Tesla and other electric cars drives parts of Norways electric net to its knees

[mux]

I'm a little bit stunned about the ignorant (I mean that in the nicest way) math in this thread. No, EVs are not adding that much generation load to the grid. And you're making some kind of massive instantaneous change fallacy. EV penetration is not going to increase massively in a short amount of time.

First of all; the original post was about distribution network load. Not generation capacity. There's plenty of energy storage and generation capacity in Norway to handle much, MUCH higher EV penetration. It's all about the wires actually delivering the energy, and then only to relative fast-chargers. And then only to locations previously not outfitted with heater outlets.

Secondly; we already have 100% functional, 40-year tested overnight EV charging infrastructure in Scandinavia. It's called mantle heaters. These suck about 10-15kWh per day just to keep the fuel and coolant from freezing. That's well in excess of average energy need for cars. In winter, they service about 30-35% of all the cars at once. This is a solved energy distribution problem. You do that with thicker cables (typ. 250/300A), which cost very little extra on top of regular 100/133A LV three-phase distribution cable.

Thirdly; no, total energy demand will not go up appreciably. Say we invent a country with only passenger cars that has an average 100M vehicle kilometers per year demand at 15km/L, so 6.7M litres of gasoline per year. At 150Wh/km, that's going to be replaced by 15GWh of electricity. Say we lose 20% in transmission, distribution and charging (substitute whatever you think is right, I'll stick by TenneT's numbers + tesla chargers), that gives us 19GWh primary electricity remand.

A US gallon of gasoline requires about 6kWh to be produced (https://greentransportation.info/energy-transportation/gasoline-costs-6kwh.html <--read for more context). We are displacing 6.7M L = 1.8M gal = 10.8GWh of refining/mining/distribution electricity cost. Total energy increase is thus only about a third.

But wait, there's more! The vast majority of charging does not happen at peak times, and electric grids (as well as generation) does not care about anything but peak demand as far as limits on the infrastructure go. Smart charging will further perform demand response on actual generation capacity to smooth out capacity. This leads to the assertion by most grid infra experts that most likely, no generation additions are required at all even for a 100% transition to electric road vehicles. At most, average energy increase numbers around 10% is what I see in literature. Not even the 50% you'd expect.

So, now you say: but what about the distribution network? Didn't we just discuss that being overloaded by Teslas in Norway?

Generation, transmission and distribution are sized to peak loads, not average loads. Because there is practically no demand response and no energy storage on the grid, generators have to modulate their electric output to instantaneous demand, which fluctuates quite widely. Here's a very typical dispatch curve for instance:



The first dotted line is average minimum load, the second is average and the third is peak. The very rightmost part of the graph, near 80GW, is still 25% over the typical peak and in most systems you can go over that a decent bit more before tripping anything if the load is sufficiently distributed. This means at any time of the day, only about 40-50% of dispatchable generation is actually online and most of the reserve just sits there for a few days of the year (or in case of the top 10% of generation: a few *hours* per year) when for some reason demand peaks that high.

So if you look at the integral demand on the grid, and this goes for both generation and distribution, it is at most maybe 20-25% of actual peak, we-run-this-baby-all-the-time capacity. There is plenty more juice to be strangled from the grid with literally zero upgrades, just by distributing demand into less problematic parts of the day.

This is the *big* opportunity for battery storage. Batteries have way too low energy density to do seasonal storage, but they are awesome for load-shifting a couple of hours. Then, instead of overloading the grid during peak hours and paying a higher price for electricity as a result (and possibly requiring massive upgrades), you actually consume that energy from the grid at low-demand times. This increases generator value as well over the entire day, alleviating some other intermittency issues with especially renewables and nuclear as well.

[kaz911]

I'm a little bit stunned about the ignorant (I mean that in the nicest way) math in this thread. No, EVs are not adding that much generation load to the grid. And you're making some kind of massive instantaneous change fallacy. EV penetration is not going to increase massively in a short amount of time.

First of all; the original post was about distribution network load. Not generation capacity. There's plenty of energy storage and generation capacity in Norway to handle much, MUCH higher EV penetration. It's all about the wires actually delivering the energy, and then only to relative fast-chargers. And then only to locations previously not outfitted with heater outlets.

