This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Electric cars?

Would you buy an electric car?

  • Already own one

    Votes: 10 5.1%

  • Yes - would definitely buy

    Votes: 43 21.7%

  • Yes - preferred over petrol car if price/power/convenience similar

    Votes: 78 39.4%

  • Maybe - preference for neither, only concerned with costs etc

    Votes: 38 19.2%

  • No - prefer petrol car even if electric car has same price, power and convenience

    Votes: 25 12.6%

  • No - would never buy one

    Votes: 14 7.1%
  • Total voters
    198
Jump to new
Smurf1976 said:
In SA today there's been renewable energy going to waste since about midday
Click to expand...
Labouring the point a bit here I know, but to back up what I'm saying and put some detail around it.....

I don't have an EV but I do have something far simpler to charge, that being a storage hot water system. Smurf being Smurf, I've set it up to be as grid (and environmentally) friendly as practical. No elaborate control systems, that would be even better, but simply by means of a simple timer and basing it on average conditions over 12 months.

Looking at how that actually performed over the past week, in terms of what natural resource was being used to generate the power at the margin, that is what was turned up slightly higher than it otherwise would have been because my water heater was drawing power, it makes the point pretty well.

Location = SA.

Friday 19 February - marginal source was gas-fired generation in the Adelaide metropolitan area.

Saturday 20 February - marginal source was hydro generation in the Snowy Mountains and in Tasmania.

Sunday 21 February, Monday 22 February and Tuesday 23 February - marginal source was wind / solar generation in SA that would otherwise have gone to waste.

Wednesday 24 February - marginal source was coal-fired generation in Victoria and NSW.

Thursday 25 February - wind / solar in SA.

In contrast, running it just a few hours earlier or later would result in 100% of the marginal electricity production being from fossil fuels since the time window when there's renewables going to waste is a few hours. Those results are from my "dumb" approach based on averages over 12 months and the use of a simple timer, a dynamic "smart" approach taking into account live conditions ought to be able to achieve considerably better.

Now that's for a water heater but same principle applies to anything which can "download" energy at basically any time and store it. The detail of that, when it's done, is important in determining both the real financial cost (as distinct from what a consumer pays on a flat rate) and the environmental impact.

So that's what I'm on about basically. For EV's a clever approach to charging them can deliver real benefits over a "dumb" approach even just using the existing electricity supply infrastructure that's already built. It's just a matter of being clever about it and to that end I draw the attention of those in Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT to this:

Electric Vehicle Trial | EV Grid | Australia

EV Grid is a trial being conducted by a group of Electricity Distributors in Victoria, ACT, and Tasmania
www.evgrid.com.au

This is an "official" trial backed by Evoenergy, TasNetworks, AusNet Services, Jemena and United Energy who between them own and operate the electricity network in the ACT, Tasmania and Victoria.

Cost to participants = zero and you get to keep the provided smart charger (value $2200 including installation which is also included).

Further to all that, given the volatile nature of electricity pricing at the wholesale level, there are definite opportunities for companies to operate in this space via a "smart" approach to EV charging.
 
Last edited:
So in summary, charge way more for peak consumption hours and less for overnight etc.
 
over9k said:
So in summary, charge way more for peak consumption hours and less for overnight etc.
Click to expand...
Yep - with a complicating factor that the presence of wind and solar changes when the system is most or least stressed since not only is consumption changing throughout the day but so is available supply.

The basic logic behind a "smart" approach to charging is that instead of taking wind and solar energy when they generate, storing that via big batteries or hydro, then charging EV's at a set time which isn't necessarily when the sun's shining or the wind's blowing it would be easier and cheaper to instead just put the energy straight into the EV when the wind blows and the sun shines thus cutting out the rather costly middle step.

For a large portion of users who are traveling relatively short distances each day and with cars parked most of the time that ought to work and is a cheap way of doing it. They're not going to care when it charges so long as it does.

For those who do need a full charge by a set time, or right now in the case of public fast chargers, that's not a problem it just means they're requiring more infrastructure so would in practice be charged at a higher price.

Essentially the same concept as any business situation where there's an "express" service at a high price and a much cheaper "join the queue" option. Most will pick the cheap one to save costs but the premium "get it done ASAP" option is there for those who actually need it.
 
So have the price move along with how much the wind/sun is contributing to the grid at the time?

