When Will Electric Cars Become Mainstream?

[DougSpindler]

If people are going to use the line EV's are chearper, energy cost per mile to power the vehicle looks like that's not true. 

How many times are you going to spout this lie?

I've shown, on multiple occasions the per-mile fuel cost of EVs are less than 1/2 (and 1/8 in my locale) versus that of ICE vehicles, in various jurisdictions.

Why do you call it a lie witout providing any calculations to prove I am incorrect.  Using the Tesla 10,000 miles vidoe data I clearly demonstrated if one were living in California and am paying PG&E electricity prices and CostCo, Safeway, Shell gasoline pricies the cost of energy per mile is about the same for EV or ICE.  Next year when PG&E increases electircy costs EV's will cost more per mile in electricity costs than the cost for gasoline to move an ICE a mile.

Let's do the same calcuation where you are.  What are you actually paying per gallon of gasoline?  And what are you actually paying per kWhr for electricty?

Let's see if what you are saying is true or not.

[mtdoc]

   and once again the pattern repeats...

[boffin]

If people are going to use the line EV's are chearper, energy cost per mile to power the vehicle looks like that's not true. 

How many times are you going to spout this lie?

I've shown, on multiple occasions the per-mile fuel cost of EVs are less than 1/2 (and 1/8 in my locale) versus that of ICE vehicles, in various jurisdictions.

Why do you call it a lie witout providing any calculations to prove I am incorrect.  Using the Tesla 10,000 miles vidoe data I clearly demonstrated if one were living in California and am paying PG&E electricity prices and CostCo, Safeway, Shell gasoline pricies the cost of energy per mile is about the same for EV or ICE.  Next year when PG&E increases electircy costs EV's will cost more per mile in electricity costs than the cost for gasoline to move an ICE a mile.

Let's do the same calcuation where you are.  What are you actually paying per gallon of gasoline?  And what are you actually paying per kWhr for electricty?

Let's see if what you are saying is true or not.

I have, multiple times. 

Perhaps you should go re-read post #1834.  https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/msg1833074/#msg1833074
where I lay out all of the math, along with sources of the data. 

The definitive proof that you're a troll, and not here to add any useful information to this thread, is that the very next message, quoting mine, #1835 was written by you.


This is the last time I pay any attention to any of your posts, or quote your dribble.  I'm hoping the other users here follow my lead, and simply stop responding to you.

[DougSpindler]

If people are going to use the line EV's are chearper, energy cost per mile to power the vehicle looks like that's not true. 

How many times are you going to spout this lie?

I've shown, on multiple occasions the per-mile fuel cost of EVs are less than 1/2 (and 1/8 in my locale) versus that of ICE vehicles, in various jurisdictions.

Why do you call it a lie witout providing any calculations to prove I am incorrect.  Using the Tesla 10,000 miles vidoe data I clearly demonstrated if one were living in California and am paying PG&E electricity prices and CostCo, Safeway, Shell gasoline pricies the cost of energy per mile is about the same for EV or ICE.  Next year when PG&E increases electircy costs EV's will cost more per mile in electricity costs than the cost for gasoline to move an ICE a mile.

Let's do the same calcuation where you are.  What are you actually paying per gallon of gasoline?  And what are you actually paying per kWhr for electricty?

Let's see if what you are saying is true or not.

I have, multiple times. 

Perhaps you should go re-read post #1834.  https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/msg1833074/#msg1833074
where I lay out all of the math, along with sources of the data. 

The definitive proof that you're a troll, and not here to add any useful information to this thread, is that the very next message, quoting mine, #1835 was written by you.


This is the last time I pay any attention to any of your posts, or quote your dribble.  I'm hoping the other users here follow my lead, and simply stop responding to you.

You live in Vancouver Canada, Southern California and in the Netherlands all at the same time?  Don't think so.  You list PG&E as your electricity supplier in Southern California?  Bull shit.  Impossible as PG&E doesn't serve Southern California.  Or do you have a 150 mile extension cord?   