Secondly; we already have 100% functional, 40-year tested overnight EV charging infrastructure in Scandinavia. It's called mantle heaters. These suck about 10-15kWh per day just to keep the fuel and coolant from freezing. That's well in excess of average energy need for cars. In winter, they service about 30-35% of all the cars at once. This is a solved energy distribution problem. You do that with thicker cables (typ. 250/300A), which cost very little extra on top of regular 100/133A LV three-phase distribution cable.

Thirdly; no, total energy demand will not go up appreciably. Say we invent a country with only passenger cars that has an average 100M vehicle kilometers per year demand at 15km/L, so 6.7M litres of gasoline per year. At 150Wh/km, that's going to be replaced by 15GWh of electricity. Say we lose 20% in transmission, distribution and charging (substitute whatever you think is right, I'll stick by TenneT's numbers + tesla chargers), that gives us 19GWh primary electricity remand.

A US gallon of gasoline requires about 6kWh to be produced (https://greentransportation.info/energy-transportation/gasoline-costs-6kwh.html <--read for more context). We are displacing 6.7M L = 1.8M gal = 10.8GWh of refining/mining/distribution electricity cost. Total energy increase is thus only about a third.

But wait, there's more! The vast majority of charging does not happen at peak times, and electric grids (as well as generation) does not care about anything but peak demand as far as limits on the infrastructure go. Smart charging will further perform demand response on actual generation capacity to smooth out capacity. This leads to the assertion by most grid infra experts that most likely, no generation additions are required at all even for a 100% transition to electric road vehicles. At most, average energy increase numbers around 10% is what I see in literature. Not even the 50% you'd expect.

So, now you say: but what about the distribution network? Didn't we just discuss that being overloaded by Teslas in Norway?

Generation, transmission and distribution are sized to peak loads, not average loads. Because there is practically no demand response and no energy storage on the grid, generators have to modulate their electric output to instantaneous demand, which fluctuates quite widely. Here's a very typical dispatch curve for instance:



The first dotted line is average minimum load, the second is average and the third is peak. The very rightmost part of the graph, near 80GW, is still 25% over the typical peak and in most systems you can go over that a decent bit more before tripping anything if the load is sufficiently distributed. This means at any time of the day, only about 40-50% of dispatchable generation is actually online and most of the reserve just sits there for a few days of the year (or in case of the top 10% of generation: a few *hours* per year) when for some reason demand peaks that high.

So if you look at the integral demand on the grid, and this goes for both generation and distribution, it is at most maybe 20-25% of actual peak, we-run-this-baby-all-the-time capacity. There is plenty more juice to be strangled from the grid with literally zero upgrades, just by distributing demand into less problematic parts of the day.

This is the *big* opportunity for battery storage. Batteries have way too low energy density to do seasonal storage, but they are awesome for load-shifting a couple of hours. Then, instead of overloading the grid during peak hours and paying a higher price for electricity as a result (and possibly requiring massive upgrades), you actually consume that energy from the grid at low-demand times. This increases generator value as well over the entire day, alleviating some other intermittency issues with especially renewables and nuclear as well.

Thanks for the input. I have checked our 2002 built London suburb - and our distribution station is calculated to 8kW peak per household - and a lot of households (3/4's) have electric floor heat and electric water heaters. Everyone have 100A "input" - but according to builders we are already seeing issues with hitting close to peak in the coldest winter days.

2nd input - batteries - there is still a cost to charge and discharge a battery. Most commercial stations have between 1000-5000 full charge cycles as stated capacity.  So just putting in batteries can be a good idea for short time balancing - but it does have a cost associated with it. So probably batteries have to be replaced every 10'ish years with current technology.

[grumpydoc]

Thirdly; no, total energy demand will not go up appreciably. Say we invent a country with only passenger cars that has an average 100M vehicle kilometers per year demand at 15km/L, so 6.7M litres of gasoline per year. At 150Wh/km, that's going to be replaced by 15GWh of electricity. Say we lose 20% in transmission, distribution and charging (substitute whatever you think is right, I'll stick by TenneT's numbers + tesla chargers), that gives us 19GWh primary electricity remand.

100 million km per year is very low - private car mileage in the UK is 240 billion miles or nearly 400 billion km. Norway had 2,662,910 private cars in 2016 - at 10,000km per vehicle per year that is 20 billion km, so for Norway you need to multiply your power needed figures by 200. OK maybe less if you have good evidence for a lower average annual mileage but even for a small country your figures are not realistic.

150Wh per km is also on the low side for fuel used, the median estimate is more like 200Wh/km.

