Wingamm make monocoque coachbuilts in small numbers, but they are expensive. I am totally in favour of a paradigm shift away from the current cottage industry business model and its inconsistent workmanship problems. Let's have lighter, stronger composite materials. As for foam as insulation it should also have low combustibility, unlike the flammable stuff inside MH panels today which spreads the fire and destroys the entire vehicle in a few minutes, so you need to get out really fast.
2030 no new diesel vans. What's your plan?
- Thread starter Jim
- Start date
The Lobster
Free Member
- Aug 13, 2011
- 321
- 325
- Funster No
- 17,743
- MH
- Bürstner A576
- Exp
- Still getting started
Again you're talking about about now - I'm talking about the future. Fuel cells aren't as efficient as batteries right now, but are at an earlier stage in development. For a valid comparison you need to look at the supply chain and where energy is lost along the way towards the electric motor.
I am not talking about now, nor am i talking about the future. I am talking about physics which doesn't change. I am talking about if the systems in place were 100% efficient.
Physics dictates that it takes 39KWh of electricity to electrolyse water into 1KG of hydrogen. This is the best possible if everything is perfect. This is the amount of energy it requires to break the bond between a hydrogen and oxygen atom.
We are not at 100% efficiency for electrolysis so by me using it I am giving hydrogen every single advantage.
Physics dictates that the maximum possible efficiency for a hydrogen fuel cell is 83%. This is if you use 100% pure hydrogen and 100% pure oxygen (Not free air). This is the amount of energy required to join hydrogen and oxygen and release an electron. You can't just put hydrogen and oxygen in a container where they will form water and release an electron. You need to add energy to cause this to happen. You cannot convert energy from one form to another with 100% efficiency.
In between electrolysing water and pumping hydrogen into your car you need a compressor/chiller to compress and chill the hydrogen. Remember it needs to be compressed to around 10,000psi. This takes further energy.
If we use the very best theoretical compressor the ionic membrane compressor which can reach theoretical maximum efficiency of 70% it takes a further 2.7KWh per KG of hydrogen.
You see here I am giving hydrogen ALL the benefits by making it as efficient as physics allows in my calculations. EVEN if technology could advance to be absolutely perfect with zero losses over and above those dictated by physics Hydrogen needs 3X the amount of electric.
In the real world the actual figure is closer to 5-6X if everything goes perfectly well using the best of today tech. And please note I don't even include the energy required to move the hydrogen around the country.
That is the physics.
The economics are even more damming. Would you buy a hydrogen motorhome today if it was available? Would you do this even thought there is no where to fill it? I didn't think so. No one else is either.
So, with that in mind now imagine you have a couple of £100M and are looking to invest it. Would you invest it in a company who wants to build out a hydrogen filling station network even though there is no one with a hydrogen fuelled car? Or would you invest in a fast growing company building out a network of EV charging stations.
This is the basic catch 22.
Remember a hydrogen fuel station costs £2-3M to build out. A battery charging station is on the order of £100,000 - £200,000 for a large one.
Now lets get into the real world. For hydrogen to work you would need 3x the amount of electricity. People are complaining that our Grid and generators can't handle the conversion to EV's and electric heating. Where is the extra electric going to come from for Hydrogen?
One last economics question. If an electric generator has the opportunity to sell their electric to a charging station or a hydrogen generator, they will sell to whoever is paying more. For hydrogen to work, the electric needs to be 1/5th price to allow the hydrogen generator to be competitive with a BEV.
I will leave it there.
Just on one key point:
"People are complaining that our Grid and generators can't handle the conversion to EV's and electric heating."
Exactly. The Grid and generators have barely coped during this current freeze, relying on the interconnectors to balance demand. We will be short of about 8 new large nuclear power stations when the time comes to turn off all the coal and gas powered generation capacity and rely on wind, sun and renewables to power the extra EVs and electric domestic boilers. Get your yellow gilets on and pitchforks ready. And bring torches!
"People are complaining that our Grid and generators can't handle the conversion to EV's and electric heating."
Exactly. The Grid and generators have barely coped during this current freeze, relying on the interconnectors to balance demand. We will be short of about 8 new large nuclear power stations when the time comes to turn off all the coal and gas powered generation capacity and rely on wind, sun and renewables to power the extra EVs and electric domestic boilers. Get your yellow gilets on and pitchforks ready. And bring torches!
They would be rechargeable torches I assume.