Just have something on the power company's website like "current power costs" so people can check in and decide to plug their car in or not.
 
An Ev can recover the average daily drive in about 1 or 2 hours with a good home charger, but it may be plugged in for up to 16 hours a day.

With smart internet connected chargers it would be easy time that 1 - 2 hours to when it makes sense for the grid, even if it just came on every few days.

AGL and other folk could just offer super cheap rates for people that put their smart charger it “super saver” mode etc, and penalty rates for people that don’t.

there is already a charger on the market called the “Zappi” that connects to your home solar and only charges when you produce excess solar.

—————-

there is already an electricity retailer that offers free electricity on weekends between 12pm - 2pm, I am sure they would rather be directing there surplus during these times to smart chargers.
 
over9k said:
So have the price move along with how much the wind/sun is contributing to the grid at the time?

Just have something on the power company's website like "current power costs" so people can check in and decide to plug their car in or not.
Click to expand...
It's one of those areas where a lot of different companies are all coming up with slightly different detail.

The basic ideas center around remote control of the charger versus giving the consumer a price incentive and leaving them to set it themselves. Plus the question of how to structure pricing in the first place - fixed "peak" and "off-peak" rates versus variable pricing versus a flat "all you can eat" monthly fee.

The one thing that everyone agrees on is that there's a need to avoid what would otherwise become the default. That is, lots of people come home late afternoon or early evening then plug the car in and it charges straight away. That's a problem because the maximum consumption of electricity for other purposes generally occurs around 6 - 7pm and that's also a time when wind and solar output is typically modest. Hence the desire of those looking at the technical side to avoid EV's being charged at this time.

It's one of those things that can definitely be done but there's different ideas around as to how best to do it, noting that non-technical factors such as marketing play a factor in that.

Eg some of the marketing people seem convinced that a flat daily fee for unlimited EV charging outside peak periods would be a winner with the public. Pay $ x per month "all you can eat" but supply won't be continuous, the charger will be turned off remotely when supply is tight.

Others have thoughts of that approach backfiring financially on the supplier and would prefer that pricing be based on actual consumption volume.

From a technical perspective, so long as the end result is that the majority of EV charging occurs when supply is abundant then how that's achieved, remote control versus price incentives etc, makes no difference.
 
Agree we need intelligent pricing and matching technology.being paid fit at 11c, i have no incentive to feed back into the grid so my own electric heater timer will switch on with the sun by 7am, i will burn my own PV to warm my water making so sure that at 12, i am feeding max with all washing, dishwashing and dryer finished. No incentive to do otherwise, convenient to do so and if I were to charge an EV, 7am start for me
 
I have no doubt that some kind of "smart" controller that only charges it off peak or only when the solar is pumping into the grid or whatever you decide to set it to could be implemented. No doubt whatsoever.

This seems so simple as to be a non-issue to be honest.
 
For it to be a universal V2G charger and an asset to the grid, it is the most complex part, it has to deal with the complexities of supplying the load relative to its ability.
That is the really hard part.
Read up on generator droop, reactive current droop compensation and system stability, for BEV's to be advantageous as storage they have to provide storage.
If they are all connected together, they have to share the load proportional to their ability, that includes reactive load.
Charging the BEV's is easy, using them as storage is difficult, but is an essential part of the BEV's role in a renewable future.
If we get it right it will be a winner, if we get it wrong, BEV's will be an albatross around the grid's neck.
Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Oh I was just talking from a factoring electric car charging into a grid that you're already trying to add renewables to. I feel like the using the EV as storage etc would be a secondary thing.

Surely the first thing would be to just ensure that people only charge their EV's off-peak or when the sun is shining/wind blowing, and then work out how to use them as storage after?
 
This video is a must see for anyone that thinks that electric cars pollute as much as petrol cars, or that petrol cars don’t also use huge amounts of electricity.

 
Value Collector said:
This video is a must see for anyone that thinks that electric cars pollute as much as petrol cars, or that petrol cars don’t also use huge amounts of electricity.
Click to expand...
Agreed with the basic point but there's a couple of bits in the video which don't stand scrutiny.....

The claim is that ships are not regulated for emissions. In practice regulations were greatly tightened as of 1 January 2020 however and that's a global agreement not just a local one.

