimum output. Whilst other configurations are possible at the detail level, overall can't go any lower in total without risking a system collapse. Between them current output is just over 8% of installed gas-fired generating capacity in SA.

*NSW coal plant - 15 (of 16) units are on. Between them they're running at 62% of their capacity or 59% of the total coal-fired capacity in NSW.

*Vic coal plant - 8 (of 10) units are on. Between them they're running at 85% of their capacity or 76% of the total coal-fired capacity in Vic.

*SA wind generation is running at about 80% of available capacity. Rest is curtailed. Wind generation in other states is fully utilised. Wind contribution to demand is presently about 5% in NSW, 35% Vic, 105% SA, 15% Tas.

All that's a pretty standard response to low load by the way. Increasing load would be a cinch right now - even a few thousand MW across those states would be pretty straightforward so long as it was an expected occurrence.

Only reason I've left other states out was for simplicity but it's the same basic pattern.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

You quite literally do not even understand the very report on which you are staking your claim.

Even if their figures were reliable (and I have explained why they are not), they are still not even using them to say what you think they are.

The report is clear, 50% increase in electrical consumption, 120% increase in installed capacity.

If you don't know what this means that is your problem. I am not here to give you an education.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Looking at NSW, Vic, SA and Tas combined, as of right now:

*All hydro generation in NSW and Vic is off. In Tas about 30% of available capacity is running with heavy southbound flow on the Tas - Vic interconnector. There's no hydro of significance in SA.

*200 MW of hydro pumping load is on in NSW.

*All diesel / kero plant in NSW and SA is off completely. There's none in Vic or Tas other than as fuel backup in gas-fired plant.

*All gas-fired plant in NSW, Vic, Tas is off completely.

*SA gas-fired plant is running at the minimum technically safe configuration for system strength. That has 1 x CCGT (one gas turbine + one steam turbine) and 2 x separate steam units on all at minimum output. Whilst other configurations are possible at the detail level, overall can't go any lower in total without risking a system collapse. Between them current output is just over 8% of installed gas-fired generating capacity in SA.

*NSW coal plant - 15 (of 16) units are on. Between them they're running at 62% of their capacity or 59% of the total coal-fired capacity in NSW.

*Vic coal plant - 8 (of 10) units are on. Between them they're running at 85% of their capacity or 76% of the total coal-fired capacity in Vic.

*SA wind generation is running at about 80% of available capacity. Rest is curtailed. Wind generation in other states is fully utilised. Wind contribution to demand is presently about 5% in NSW, 35% Vic, 105% SA, 15% Tas.

All that's a pretty standard response to low load by the way. Increasing load would be a cinch right now - even a few thousand MW across those states would be pretty straightforward so long as it was an expected occurrence.

Only reason I've left other states out was for simplicity but it's the same basic pattern.

A few thousand MW wouldn't be anywhere near enough for Victoria for a 100% EV uptake.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

You quite literally do not even understand the very report on which you are staking your claim.

Even if their figures were reliable (and I have explained why they are not), they are still not even using them to say what you think they are.

The IEA are claiming an additional 640TWh are needed by 2030 for EVs just in China and Europe; under their 2030 scenario, this is with just a yearly increase of a few % in EV uptake. I will get the report to double check the figures I posted, however I believe this to be correct, from the report.

You expect me to listen to you rather than the IEA

I really think that you need to spend some time learning about economics and engineering. So how many organisations is it going to take before you just accept that you really don't understand what you're talking about?