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
The grid hasn't been under any emergency stress at all. It has operated as designed with zero black outs.
Watching Sky News it was said that Sizewell nuclear Power station in Suffolk may be used for producing Hydrogen as nuclear is very low carbon when taking everything into consideration, i assume that means when it's not running at full generation they (EDF) will produce the Hydrogen this is a way of producing it cheaply ie. using the power at non peak times , I don't know anything else because I 'm not a Boffin ,but it seems logical to do this and I believe Hydrogen is going to be the way forward
I fully support hydrogen production using off peak electric that is surplus to demand. However 3 things to note on this.
1) grid scale storage will grow massively over the next 5-10 years and will absorb a lot of off peak energy.
2) EV's for the most part (but not all) will be charged overnight on cheap overnight electric reducing the excess quite significantly.
3) Hydrogen has many uses, and road transport will be bottom of the list. Think things like steel production, shipping and possibly air transport which will take priority because they are not suitable for battery power.
Phileas Fogg
Free Member
How about fitting a great big key on the back and a spring under the floor then you could just wind it up and off you go. I might just patent that idea!
Are you winding us up ?
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
Coolcats
LIFE MEMBER
- Jan 24, 2019
- 6,622
- 12,438
- Funster No
- 58,207
- MH
- HymerCar Ayres Rock
Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong I suspect a decade or so ago he would have said there is no future for EV’s now look we have the ID range and after all that investment why would he want to put the company through that again....for a while anyway.
Coolcats
LIFE MEMBER
- Jan 24, 2019
- 6,622
- 12,438
- Funster No
- 58,207
- MH
- HymerCar Ayres Rock
I do love the way you wave around ‘the Physics’ to put down any argument about Hydrogen particularly when we all drive around in petrol and diesel vehicles which are notoriously inefficient from an energy perspective.
Hydrogen could be a perfectly good source of alternative energy to power vehicles. Time will tell.
This is what I see excess overnight energy being used for.
ESS Makes 12+ Hour Flow Battery For Sustainable Energy Storage - CleanTechnica
Renewable energy loves energy storage, and this new all-iron, long duration flow battery from ESS loves renewables.
cleantechnica.com
Companies will buy this setup and buy cheap electric at night to charge it, then release it at peak time for very, very good profits.
This will mean we no longer need to switch on peaker plants during peak time and won't have to pay curtailment fees to the intermittents.
Initially it will only shave the peak, but over time as more is rolled out it well levelise the entire grid.
I don't wave "The Physics" around. It is an extremely solid reason as to why it won't happen. The reason I love physics is because it is fact writ large. It is the rules governing the universe. There is no better argument than "Physic prohibits it".
The other side of the argument is used just as much. Elon for instance looked at rockets and talked about landing them. The experts said it can't be done due to the "Tyranny of the Rocket equation". Musk went back to first principles and found that "Physics does not prohibit" landing an orbital class rocket. So off he went and did it.
Physics is the core of every engineering discipline.
You seem to love denigrating physics and trying to ignore the facts?
Hydrogen could be a perfectly good source of alternative energy to power vehicles if there wasn't a better option. Physics has already answered this one then economics pounded the last nail in.
You don't seem to like me using facts and science to put a strong argument together. Are you perhaps a little flustered that nothing trumps physics?
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
Erm, VW did look at hydrogen and were into it pretty heavily until quite recently. They have with the exception of Audi pulled out of it and shut it down as a non runner now that BEV's have become so good and the price of batteries have fallen.
Missing the point. Just because we haven't had blackouts during this freeze doesn't mean we have energy security. The UK is over-reliant on the interconnectors and therefore depends on other countries' continued willingness at all peak demand times to export their spare capacity. If the rest of Europe follows the UK lead, that extra capacity will also disappear. This kind of short-term self-congratulation over not having blackouts seems delusionally optimistic.
The Department for Energy and Cimate Change looked at the scenario when by 2050 there is an end to all use of gas for heating and cooking, on which 90% of all households relied, to be replaced instead by electricity. At the same time, 60% of all cars would be EVs by 2030. The DECC projected that this would require a doubling of electricity generation and transmission capacity. Including a fleet of new nuclear power stations as well as renewables. The DECC also acknowledged a need to retain some of the installed gas electricity generation capacity instead of decommissioning it all.
Your proposed grid scale batteries won't come anywhere near to filling the energy gap at times of peak demand, maybe not even close to replacing one missing large nuclear power station. If you want to disprove that, let's have your facts and figures.