The other claim is that Australians are talking a lot about pollution from oil refining. In practice I think it's fair to say that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone talking about it at all. Of all political or even just all environmental issues in Australia, pollution from the refining of oil would be an extremely long way down the list of those anyone's talking about.

I do agree with the basic point being made, EV's beat petrol and that's true even if 100% of the electricity used comes from fossil fuels, but at the same time I won't hesitate to call it out if "my" side gets a bit over-enthusiastic with the claims.
 

I kinda of agree with the two points you mentioned, but they aren’t really the point of the video, I mean ships having a bit of regulation now doesn’t actually take away from the point that he is making he is pointing out that those ships burn oil that needs to be counted if you are going to compare apples to apples, same with his point about oil refinery pollution vs lithium mining pollution.

Check out page 5 of this link, the biggest polluters in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth are all oil refineries (Well Sydneys is a plastics company, but similar story), So I agree not many Australians talk about pollution, but those talking about it are talking about oil refineries, and not lithium mines, and the point is that if lithium mining was a bigger problem than oil refining (as the EV haters claim), then the country that mines 50% of the lithium and refines 1% of the oil should be talking about lithium and not oil, so I think he has a solid point here because the dirtiest postcodes in our big cities are the ones with oil refineries.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...F_Pollution_Report_Nov2018_WEB.pdf?1542155046
 
Last edited:
I see where you are coming from, I'm just of the opinion the two way charging/ discharging ability is being trialed as we speak and to me it makes much more sense to adopt that technology earlier rather than later, than retro fitting it.
If you have it as a charger only, then during the day, the solar is charging the cars rather than the storage batteries required overnight.

So therefore it will require much more solar generation, or it will take longer to remove the fossil fueled generation if you use off peak charging.

It isn't an issue ATM, because there isn't a lot of battery storage installed and or EV's on the road, so there is an abundance of excess generation in the middle of the day, but that will change rather rapidly going on reported projects in the pipeline.
Just my opinion.
 
What it rationally comes down to is pollution per car over its lifetime assuming the same distance traveled. Plus of course things not related to pollution at all.

In all of this though I'm just wary that there's more politics and less science than there really ought to be. Never would I have expected that we'd come to a point where basically all subjects relating to energy are treated in a religious-like manner by the public but that's how it seems to have ended up.
EV's versus ICE, how to generate electricity, how to heat water, even what octane petrol to use in an ICE - they've all become very "religious" and lacking in facts so far as public discussion is concerned. Don't even dare suggest putting ethanol in the petrol, that idea really fires some people up.

My thinking is very much that everyone ought know the facts on such matters and that the argument for an electric future is convincing enough without needing to be in any way biased.
 

I agree it comes down to pollution per car, but what the video is addressing is that the anti EV crowd such as Frog, want to count all the pollution generated by power stations in the process of charging cars.

Counting this pollution is ofcourse entirely fair and rational (even though they normally only want to count coal fired power).

However as the video points out, where they fall off the rails is they “forget” to count all the emissions of getting their tank of fuel to their car.

So they want to only count the pollution caused by the petrol car itself as it burns the fuel, and ignore the entire system behind it, but they want to count the entire electrical system involved in charging.

this is the crux of the video, eg. If you want to talk about power stations, we need to talk about refiners too, if you want to talk about transmission losses we need to talk about oil trucks, ships and pipelines etc.

the petrol doesn’t magically appear at the petrol bowser, there is a long energy intensive process to get it there.
 
Smurf1976 said:
My thinking is very much that everyone ought know the facts on such matters and that the argument for an electric future is convincing enough without needing to be in any way biased.
Click to expand...
I'm with you 100%, on the one hand you have those who are fanatical about the 'green' component and on the other hand you have the manufacturers and media winding them up to get taxpayer subsidies.

Meanwhile those in the background, are trying to scientifically work out the most holistic way, to integrate it into an existing grid system while causing the least disruption and being the most advantageous.
While also trying to keep the cost to the taxpayer at a minimum, all in all a very fine balancing act.

When you consider what the taxpayer is subsidising already, with regard to the transition to renewables, it is pretty mind boggling.
All the existing roof solar panel installations have been subsidised, Snowy 2.0 will be taxpayer funded, the HV transmission upgrades are being subsidised, the Tassie battery will be subsidised, just about any renewables based project is being taxpayer subsidised.