You are right, of course, that EV penetration into the market is low at present but with the UK pledging to ban diesel and petrol cars and vans after 2040 you are looking at almost 100% penetration by the mid 2050's - heck I might even still be alive by then so it is not really that far away.

And, of course, you are correct in that there is plenty of time to plan generating capacity but new projects take anything from 5 to 15 years to come on stream (Hinckley Point C has a forecast of 2025-2027 before it starts generating, for instance, having been granted a site licence in 2012). If anything the current trend in generating capacity is downward (again speaking for the UK alone).

But a back of the envelope calculation suggests that even if charging were limited to off peak hours UK peak demand would still increase compared with today so if the government in the UK continues to push EV's to the point of 100% market penetration without planning generating capacity to match it will be a disaster.

Given the UK government's track record in providing infrastructure in the face of slowly but predictably growing demand (housing - chronically under supplied for 20 years and now in crisis; school places - under supplied for 10 years and now nearly in crisis) I am not convinced disaster will be averted.

That said I agree it should be manageable, especially with a bit of imagination. Let's face it, it's not as if demand is going to go up tenfold - but we just can't sleepwalk to 100% EV use without planning for the extra power needed.

[mux]

Note that my 100M v-km/yr example was just an example to show the order of magnitude. Much of why I called it an invented country. 19GWh is also an almost-no amount of energy (on the scale of a country). Typical countries consume tens to thousands of TWh primary. Regardless of everything, the calculation is only there to show the relatively small aggregate impact on generation.

But regardless of the generation capacity argument, which I consider not a problem at all due to the timescales, the real kicker in my opinion is still distribution capacity. That is nigh-unsolvable in the short term. Likely, people will have to be slow-charging at home for the coming decade or two. Or build massive home batteries to quick-charge, then trickle-charge the buffer. I mean, with the price trends on batteries, that doesn't even seem so far-fetched.

[IanMacdonald]

"But wait, there's more! The vast majority of charging does not happen at peak times, and electric grids (as well as generation) does not care about anything but peak demand as far as limits on the infrastructure go. Smart charging will further perform demand response on actual generation capacity to smooth out capacity. "

The majority of charging WILL be required just after the rush hour when commuters get home. I can't see them being happy with a situation where they have to wait until maybe 3am when the smart meter decides the can have some charge. Especially if that might not happen, so they end up not getting to work the next day.

A worse situation arises if only a partial charge is delivered.  In that case the owner has to either take a gamble on the range being enough to get to work and maybe risk being stranded, or else face the boss's wrath for not turning up at work.

If the official charger can't be relied on, then an alternative will be found. The alternative won't be so convenient to the Grid operators. It might also be decidedly unsafe. 

[mux]

That's just not a very realistic view on matters. You don't need a perfectly filled tank of gas every time you leave for work. Likewise, you don't nearly need a fully charged EV every morning. For the vast, vast, vast majority of people, delayed charging will be advantageous. For cars that have severe range limitations, delivering a full charge will be no problem as their batteries are necessarily tiny.

Because we're not talking about now, we're talking about a decently far-off future where EV penetration is so high that it WOULD actually strain generation and distribution if charging were to happen all at once. So utilities will be incentivizing deferred charging and grid compensation in some way or another.

You can't mix current and future realities and say it's going to be a massive problem when 70MPH highway speeds are introduced among all those horse-drawn carriages. Change and adaptation happens in tandem.

[CJay]

That's just not a very realistic view on matters. You don't need a perfectly filled tank of gas every time you leave for work. Likewise, you don't nearly need a fully charged EV every morning.

I might not need a full tank of fuel every morning but at the moment, I have the ability to top up my tank of fuel in a couple of minutes should I discover that it's empty or that I need to travel further than the available fuel will allow.

As with every proponent of pure EVs you don't have a very realistic view on life, you all very conveniently neglect the length of time it takes to charge an EV compared to the length of time it takes to 'charge' an IC car fuel tank, that length of time, lengthened by the charging schemes which 'ration' charge make an EV a liability.

EVs in one form or another are the future but until problems like that are solved then they're a pain in the arse.

[mux]

But again, you too seem to have this really weird view of the world. Think critically about the actual problems you are trying to solve and the scale of those problems.

A very, very tiny minority of people will have a completely empty tank of electrons at the end of the day.

A tiny minority of those people need it to be completely full at the start of the next, possibly in a reduced amount of time

An even tinier minority will have a car that cannot cope with the range it will get even with a deferred charging scheme.

