2 ms·

> What do you think is going to be the overhead of the conversion rate to electricity, electricity transportation ? Well, for example transformers are ~98% eff

by jhgb 4y ago

> What do you think is going to be the overhead of the conversion rate to electricity, electricity transportation ? Well, for example transformers are ~98% efficient, AC lines lose around 7% per 1000 km. So with three transformers between you and the power plant and a ~300 km distance, you lose around 8% between the power plant and you. > Because if it is another 50% you lost all interest (but you built a plant and a float of cars and batteries in the meantime). No, not really. You're still not powering your cars purely from fossil fuels, so even 50% of losses would still be a win when it comes to minimizing fossil fuel emissions caused by road transportation. You'd only have to burn enough fossil fuels to cover whatever the non-fossil-fuel generators wouldn't be able to provide at any given time. But as I pointed out above, you almost certainly won't get 50% of losses. > Except I live in France and we are starting to have electricity cuts because we can't maintain our nuclear plants properly. So we are in a little bit more trouble than you might think. Nah, not really. France is in a great position to generate fairly substantial amounts of electricity from renewables with complementing the rest from nuclear power. Not to mention that I'd expect the EPR design to finally be sorted out after the initial units built. It's not like you'll need it tomorrow -- the transition to BEVs will take a considerable time. Even if sales of ICE cars actually stop in 2035, ICE vehicles won't disappear overnight. They'll only be gradually replaced for a decade or so.

bionsystem 4y ago
I can't judge on your numbers but just to point out that we were comparing gasoline plants + EV vs gasoline cars and I feel that the discussion is switching into NE plants + EV vs gasoline cars. I also think that a lot of steel+copper+lithium and others are not taken into the equation to replace cars and manufacture more plants. Steel particularly consumes a lot of energy to produce. Uranium shortages are going to become a thing too especially with new demand from China. Also I disagree with your optimism on french nuclear and renewable, having worked there and having friends working in EDF and also following various debates, political decisions, and news flow, we went from quite optimistic a few years back to more and more pessimistic about the whole thing. Nobody seems to want a nuclear plant, or a solar/wind power field next to their home. And the competency for nuclear has retired or seems to be going to China or elsewhere for counseling now.
- jhgb 4y ago
  > but just to point out that we were comparing gasoline plants + EV vs gasoline cars and I feel that the discussion is switching into NE plants + EV vs gasoline cars. Not sure what "NE plants" are (I'd understand that NG would be natural gas) but the point was that whatever liquid hydrocarbons you can put into a car can be used even more efficiently in a large scale facility. And if you intend to operate such plants, you don't need to crack oil into gasoline for them, so they wouldn't be gasoline plants, even if they were oil-fired. > Nobody seems to want a nuclear plant, or a solar/wind power field next to their home I've had a solar plant next to my home for years and I've had zero problems with it. I wouldn't have a problem with a nuclear plant either. (With wind power it's a moot point since the place where I live has zero useful wind for any potential turbine installation.)
LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
> Well, for example transformers are ~98% efficient, AC lines lose around 7% per 1000 km. So with three transformers between you and the power plant and a ~300 km distance, you lose around 8% between the power plant and you. That's not how it works because it's assuming a point to point connection for your use case. In reality there is the grid, and from everything I know transmission losses from whichever source to your socket over that grid average out to 50% best case, to about only one third reaching the destination. The latter for instance for electrified rail.
- jhgb 4y ago
  Can me give you an example of such cases? Because where I live, the grid absolutely does not suffer such horrible losses. "50% best case" would be absolutely unthinkable here -- especially for purpose-built medium-voltage systems like electrical rail.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
    Since this isn't my area of expertise, no, I didn't bookmark them. Just looked into it repeatedly since the beginning of our transformation to renewable and sustainable energy here, since about 2008. I thought the same regarding losses and grid, but it seems like it is so with current technology. I live (mostly) in Germany. But as I've said, when you zoom out and look into it, considering all that goes through and into it, it seems like it. No matter where. ISTR tidbits from documentaries, many websites specializing in analysis, even wikipedia. Especially that rail thing, only one third from power plant reaching the locomotive is normal. Let's put it this way: You have a model for your use case, a (mind) map. But the map is not the territory :-)
    - jhgb 4y ago
      > Especially that rail thing, only one third from power plant reaching the locomotive is normal. Link please. Because that would be a terrible performance figure for a high power system like that. Worst possible loss figures I've been able to find for our grid are 15% losses between the power plant and the plug, and that's including the losses in low-voltage distribution (400 V 50 Hz three-phase). Modern rail runs at 25 kV/50 Hz single-phase. 66% losses would be mind-boggling. As per [1], the expected losses for powering 25 kV rail are around 7% including conversion between transmission lines and the traction lines. So even including losses between the power plant and the conversion substation, they should definitely be significantly below 20%. [1] https://vts.cd.cz/documents/168518/195369/3201.pdf/9a95e429-60d6-4903-ba9d-164e4245ee2d https://vts.cd.cz/documents/168518/195369/3201.pdf/9a95e429-...