But I'll play along with you.  Did you even read the references you listed?  Specifically the PG&E rate schedule your referenced.  Did you see PG&E has a cap of 60,000 for Rates A and B combined.  PG&E has 5.4 million electric customers.  Not everyone who has an EV can get on this rate plan.  What is you are customers 60.001 or higher.  Duhhhh.... You have to select a different rate plan.  So this means not everyone who has an EV is on this rate plan.  And there are other EV rate plans one can be on.  PG&E has 9 different rate plans for residential customers.   


Your references say electricity in Australia is $0.414 kWhr? 
Is that correct our Australian friends?  Do you folks really pay $0.414 for a kWhr?.

Where are you getting your numbers from?  Are you factoring in the heat loss in charging and discharing the batteries?  What about the heat loss in coverting the AC do DC by the charger when charging the batteries? 

Sorry my friend your research is flawed and in some cases just complete bull shit.

Try using real numbers like the guy in the Tesla video used.  If you do I think you will find what your actually getting is not what you think.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2013/long-term-road-test/wrap-up.html

"[...]
Observed Fuel Economy:
EPA estimates for electricity consumption in the Model S were 38 kWh/100 miles, with a range of 265 miles on a full charge. Our best observed range was 230.4 miles and the best projected range was 264.2 miles. The best average energy for a single charge was 238 watt-hours per mile (23.8 kWh/100 miles) and the worst 344 watt-hours per mile (34.0 kWh/100 miles). The energy usage calculations do not include charge losses, which are 25-35 percent based on our experience with the high-powered wall connector (HPWC)."
[...]
Cons: Extensive list of repairs necessary, interior amenities don't match other luxury sedans in its price range, latest active safety systems not available, needs at least a Level 2 charger to make it useful as a daily driver.

Bottom Line: The Model S is a fast, comfortable and technologically brilliant luxury sedan, but numerous problems with its touchscreen, tires and drivetrain make it hard to recommend.[...]"

List of repairs in 30,251 miles:

"Problem   Repair   Cost
Suspicious noise   Replace first drive unit   Warranty
Car died roadside   Replace second drive unit   Warranty
Suspicious noise   Replace third drive unit and ride height sensor   Warranty
Car died roadside   Replace main battery   Warranty
Touchscreen froze   Replace main display screen   Warranty
Optional 21-inch rear tires worn to cords prematurely   Replace rear tires and fix alignment   Warranty
Car died roadside   Replace 12-volt battery and cables   Warranty
Steering wheel creak   Shim and torque sub-frame bolts   Warranty
Odd noise from undercarriage   Rerouted logic harnesses per TSB   Warranty
Sunroof will not work   Replace broken sunroof deflector   Warranty
Driver door opens automatically   Replace driver door handle mechanism   Warranty
Recall issued   Battery shield kit installed   Warranty
TSB issued   Inspect joints for all lower control arm washers   Warranty
TSB issued   Update firmware to version 5.8.4   Warranty
TSB issued   Update firmware to version 5.11   Warranty
TSB issued   Replace front bumper carrier bolts   Warranty
TSB issued   Install rear upper camber bolts   Warranty
TSB issued   Replace side motor mount   Warranty
TSB issued   Replace front floor mats, install rear floor mats   Warranty
Left radiator shutter faulty   Replace center louvers   Warranty
Lug nuts beginning to swell   Replace all 20 lug nuts   Warranty
Cracked vanity mirror hinge   Replace cracked vanity mirror hinge   Goodwill
Humming noise at start-up   Install AC compressor NVH cover   Goodwill
Vanity mirror hinge cracked   Replace missing charge cord trim piece   Goodwill
Touchscreen froze   Manual reset (required 9 times during test)   None
Windows lowered automatically   Unresolved, happened twice   None
TPMS confused   Unresolved, happened once   None
Condensation in taillight   Unresolved prior to sale   None
"

[theoldwizard1]

I really should NOT jump in at the end of this discussion ...

First, I am a retireed automotive engineer.  The only big changes in EV that have happened (or are still happening) in the past 2-30 years are cheaper/more energy dense batteries and cheaper electronics for 3 phase or BLDC motors.  Still this is not enough.  At least in the US, I can not foresee a time in my life, when EV will make up much more than 30% of the total light vehicle market.