And even if that happens, there are quick chargers that will happily top off the missing 5-10% in a minute. Not five, not ten, not half an hour, just one minute at a fast charger. How is that inconvenient compared to having to ALWAYS drive up to a gas station in the current state of the world?

And when you don't have your own car at the ready because you somehow managed to turn off automatic overnight charging which you have to do literally nothing for except park your car... you just get a self-driving taxi. It'll be there 5 minutes later than your own car, sure, but at least you have the option.

This kind of edge-case thinking really only exists in the minds of people trying to find the absolute worst-case situation and pretending that generalizes to all cars. It's just not a thing. Nobody has this problem, nor will anybody in a future with high EV penetration.

[CJay]

Nope, that's not the case at all, it's not a 'weird view of the world' to imagine people wanting to be able to jump into a car and to be able to go where they want when they want because that's exactly what people do already without having to wait hours for a battery to charge or hope that the grid had capacity to fully refill their electron bucket the night before.

What happens when you wake up on a day off, look outside and see it's a beautiful day so you decide to go for a drive in the countryside or to the sea but find your EV hasn't charged past 25% because the charger decided the grid didn't have the capacity?

It is a nonsense to take the freedom a tank of diesel, gas, LPG, hydrogen, alcohol etc. etc. gives away from people, regardless of how that fuel is used, IC engine or Fuel cell, as yet there simply is no EV technology that can put that much energy into a vehicle in a comparable time (hint, even 15 minutes is too long for many people).

I agree, EVs should/probably/will work just fine for the daily commute and local shopping, far better than an IC engined (or even fuel cell) vehicle, but they are a very poor alternative if you want a life outside of that commute *UNTIL* such time as they can be 'refuelled' in a comparable time to a vehicle that carries a tank of fuel.

Some sort of battery swap technology might make it palatable but even that seems fraught with problems...

[grumpydoc]

Nope, that's not the case at all, it's not a 'weird view of the world' to imagine people wanting to be able to jump into a car and to be able to go where they want when they want because that's exactly what people do already without having to wait hours for a battery to charge or hope that the grid had capacity to fully refill their electron bucket the night before.

Or even just want to undertake a longer journey than usual.

Most of my current commute is easily within range of an EV, I might need a full charge only once per week, but there was a time I was doing 650 miles per week to and from work.

However not infrequently I travel 300 miles+ in a single journey which is out of the range of EV's at present. Since we tend to drive into France for holidays occasional journeys of 600+ miles would not be out of the ordinary.

Now, it is a mistake to say that because today's ranges are (at best) in the 250 mile region that  EV's will never have ranges of >300 miles but it is less likely that "fuel" efficiencies will improve radically which still leave us with 250-350Wh per mile, so you will need 100kWh+ batteries to extend ranges to compete with fossil fuel powered cars - my 2003 Mondeo will do that 650 miles I mentioned on one tank.

To charge a 100kWh battery in 15 mins (which I think is about as long as is reasonable in the middle of a journey) needs 400kW to be pumped in - not impossible but quite challenging and very tricky in a domestic environment where supplies tend to be limited to a few 10's of kW (though I guess most people would be happy with overnight charging domestically).

[fcb]

CJay - The future won't have battery swap.  They aren't even seriously considering that for bus fleets.

The generation of vehicles just launched 40KW Leaf, 40KWh Zoe, Hyundai ioniq, E-Golf, 33KW i3, BOLT) have pushed the range up from 90 miles to 130-150, they probably won't go much beyond 60KWh for the next few years. 

Chargers are getting faster, but still the fleet of DC quick chargers are mostly 50KW - they getting long-in-tooth and the next generation (100+KW) are being rolled out along with matching local battery storage.  There's a good likelihood you'll see at least half the filling stations in 5 years being converted into local grid storage and rapid charging depots, along with the obligatory coffee&convenience shops.  Charging at home is sorted, it will be 7.2KW with some network intelligence for load control.

I've lived mainly with a 22KW EV for the last couple of years (20,000 miles PA), perfectly feasible. Next purchase is 40KW EV and will be happy to take that anywhere in the UK and will definitely be going abroad in that.

[cdev]

CJay,

You bring up a good point in that EV's lack the storage capacity to go any long distance and also it can be cut off like that.

But that might also be seen as a feature by some people.

I think the price of gasoline may eventually go down all around the world as the business need for commuting falls.

Likewise the price of electricity may rise, during the winter at least, if more of it depends on sources that diminish during the winter.