I personally think until we know exactly what we want from the BEV's, in regard charging architecture, standard voltages etc, we would be mad to just subsidise any BEV that any company wants to bring in.
They are in their infancy, as has been shown last week where Hyundia is recalling all their BEV's for their LG battery packs catching on fire.
Currently the argument is between Hyundia and LG, as to who is at fault, wouldn't it be great if the Government was in their as well for helping people buy them.
Great headline, Government helps family buy BEV that catches on fire..., shouldn't the Government have checked they were safe before not only encouraging but also subsidising their purchase.

It is just the crazy way the world works these days, it is amazing how quickly those who stand at the front to make the most demands, are first to step back and point the finger when it goes pear shaped.
ALA the outcry at the first set of corona virus returners being isolated on Christmas island, "why should they be treated as second class citizens", now the cry is what a great idea.
Like you say @Smurf, let the technical people work out a plan, before the Government gets out a napkin to design one.
 
Last edited:
The Hyundia recall i was referring to in the last post, just for clarity, I mistakenly said all, when I'm not sure it is all but it is a lot.
https://www.caradvice.com.au/928558/the-1-13-billion-recall-hyundai-to-replace-batteries-in-82000-electric-cars-due-to-fire-risk/#:~:text=Australia will be part of,a fire risk when recharging.&text=Hyundai Australia is about to,a fire risk when recharging.
From the article:
“The recall is one of the first mass battery pack replacements conducted by a major automaker,” Automotive News USA reported
“It's very significant for both Hyundai and (battery supplier) LG as we are in the early stages of the electric vehicle era,” Lee Hang-koo, senior researcher at the Korea Institute for Industrial Economics & Trade, told Automotive News USA. “How Hyundai handles this will set a precedent not just in South Korea but also for other countries.”

The vehicles at the centre of the latest safety scare had been recalled for electrical problems last year.

However, one of the repaired vehicles evidently caught fire again, prompting South Korean authorities to launch a new probe “into whether the first recall had been adequate”, Automotive News USA reported.

Battery supplier LG has so far attempted to deflect criticism

In a statement to Automotive News USA, the battery company claimed Hyundai “misapplied LG’s suggestions for fast-charging logic in the battery management system” and said the battery cell “should not be seen as the direct cause of the fire risks”.

However, South Korea's transport ministry claimed some defects had been found in certain battery cells produced by LG’s factory in China.

While Hyundai and LG appear to be in dispute over the cause of the fault, it is likely both brands will need to foot the enormous recall repair bill.
 
Value Collector said:
If you want to talk about power stations, we need to talk about refiners too, if you want to talk about transmission losses we need to talk about oil trucks, ships and pipelines etc.
Click to expand...
We're on the same page - I've just taken issue with some of the detail that's all.

If we're going to count beans though well then as you say, we need to count all of them on both sides of the equation.

The big problem I see in all of this is that it has become an ideological war. That goes for EV's versus ICE, it goes for the means of generating electricity, it goes for how to heat water, it even goes for the detail of petrol specifications.

In any prior time that would all be an extremely dry subject of no interest to most. Go back 20 years and the average person knew that power stations existed but that was it, so long as the lights worked they had zero interest in the subject and fair enough.

Now we've come to a point where even those in the industry, from technical through to management, are shaking their heads wondering what to do next. Saying nothing doesn't seem to be an option but trying to get facts across in an environment so politically charged and with the minds of many firmly closed is pretty much impossible.

The sad thing is, I've never come across anyone who wanted to understand the basic concepts of all this who couldn't get their mind around it. The detail's extremely complex but the basic concepts are straightforward.

It just shouldn't be so contentious in society given it's ultimately just a fairly dry technical subject.

Nobody's starting ideological wars over the structural design of bridges or the colour coding of plastic pipes, right?
 
In the early days of climate hysteria, every picture of a power station that the media published highlighting emissions, seemed to indicate the condensation from cooling towers was the smoke from the boiler fires because it was a more dramatic picture. ?

I laughed, but it worked, it certainly whipped the readers into a frenzy.

As I said in an earlier post, I bet the major recall of the Hyundia's battery fires get very little media coverage, but remember the media coverage when a Jeep caught fire on a beach.
There has been very little in the Aussie press about the Hyundia's battery issue, I wonder why.

Just depends what the media want to push to the plebs IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...