1) They do not have the range most US residents want/need
2) We do not have adequate infrastructure (power generation and distribution) to charge the huge number of these vehicles

What is likely in the next 10-20 years is that maybe the top 10 cities of the world with the worst air pollution will either ban single user ICE or ICE entirely or tax the heck out of the vehicle/fuel.  At most 2 or 3 of those cities might be in the US.

[RoGeorge]

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-late-party-german-carmakers-tesla.html

[DougSpindler]

I really should NOT jump in at the end of this discussion ...

First, I am a retireed automotive engineer.  The only big changes in EV that have happened (or are still happening) in the past 2-30 years are cheaper/more energy dense batteries and cheaper electronics for 3 phase or BLDC motors.  Still this is not enough.  At least in the US, I can not foresee a time in my life, when EV will make up much more than 30% of the total light vehicle market.

1) They do not have the range most US residents want/need
2) We do not have adequate infrastructure (power generation and distribution) to charge the huge number of these vehicles

What is likely in the next 10-20 years is that maybe the top 10 cities of the world with the worst air pollution will either ban single user ICE or ICE entirely or tax the heck out of the vehicle/fuel.  At most 2 or 3 of those cities might be in the US.

This is an ongoing discussion you are welcome to join I in.  We need more points of view.  I live in California which is Tesla Country and where electricity prices are the highest in the country.  While I don’t have a Tesla, I do own a Volt.  We looked at all electric and as you said there are just way too many issues that need to be resolved.

What’s interesting is Jay Leno has a Baker electric car that’s about 100 years ago.  According to Jay, the range of the Baker is about the same as modern EVs.  The only difference is the speed.  Baker’s top speed was around 35.


 

[DougSpindler]

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-late-party-german-carmakers-tesla.html

\
Interesting article, thanks for posting.  One has to ask how Germany plans to "fuel" all of those electric cars.  As Germany is phasing out nuclear power they will be using more.  Yes they have solar and wind but that's not enough, so they continue to burn more coal.  As nuclear gets phased out they continue to burn more coal.  When Germany has a shortage they purchase electricity from France's nuclear power plants.


Seems to me to me if we are going to feed the energy demands of all of these electric cars the only solution we will eihter have to burn more coal or build new nuclear power plants.  Please don't say solar and wind will provide all of that power as we know it can't.  The solar and wind power association is saying using their best estimates in 30 years solar and wind might be able to supply the world with 15 to 18% of what's being consumed.  The indsutry just doesn't have the raw materails and factories to produce more.

I live in Caliorna where we have hydro.  We've already dammed all of the rivers so we can't produce any more hydro.  And it looks like we will have to supplment hydro by bunring coal soon.  The water level in Lake Mead has dropped by over 150 feet over the last 20 years.  Due to the decrease in water pressure at the turbines it takes more water to generate the same amount of electricty as when the water level was higher.  And then there's the issue of not having enough water for everyone.  Californa has lost so much ground water the gound is sinking.  If I remember correctly the ground has dropped 100 feet and mroe in some parts of the state.

So one has to ask if even 5% of the cars on the roard are EV where's the electricty going to come from?

[theoldwizard1]

Interesting article, thanks for posting.  One has to ask how Germany plans to "fuel" all of those electric cars.  As Germany is phasing out nuclear power they will be using more.  Yes they have solar and wind but that's not enough, so they continue to burn more coal.  As nuclear gets phased out they continue to burn more coal. 

All of the "green energy"/anti-nuke people seem to be missing this.

Even though Germany is trying to setup a pipe line from Russia to purchase natural gas, that still add CO and CO2 to the air.

The world need MORE and BETTER nuclear power plants.  Ones that are truly "fail safe".

[DougSpindler]

Interesting article, thanks for posting.  One has to ask how Germany plans to "fuel" all of those electric cars.  As Germany is phasing out nuclear power they will be using more.  Yes they have solar and wind but that's not enough, so they continue to burn more coal.  As nuclear gets phased out they continue to burn more coal. 

All of the "green energy"/anti-nuke people seem to be missing this.

Even though Germany is trying to setup a pipe line from Russia to purchase natural gas, that still add CO and CO2 to the air.

The world need MORE and BETTER nuclear power plants.  Ones that are truly "fail safe".