The key to EVs being viable as primary transportation I think is the whole picture. Which still is patchy.

[cdev]

One thing we have to remember is evacuation in emergencies, for example, in coastal areas when we have extreme weather. Substantial rises in sea levels could occur much faster than projections due to sudden loss of coastal ice in Antarctica that is holding the inland ice in place. Huge scrapes on the sea floor in Antarctica indicate that this has happened multiple times in the past. Similar scrapes from huge icebergs exist on the floor of the Atlantic as far south as the Carolinas.

All in all there is enough evidence of rapid changes in climate in the past that I think people should attempt to keep as much flexibility and diversity in our energy supplies as possible.

Its estimated that we could gain as many as seven meters of sea level within a fairly short time period due to the loss of the Antarctic polar ice cap. Similar but smaller sea rise could occur because of the loss of the Greenland ice cap.

That means that many coastal areas could possibly be inundated - especially by storm surges, within the next century, if current trends continue. We should plan for that happening.

Many areas along the US East Coast in particular would be likely to suffer repeated storm surges and that would necessitate evacuation of large numbers of people when a storm was coming.

There is a long chain of coastal communities on barrier islands separated from the mainland by long bridges and an inland waterway. Evacuating them seems to me as if it would be likely to be very difficult without a substantial amount of planning which I suspect is not occurring in the current climate of denial.

EVs dont lend themselves well to that scenario because of the grid capacity issue. People may not be able to keep them fully charged up all the time. And what happens if they stall out on the bridge. Push the car over the edge to get it off the bridge? See the problem? I think special rules should apply on coastal islands and areas likely to need evacuation during major storms.

Homes themselves?

Here in the US its quite normal for a suburban house to have a 200 amp 220 volt electric service.

Some older houses have much less. But I think a conscious effort is being made via building codes to encourage people to upgrade their electric service on older homes when any kind of work is done on them.

So many homes do have the electricity capacity to charge them.

Nope, that's not the case at all, it's not a 'weird view of the world' to imagine people wanting to be able to jump into a car and to be able to go where they want when they want because that's exactly what people do already without having to wait hours for a battery to charge or hope that the grid had capacity to fully refill their electron bucket the night before.

Or even just want to undertake a longer journey than usual.

Most of my current commute is easily within range of an EV, I might need a full charge only once per week, but there was a time I was doing 650 miles per week to and from work.

However not infrequently I travel 300 miles+ in a single journey which is out of the range of EV's at present. Since we tend to drive into France for holidays occasional journeys of 600+ miles would not be out of the ordinary.

Now, it is a mistake to say that because today's ranges are (at best) in the 250 mile region that  EV's will never have ranges of >300 miles but it is less likely that "fuel" efficiencies will improve radically which still leave us with 250-350Wh per mile, so you will need 100kWh+ batteries to extend ranges to compete with fossil fuel powered cars - my 2003 Mondeo will do that 650 miles I mentioned on one tank.

To charge a 100kWh battery in 15 mins (which I think is about as long as is reasonable in the middle of a journey) needs 400kW to be pumped in - not impossible but quite challenging and very tricky in a domestic environment where supplies tend to be limited to a few 10's of kW (though I guess most people would be happy with overnight charging domestically).

[schmitt trigger]

Somebody, please loan them a nixie-tube calculator. 

Nixie calculator? That is waaaaay too much cutting edge.

I would advise a hand-cranked mechanical calculator. They work even during complete blackouts:

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/05/computers-antiq.html

[Someone]

Nope, that's not the case at all, it's not a 'weird view of the world' to imagine people wanting to be able to jump into a car and to be able to go where they want when they want because that's exactly what people do already without having to wait hours for a battery to charge or hope that the grid had capacity to fully refill their electron bucket the night before.

What happens when you wake up on a day off, look outside and see it's a beautiful day so you decide to go for a drive in the countryside or to the sea but find your EV hasn't charged past 25% because the charger decided the grid didn't have the capacity?

It is a nonsense to take the freedom a tank of diesel, gas, LPG, hydrogen, alcohol etc. etc. gives away from people, regardless of how that fuel is used, IC engine or Fuel cell, as yet there simply is no EV technology that can put that much energy into a vehicle in a comparable time (hint, even 15 minutes is too long for many people).

I agree, EVs should/probably/will work just fine for the daily commute and local shopping, far better than an IC engined (or even fuel cell) vehicle, but they are a very poor alternative if you want a life outside of that commute *UNTIL* such time as they can be 'refuelled' in a comparable time to a vehicle that carries a tank of fuel.