by jhgb 4y ago

bionsystem 4y ago

I can't judge on your numbers but just to point out that we were comparing gasoline plants + EV vs gasoline cars and I feel that the discussion is switching into NE plants + EV vs gasoline cars. I also think that a lot of steel+copper+lithium and others are not taken into the equation to replace cars and manufacture more plants. Steel particularly consumes a lot of energy to produce. Uranium shortages are going to become a thing too especially with new demand from China. Also I disagree with your optimism on french nuclear and renewable, having worked there and having friends working in EDF and also following various debates, political decisions, and news flow, we went from quite optimistic a few years back to more and more pessimistic about the whole thing. Nobody seems to want a nuclear plant, or a solar/wind power field next to their home. And the competency for nuclear has retired or seems to be going to China or elsewhere for counseling now.

jhgb 4y ago
> but just to point out that we were comparing gasoline plants + EV vs gasoline cars and I feel that the discussion is switching into NE plants + EV vs gasoline cars. Not sure what "NE plants" are (I'd understand that NG would be natural gas) but the point was that whatever liquid hydrocarbons you can put into a car can be used even more efficiently in a large scale facility. And if you intend to operate such plants, you don't need to crack oil into gasoline for them, so they wouldn't be gasoline plants, even if they were oil-fired. > Nobody seems to want a nuclear plant, or a solar/wind power field next to their home I've had a solar plant next to my home for years and I've had zero problems with it. I wouldn't have a problem with a nuclear plant either. (With wind power it's a moot point since the place where I live has zero useful wind for any potential turbine installation.)

LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago

> Well, for example transformers are ~98% efficient, AC lines lose around 7% per 1000 km. So with three transformers between you and the power plant and a ~300 km distance, you lose around 8% between the power plant and you. That's not how it works because it's assuming a point to point connection for your use case. In reality there is the grid, and from everything I know transmission losses from whichever source to your socket over that grid average out to 50% best case, to about only one third reaching the destination. The latter for instance for electrified rail.

jhgb 4y ago
Can me give you an example of such cases? Because where I live, the grid absolutely does not suffer such horrible losses. "50% best case" would be absolutely unthinkable here -- especially for purpose-built medium-voltage systems like electrical rail.
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  Since this isn't my area of expertise, no, I didn't bookmark them. Just looked into it repeatedly since the beginning of our transformation to renewable and sustainable energy here, since about 2008. I thought the same regarding losses and grid, but it seems like it is so with current technology. I live (mostly) in Germany. But as I've said, when you zoom out and look into it, considering all that goes through and into it, it seems like it. No matter where. ISTR tidbits from documentaries, many websites specializing in analysis, even wikipedia. Especially that rail thing, only one third from power plant reaching the locomotive is normal. Let's put it this way: You have a model for your use case, a (mind) map. But the map is not the territory :-)
  - jhgb 4y ago
    > Especially that rail thing, only one third from power plant reaching the locomotive is normal. Link please. Because that would be a terrible performance figure for a high power system like that. Worst possible loss figures I've been able to find for our grid are 15% losses between the power plant and the plug, and that's including the losses in low-voltage distribution (400 V 50 Hz three-phase). Modern rail runs at 25 kV/50 Hz single-phase. 66% losses would be mind-boggling. As per [1], the expected losses for powering 25 kV rail are around 7% including conversion between transmission lines and the traction lines. So even including losses between the power plant and the conversion substation, they should definitely be significantly below 20%. [1] https://vts.cd.cz/documents/168518/195369/3201.pdf/9a95e429-60d6-4903-ba9d-164e4245ee2d https://vts.cd.cz/documents/168518/195369/3201.pdf/9a95e429-...