I would agree.  US has NIF, France is building ITER and there are about 100 other private companies working on next gen nuclear.

What's crazy about burning natural gas and coal is that the burning releases millions of tones of radioactive nuclear isotopes into the atmosphere. 

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

If in the end part of the solution were synthetic fuel it wouldn't surprise me. H2 from water electrolysis, C from biomass, and the required energy coming from PVs/other renewables, because li-ion batteries fall short for planes and ships: these need the good old high energy density liquid (hydrocarbon) fuels.

[gildasd]

Interesting article, thanks for posting.  One has to ask how Germany plans to "fuel" all of those electric cars.  As Germany is phasing out nuclear power they will be using more.  Yes they have solar and wind but that's not enough, so they continue to burn more coal.  As nuclear gets phased out they continue to burn more coal. 

All of the "green energy"/anti-nuke people seem to be missing this.

Even though Germany is trying to setup a pipe line from Russia to purchase natural gas, that still add CO and CO2 to the air.

The world need MORE and BETTER nuclear power plants.  Ones that are truly "fail safe".

I think nuclear is the way to go medium term. But not the arse over heels way the UK is doing it...
burning black coal for energy is silly. How are we going to make steel without it? Polluting and a waste of a precious resource.
Burning brown coal is simply nonsense, should have never been done.

About wind, right now, there are huge tenders for private, no public money, insanely extensive wind farms in the North Sea. The scale is just mind boggling. And a few are German.
The whole sale price of electricity they can turn a profit on is nuts, like a 0 too low - tech is moving on fast in this sector!
I could go on and on about this, but this is my work and in my enthusiasm I might step over an NDA... Or two.
Lets just say, there is a reason all the big players have built or are building specialised vessels that are totally overkill for the current demand. These vessels cost something like 30 000€ a day to wait and up and over 250 000€ per day to work (I cannot be more precise, sorry).

And the same thing is starting to happen in places in Asia where I'll be sailing to next spring (say no more).

Big money is going into wind, as if it is done right the ROI can be as low as 4 years for a minimum lifespan of 25 (can't be more accurate, sorry).
So, green is going into green to make green, not to save polar bears, but that might be a consequence.

Also, I sometimes am in the offshore oil and gas, and to put it in a way that wont get me fired: I have seen things right out of Mordor, yup, that bad. It is pushing me to go electric (house, PV and car) despite my love for IC engines.
the amount spilled, burnt for giggles or wasted is beyond stupid (but it is much cleaner than before my older colleagues say - i can't even imagine).

[DougSpindler]

If in the end part of the solution were synthetic fuel it wouldn't surprise me. H2 from water electrolysis, C from biomass, and the required energy coming from PVs/other renewables, because li-ion batteries fall short for planes and ships: these need the good old high density liquid (hydrocarbon) fuels.

Guess you didn't watch the videos on just how which shows just how inefficient H2 from water electrolysis is  not to mention the storage and issues.  Or the issues in producing energy from biomass.  It's not that it can't be done. but the energy required to produce the energy just makes both unrealistic and we don't even have a clue to improve efficiency which would make either a viable alternative.


So lets review We need to find a replacement for fossil fuels/coal/natural gas etc. for our transporation and electricty needs. 
Wind/solar is promising but can't scale.  Bast case in 30 years we might be able to get 18%.  It's a start, but not a full solution.


Hydrogen/biomass - We know that's not going to work.  Hydrogen is so inefficient proven not to be worth it.  Biomass - Looked promising...  But as people don't like GMOs.  And for the orginisms we've modified there oil production dramaticly decreases. 

What's left?  - Hydro?  We've run out of rivers to dam.

Geothermal - Like solar will give us some energy, but not much.  Maybe 5%?


So were are we going to get the other 77%?  Just leaves nucelar.....

[DougSpindler]

Interesting article, thanks for posting.  One has to ask how Germany plans to "fuel" all of those electric cars.  As Germany is phasing out nuclear power they will be using more.  Yes they have solar and wind but that's not enough, so they continue to burn more coal.  As nuclear gets phased out they continue to burn more coal. 

All of the "green energy"/anti-nuke people seem to be missing this.