Some sort of battery swap technology might make it palatable but even that seems fraught with problems...

Its unlikely that a EV owner will be prevented from charging their vehicle, its more likely that they would pay a higher rate for the flexibility. Just the same as the current situation where petrol prices fluctuate and people choose when to fill up their tanks, you can get caught out and pay more than you expected if you run close to empty and didn't plan ahead.

While people want long distance travel and the convenience of liquid fuels its not inconceivable that households that already have more than once car can have a mixture of EV and conventional vehicles to select the most appropriate for the specific use. Or as many people already do, use car sharing or rentals to cover the unusual needs and other vehicles for the typical trips (public transport etc included).

[Someone]

That's just not a very realistic view on matters. You don't need a perfectly filled tank of gas every time you leave for work. Likewise, you don't nearly need a fully charged EV every morning.

I might not need a full tank of fuel every morning but at the moment, I have the ability to top up my tank of fuel in a couple of minutes should I discover that it's empty or that I need to travel further than the available fuel will allow.

As with every proponent of pure EVs you don't have a very realistic view on life, you all very conveniently neglect the length of time it takes to charge an EV compared to the length of time it takes to 'charge' an IC car fuel tank, that length of time, lengthened by the charging schemes which 'ration' charge make an EV a liability.

EVs in one form or another are the future but until problems like that are solved then they're a pain in the arse.

CJay, I'd love to know if you've ever driven an electric vehicle. I hope I'm not offending anyone here, but this entire thread reminds me of the conversations horse owners in the 1910s had about "those newfangled horseless carriages." People unload a lot of hate on a new technology simply because it's not instantly perfect, even if it's a pretty good improvement.

I'm reminded of a cute article written about a hypothetical car sales person trying to sell a petrol powered car to a hypothetical person who has only ever experienced an electric vehicle, it had things along the lines of:

"what do you mean I can't add more energy to it at home, I have to drive to a special shop to buy special fuel? this sounds inconvenient"
"its powered by explosions? that sounds dangerous"
"why is it so noisy? wont it disturb all the people and wildlife around it?"

and I'll ad my own to try and bring us back to the topic of this forum:
"its permitted to produce how much EMI?"

[Someone]

And after some hunting, here is the link:
http://teslaclubsweden.se/test-drive-of-a-petrol-car/

[CJay]

That's just not a very realistic view on matters. You don't need a perfectly filled tank of gas every time you leave for work. Likewise, you don't nearly need a fully charged EV every morning.

I might not need a full tank of fuel every morning but at the moment, I have the ability to top up my tank of fuel in a couple of minutes should I discover that it's empty or that I need to travel further than the available fuel will allow.

As with every proponent of pure EVs you don't have a very realistic view on life, you all very conveniently neglect the length of time it takes to charge an EV compared to the length of time it takes to 'charge' an IC car fuel tank, that length of time, lengthened by the charging schemes which 'ration' charge make an EV a liability.

EVs in one form or another are the future but until problems like that are solved then they're a pain in the arse.

CJay, I'd love to know if you've ever driven an electric vehicle. I hope I'm not offending anyone here, but this entire thread reminds me of the conversations horse owners in the 1910s had about "those newfangled horseless carriages." People unload a lot of hate on a new technology simply because it's not instantly perfect, even if it's a pretty good improvement.

I test drove a few current model hybrids earlier this year when I gave up my company car and I've had intermittent access to them through my jobs over the past couple of decades*, I like them a lot.

Fuel mileage (around 58MPG real world, I got better than 50MPG average from a 1.6 diesel Skoda Octavia and on long journeys I got even better, indicated by the in car computer and calculated by me) so combined with a ridiculously high purchase/lease price (I know, the tech isn't cheap) means even the CHR (I like it, a lot) is a nonsense from an emissions and financial point of view though if the price was a *lot* better I'd be driving one.

We would still be having this discussion though.

However...

If we take EV to mean pure electric and no IC engine (I don't think there are fuel cell hybrids out there yet?) then no, I've never done more than ten-fifteen miles in an EV.

The one pure EV I've driven, the Nissan Leaf, it's kinda OK (not my type of car, too small for my needs) the experience of pure EV is a little surreal even compared to a hybrid, I'd get used to it, but the range, yeah, not there yet and certainly not useful for me or anyone in my family except perhaps my brother's wife and my mother but only because her partner has a non EV car for the times when EV is useless.