Even though Germany is trying to setup a pipe line from Russia to purchase natural gas, that still add CO and CO2 to the air.

The world need MORE and BETTER nuclear power plants.  Ones that are truly "fail safe".

I think nuclear is the way to go medium term. But not the arse over heels way the UK is doing it...
burning black coal for energy is silly. How are we going to make steel without it? Polluting and a waste of a precious resource.
Burning brown coal is simply nonsense, should have never been done.

About wind, right now, there are huge tenders for private, no public money, insanely extensive wind farms in the North Sea. The scale is just mind boggling. And a few are German.
The whole sale price of electricity they can turn a profit on is nuts, like a 0 too low - tech is moving on fast in this sector!
I could go on and on about this, but this is my work and in my enthusiasm I might step over an NDA... Or two.
Lets just say, there is a reason all the big players have built or are building specialised vessels that are totally overkill for the current demand. These vessels cost something like 30 000€ a day to wait and up and over 250 000€ per day to work (I cannot be more precise, sorry).

And the same thing is starting to happen in places in Asia where I'll be sailing to next spring (say no more).

Big money is going into wind, as if it is done right the ROI can be as low as 4 years for a minimum lifespan of 25 (can't be more accurate, sorry).
So, green is going into green to make green, not to save polar bears, but that might be a consequence.

Also, I sometimes am in the offshore oil and gas, and to put it in a way that wont get me fired: I have seen things right out of Mordor, yup, that bad. It is pushing me to go electric (house, PV and car) despite my love for IC engines.
the amount spilled, burnt for giggles or wasted is beyond stupid (but it is much cleaner than before my older colleagues say - i can't even imagine).

Can you explain the difference between brown and back coal?

Thanks

[gildasd]

Interesting article, thanks for posting.  One has to ask how Germany plans to "fuel" all of those electric cars.  As Germany is phasing out nuclear power they will be using more.  Yes they have solar and wind but that's not enough, so they continue to burn more coal.  As nuclear gets phased out they continue to burn more coal. 

All of the "green energy"/anti-nuke people seem to be missing this.

Even though Germany is trying to setup a pipe line from Russia to purchase natural gas, that still add CO and CO2 to the air.

The world need MORE and BETTER nuclear power plants.  Ones that are truly "fail safe".

I think nuclear is the way to go medium term. But not the arse over heels way the UK is doing it...
burning black coal for energy is silly. How are we going to make steel without it? Polluting and a waste of a precious resource.
Burning brown coal is simply nonsense, should have never been done.

About wind, right now, there are huge tenders for private, no public money, insanely extensive wind farms in the North Sea. The scale is just mind boggling. And a few are German.
The whole sale price of electricity they can turn a profit on is nuts, like a 0 too low - tech is moving on fast in this sector!
I could go on and on about this, but this is my work and in my enthusiasm I might step over an NDA... Or two.
Lets just say, there is a reason all the big players have built or are building specialised vessels that are totally overkill for the current demand. These vessels cost something like 30 000€ a day to wait and up and over 250 000€ per day to work (I cannot be more precise, sorry).

And the same thing is starting to happen in places in Asia where I'll be sailing to next spring (say no more).

Big money is going into wind, as if it is done right the ROI can be as low as 4 years for a minimum lifespan of 25 (can't be more accurate, sorry).
So, green is going into green to make green, not to save polar bears, but that might be a consequence.

Also, I sometimes am in the offshore oil and gas, and to put it in a way that wont get me fired: I have seen things right out of Mordor, yup, that bad. It is pushing me to go electric (house, PV and car) despite my love for IC engines.
the amount spilled, burnt for giggles or wasted is beyond stupid (but it is much cleaner than before my older colleagues say - i can't even imagine).

Can you explain the difference between brown and back coal?

Thanks

For my interests (steel ships), it very hard to make coke from lignite, and to have affordable steel, coke is a necessity.
For more info, use Google: https://www.gktoday.in/gk/difference-between-peat-lignite-bituminous-and-anthracite/

[gildasd]

Btw, there is a wealth of info on offshore firms web pages, even if some of best stuff is in the native tongue of the company  .