*we used to work with a LOT of Toyota dealerships so were present when the Prius was launched in the UK and the place I'm at now has a major investment in renewables, grid scale off-shore/on-shore wind farms and solar projects, so they push PHEV technology pretty hard and offer incentives for employees to buy/lease PHEV (Chevy Volt or the Vauxhall equivalent, the Ampera is the favoured one of the moment though you can get Mitsubishi, BMW and many others).

[tszaboo]

I have a Prius (3rd gen). I dont like the CHR. Sure, it looks good, but I just didn't feel home at the wheel, and the space was also way too small. Also, no sunroof? Sorry, no.
I've tried the 2nd and 4th generation prius, the audi a3 e-tron, Mitsubishi PHEV, Tesla S. From this obviously the Tesla was the most fun, the Audi coming second, and they are reeaaly expensive. Not because electric and hybrid, because they are premium cars. Here comes a trick question: Is hybrid expensive? I think not.
Take the Toyota Auris as an example. Base model is 14KEUR, basically a russian gulag has better accessories. Hybrid starts from 22600 EUR. The similarly horsepower (136) automatic version comes with the 1,6 Valvematic (132 LE) CVT. I'm comparing cars with the same accessories. And it costs 20300 EUR. The difference is only 2300 EUR, or 10% of the cost of the car. The price difference breaks even financially at around 150.000 Km, plenty of Km more to go. Environmentally there is not even a race. Did you know, that the Prius emits 100 times less NOx than a VW Jetta Diesel?
So unless you make the mistake of comparing a rust bucket to a car, it is not expensive. I have no idea, why anyone would buy a not hybrid car. Now, the only thing I need to do is buy the plug in prius. The prime (unlike the 4) looks really really sexy.  In my calculations, I would need to fuel it up every 2-3 months.

[CJay]

I quite like the CHR, sunroof doesn't matter to me, I felt fine behind the wheel, my stepfather, he didn't like it at all and bought a RAV.

Different people, different tastes and needs. 

Funny you mention the Auris, I also test drove that, it's too small for me, my two children and my partner. Nice drive though and if it were just me then it would have been a serious contender.

The tax breaks for hybrids in the UK are now much reduced or even non existent, London's congestion charge is payable for some hybrids now so that's a non argument, tax breaks are being reduced again next year and will continue to be reduced until we all drive EVs.

I totally agree on the use of hybrids, they make a lot of sense for me and if they were the same price as a non hybrid car then I would have one, no question, there is little to no cost saving to be had with my vehicle needs.

Comparing like for like (or as close as possible) when I was car shopping this year, the hybrid is a *lot* more expensive.

The CHR Hybrid is more than £5000 more expensive than the petrol equivalent, that's more like 25% of the price of a petrol equivalent, I.E. a *lot* of fuel and given that the CHR hybrid has owner reported MPG ratings as low as 32MPG (and as high as 52MPG) it's not an attractive option.

I really did try to make it work for me but just couldn't.

Plus, it's still a hybrid, a HEV not an EV so the whole point of this thread about charging and grid capacity is utterly irrelevant.

[tszaboo]

It's just taste...  I like how it looks.
I mention the Auris, because that is a car which comes in Hybrid and regular version, with similar engines. The CHR doesn't. It comes with a tiny 1.2 turbo, manual transmission. The RAV4 is another example. The 4x2 2,0 D?4D (143 LE) is 28800EUR, the 2,5 Hybrid (197 LE) is 29900EUR. 1100 EUR difference for a bigger engine, which is greener. And then there are Priuses from around 2005, converted to CNG with homemade plug-in extended battery, which is probably the cheapest way to travel.

I think hybrids are relevant to the discussion. The plug in market is going to extend a lot in the next few years. Though they usually have "slow chargers" and wont bring the network down.

[cdev]

I just read somewhere else that a bubble is occurring with car loans. Similar to that which happened with real estate in 2008.


At the same time, society's love affair with the automobile is closely associated with the world of work, especially commuting, and as we move into the 21st century, numbers of commuters is expected to fall tremendously as more and more work is automated, goes to telecommuting or is off-shored. 

The Internet, especially, has made it possible to reduce the number of commuters substantially.

That means the price of gas will likely fall even though it's finite, because demand, driven by the number of drivers who use a car every day, and improvements in fuel efficiency, and larger numbers of electric vehicles, is likely falling.