For example:
https://www.facebook.com/search/str/deme+group/links-keyword/articles-links
Even the "press" pages are full of goodies.
https://www.jandenul.com/en/press/press-releases
The Fleet pages is often full of gems... If you search a bit, you can even find vessels whose keel is yet to be laid - and their price!
https://www.vanoord.com/activities/offshore-wind-equipment

Just to say, the investment in wind installation capacity is big, VERY BIG, right now and it is done for a reason. Just put the bread crumbs in a line.

[DougSpindler]

Interesting article, thanks for posting.  One has to ask how Germany plans to "fuel" all of those electric cars.  As Germany is phasing out nuclear power they will be using more.  Yes they have solar and wind but that's not enough, so they continue to burn more coal.  As nuclear gets phased out they continue to burn more coal. 

All of the "green energy"/anti-nuke people seem to be missing this.

Even though Germany is trying to setup a pipe line from Russia to purchase natural gas, that still add CO and CO2 to the air.

The world need MORE and BETTER nuclear power plants.  Ones that are truly "fail safe".

I think nuclear is the way to go medium term. But not the arse over heels way the UK is doing it...
burning black coal for energy is silly. How are we going to make steel without it? Polluting and a waste of a precious resource.
Burning brown coal is simply nonsense, should have never been done.

About wind, right now, there are huge tenders for private, no public money, insanely extensive wind farms in the North Sea. The scale is just mind boggling. And a few are German.
The whole sale price of electricity they can turn a profit on is nuts, like a 0 too low - tech is moving on fast in this sector!
I could go on and on about this, but this is my work and in my enthusiasm I might step over an NDA... Or two.
Lets just say, there is a reason all the big players have built or are building specialised vessels that are totally overkill for the current demand. These vessels cost something like 30 000€ a day to wait and up and over 250 000€ per day to work (I cannot be more precise, sorry).

And the same thing is starting to happen in places in Asia where I'll be sailing to next spring (say no more).

Big money is going into wind, as if it is done right the ROI can be as low as 4 years for a minimum lifespan of 25 (can't be more accurate, sorry).
So, green is going into green to make green, not to save polar bears, but that might be a consequence.

Also, I sometimes am in the offshore oil and gas, and to put it in a way that wont get me fired: I have seen things right out of Mordor, yup, that bad. It is pushing me to go electric (house, PV and car) despite my love for IC engines.
the amount spilled, burnt for giggles or wasted is beyond stupid (but it is much cleaner than before my older colleagues say - i can't even imagine).

Can you explain the difference between brown and back coal?

Thanks

For my interests (steel ships), it very hard to make coke from lignite, and to have affordable steel, coke is a necessity.
For more info, use Google: https://www.gktoday.in/gk/difference-between-peat-lignite-bituminous-and-anthracite/

Thanks, this is interesting.  I live in California and we have almost not coal here so don't know much about it.  What I can tell you is in the early half of the last century people were moving to California of the clear non-polluted air.  By around 1940 Southern California people were noticing the air was becoming more and more polluted.  No-one had a clue where the pollution was coming from.  It was at UC Berkeley the source of the pollution was realized.....  It was the automobile exhaust.  Over the next 20-30 years California's air was so polluted from automobile exhaust the sky was that greenish, yellow-brown and people were having berating problems.

In California politicians worked to clean our air.  They regulated and created the toughest anti-pollution laws in the world.  I like most other California’s cursed our government for passing all of those strict anti-pollution laws.  Now 30 years later I must thank all of those politicians   Our air is clean.  I can’t even remember when the last smog day was.   Thank you government!,  for cleaning up our air.

[Kjelt]

Can you explain the difference between brown and back coal? 

Black coal is mined underground and brown coal leaves giant "sahara" lookalike disasters that can even be seen from the space station 

[nfmax]

... people were having berating problems.

Just what this thread needs - a Freudian autocorrection!

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

If in the end part of the solution were synthetic fuel it wouldn't surprise me. H2 from water electrolysis, C from biomass, and the required energy coming from PVs/other renewables, because li-ion batteries fall short for planes and ships: these need the good old high density liquid (hydrocarbon) fuels.

[...]
Just leaves nucelar.....