At the same time, the price of electricity, which more than anything else, is tied to natural gas prices, will likely rise, especially in the US, which had natural gas prices a fraction of those elsewhere for forty years, because of a historical anomaly (a ban on natural gas export since the 1970s) that is ending.

I still think hybrids make sense, but fully EV - for a small vehicle for doing errands, shopping, yes, but I wouldn't want to be tied to a charger for a family's main form of transportation.

[IanMacdonald]

"At the same time, society's love affair with the automobile is closely associated with the world of work, especially commuting, and as we move into the 21st century, numbers of commuters is expected to fall tremendously as more and more work is automated, goes to telecommuting or is off-shored.

The Internet, especially, has made it possible to reduce the number of commuters substantially."

Slightly offtopic, but I thought that would happen and it hasn't. At least not in the UK. What I see happening here is that real jobs on the shop floor are becoming scarcer as machines take over, but that office jobs are multiplying like crazy. Some places have three to five times as many office staff as shopfloor workers. The problem here is the EU and its mountains of regulations and red tape.  Every time a new regulation comes out, that means firms having to employ another 'officer' just to ensure that they aren't at risk of being fined for noncompliance. In the nature of things bureaucratic these 'officers' have to be onsite; they can't work remotely. (Maybe if someone invented a remote controlled pen that ticks boxes over the  Internet.. )  Hence more cars, more traffic jams, more pollution. GDPR is a case in point right now.

The EU is one of the greatest promoters of climate change action, yet they are adding enormously to the problem of fuel wastage and pollution through their own red tape!

[CJay]

It's just taste...  I like how it looks.
I mention the Auris, because that is a car which comes in Hybrid and regular version, with similar engines. The CHR doesn't. It comes with a tiny 1.2 turbo, manual transmission. The RAV4 is another example. The 4x2 2,0 D?4D (143 LE) is 28800EUR, the 2,5 Hybrid (197 LE) is 29900EUR. 1100 EUR difference for a bigger engine, which is greener. And then there are Priuses from around 2005, converted to CNG with homemade plug-in extended battery, which is probably the cheapest way to travel.

I think hybrids are relevant to the discussion. The plug in market is going to extend a lot in the next few years. Though they usually have "slow chargers" and wont bring the network down.

Absolutely, if we all liked the same things the world would be a very boring place, I thoroughly dislike the Audi TT but I know many people think it's a thing of beauty for instance...

Hybrids, they aren't really relevant because they don't drop dead through lack of charge unless you've been remiss enough to forget to put petrol/diesel into them as well, even then you can usually walk to a fuel station and buy a gallon of fuel or bring one to you.

You would find it difficult to buy a gallon of electrons to carry back to the car (though of course you can convert the energy from that gallon of fuel into electrons once it's in the car)

The whole point of my comments was that a non hybrid EV is potentially useless if you can't guarantee it's got decent charge and good range, they're also pretty useless unless you're doing the kind of travel that would be far better served by public transport anyway so it might be valid to ask why that person needs their own car at all?

Hybrids are a completely different case and if it weren't for the price differential would be the ideal solution for me and many other IC engined vehicle drivers, having created a spreadsheet and spent many hours filling it with MPG figures, prices, tax benefits, depreciation and all sorts of calculations, at best they work out even with a diesel, at worst, they are more expensive over the period of ownership I was looking at.

It's been almost 9 months since I went car shopping so the recent diesel furore may have skewed the calculations slightly...

[CJay]

I just read somewhere else that a bubble is occurring with car loans. Similar to that which happened with real estate in 2008.

There's a whole market segment in the UK where finance companies have driven car sales by offering very consumer favourable finance deals on cars that are priced to take into account the resale value of the vehicle when the user hands the car back.

Unfortunately that means there's a huge number of 1,2 and three year old cars about to hit the market with low mileage and probably lower than predicted prices because of the large number available. 

At the same time, society's love affair with the automobile is closely associated with the world of work, especially commuting, and as we move into the 21st century, numbers of commuters is expected to fall tremendously as more and more work is automated, goes to telecommuting or is off-shored. 


I still think hybrids make sense, but fully EV - for a small vehicle for doing errands, shopping, yes, but I wouldn't want to be tied to a charger for a family's main form of transportation.

Telecommuting has never really taken off in the industry segments I've worked in, it's difficult to refurbish locomotives and carriages over the internet for one example

Agree on hybrids over EV, price differences notwithstanding, I'd have a hybrid tomorrow if I could.