But when the oil runs out Fischer–Tropsch synthetic fuels might be the solution, because we need planes and ships and planes can't fly with nuclear.

[gildasd]

If in the end part of the solution were synthetic fuel it wouldn't surprise me. H2 from water electrolysis, C from biomass, and the required energy coming from PVs/other renewables, because li-ion batteries fall short for planes and ships: these need the good old high density liquid (hydrocarbon) fuels.

[...]
Just leaves nucelar.....

But when the oil runs out Fischer–Tropsch synthetic fuels might be the solution, because we need planes and ships and planes can't fly with nuclear.

The big idea is to have way too much capacity so that even at minimum production "no wind or sun over the whole of western Europe mythical day", the reliance on co generation or batteries is kept to a minimum.
All the other days, 364 of them, the wind would produce hydrogen with the excess (otherwise lost - aka nearly free) energy and convert that to methane. Once we have methane, longer hydrocarbons are possible. But methane, of itself, is already a easy to manage fuel.

The same method could be used to keep Nuclear plants running at optimal power levels, as they don't like low loads...

But the problem is getting to methane, as the Sabatier method is a bit iffy, but serious efforts are going into this:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/510066/audi-to-make-fuel-using-solar-power/ for example.
But, to be honest, I can't even pretend to have dug into it.
Could be the next big thing or "Solar Roadways II, the CH4 connection" for all I know...

[DougSpindler]

If in the end part of the solution were synthetic fuel it wouldn't surprise me. H2 from water electrolysis, C from biomass, and the required energy coming from PVs/other renewables, because li-ion batteries fall short for planes and ships: these need the good old high density liquid (hydrocarbon) fuels.

[...]
Just leaves nucelar.....

But when the oil runs out Fischer–Tropsch synthetic fuels might be the solution, because we need planes and ships and planes can't fly with nuclear.

The Russians have nuclear powered aircraft.  It flies.  I think the pilots and crew have a 20 year or less life span.  US had plans for  nuclear powereed planes but I don't think one was ever built.

[DougSpindler]

If in the end part of the solution were synthetic fuel it wouldn't surprise me. H2 from water electrolysis, C from biomass, and the required energy coming from PVs/other renewables, because li-ion batteries fall short for planes and ships: these need the good old high density liquid (hydrocarbon) fuels.

[...]
Just leaves nucelar.....

But when the oil runs out Fischer–Tropsch synthetic fuels might be the solution, because we need planes and ships and planes can't fly with nuclear.

The big idea is to have way too much capacity so that even at minimum production "no wind or sun over the whole of western Europe mythical day", the reliance on co generation or batteries is kept to a minimum.
All the other days, 364 of them, the wind would produce hydrogen with the excess (otherwise lost - aka nearly free) energy and convert that to methane. Once we have methane, longer hydrocarbons are possible. But methane, of itself, is already a easy to manage fuel.

The same method could be used to keep Nuclear plants running at optimal power levels, as they don't like low loads...

But the problem is getting to methane, as the Sabatier method is a bit iffy, but serious efforts are going into this:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/510066/audi-to-make-fuel-using-solar-power/ for example.
But, to be honest, I can't even pretend to have dug into it.
Could be the next big thing or "Solar Roadways II, the CH4 connection" for all I know...

That mythical day where there was no sun for solar and no wind to spin wind-turbines was 2 weeks.  Both Great Brittan and Germany were affected.  Both burned more coal and purchased nuclear produced electricity from France.  If you look you will see a spike in Germany's burning of coal last year as a result of the renewables not producing.

As for Audi - They need to look at the Hydrogen fuel video to see why this isn't going to work.  The amount of electricity involved in electrolysis of water into H-H O and storage is enormous. But they are adding a twist by using methane.  So maybe........  But highly unlikely this would work.  Watch the following vidoe.

[nctnico]

As for Audi - They need to look at the Hydrogen fuel video to see why this isn't going to work.  The amount of electricity involved in electrolysis of water into H-H O and storage is enormous. But they are adding a twist by using methane.  So maybe........  But highly unlikely this would work.  Watch the following vidoe.

The error in this video is that efficiency doesn't matter to the consumer. Costs and comfort are what make or break a solution.