The reality is that this unscientific Government is galloping ahead with its Green-led policies to force the switch from fossil fuel dependency to renewables based electricity, without a realistic investment plan to meet the projected doubling in electricity demand. It is epic wishful thinking.
Not true I am sorry...
The EU threatened to cut off the interconnects during negotiations. There was a scare story splattered across one paper about us not being able to manage without them.
The national grid responded.
The UK relies on this source of power because it is marginally cheaper most of the time, not because it lacks alternatives.
The National Grid says it has the back-up capacity to handle any crisis that arises. “In the highly unlikely event of no interconnector flows between Great Britain and continental Europe we have the tools and capabilities to ensure security of supply,” it said.
Utilities are subsidised to maintain a safety buffer. Those able to provide dispatchable power are paid £8.40 per kilowatt through an auction process in order to keep spare capacity available for episodes of extreme weather or for a strategic emergency.
If necessary, the power can come from the UK’s 45 gas plants or four surviving coal plants. The mechanism is regulated by price signals and therefore any shortfall from the Continent would rapidly tighten the markets and cause utilities to reactivate gas power stations.
There are 46.4 gigawatts (GW) of dispatchable capacity in the UK - just about enough to cover peak demand even if wind and solar output fall to zero.
Coolcats
LIFE MEMBER
- Jan 24, 2019
- 6,622
- 12,438
- Funster No
- 58,207
- MH
- HymerCar Ayres Rock
Far from it Gromett, but if the world was shaped from ‘Physics’ alone it would be a pretty dull place.
There are other paradigms at play whilst something may not be the most efficient does not mean it will not sell or desired. Some Motorhomes will only do low 20 or even teens to the gallon but they are still sold, people buy them even though the ‘Physics’ tells them there are more energy efficient MoHo’s on the market.
so there you have it...people are not rational neither are manufacturers and you may just find Hydrogen alternatives become available and people buying them to meet their needs and desires.
That's quite amusing. I have never said the world was shaped by Physics alone. Physics is the underpinnings of everything we do, make or use. It is the core rules that govern what is possible. What we do can be amazing, fantastic, awe inspiring but must be within the rules of physics.
This is not a choice, it is a physical restriction.
Ok, you are trying to tip this on it's head. I have never said that lower efficiency processes can't be economically viable. Did you know for instance that the maximum theoretical efficiency of a carnot cycle engine is 73%. This is a physics led limitation. The losses in this are due to thermal losses, friction and others. It is impossible for an ICE engine to approach this level of efficiency. So in the 100+ years that it has been in development it has reached an impressive 51.7% efficiency.
I have used Physics to explain the best possible efficiency of the Hydrogen cycle when used in fuel cells. Not to say hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are impossible in fact I have on multiple occasions stated that hydrogen does have many use cases. I have used physics to point out that hydrogen is way too expensive to be used on our roads. I have never said physics prevents hydrogen cars, I have said the economics do.
It is not physics that will prevent hydrogen cars, vans and trucks in the UK. It is the economics driven by the physics. The economics are damning.
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
Again, you rely on National Grid's rosy picture of the situation today*, whereas I'm concerned about the not-too-distant future available capacity versus artificial and avoidable rising demand directly created by irrational Green energy policy.
During 2021, we will lose a coal-fired unit at West Burton and a nuclear one at Hunterston. The following spring, the Hinkley B nuclear unit will go as well. Where are the replacements?
The government have ploughed ahead disregarding all the longstanding engineering advice that pointed out we need the ability to provide a 'baseline generation capability' and the only 'clean' way to do that is Nuclear.
3rd gen smart meters will allow consumers to be disconnected during peak demand, without compensation - go figure why this is going to be permitted.
*I have read that on 6th January there was little or no wind and the NG issued a ‘margin notice’ Prices jumped from £40 per megawatt hour to over £100. On the next day there was freezing fog, with wind speeds even lower, so prices for balancing during the evening peak shot up again, reaching £1,400. By the 3rd windless day evening peak, there was a record-breaking £4,000 per megawatt hour. That price indicates how the UK came very close to a blackout. Looking ahead, how can NG be confident about meeting the extra demand from millions of EVs and a progressive switch from gas to electric domestic cooking and heating. Are you not concerned at all about how that will impact us? This is the background against which we need to consider changing from diesel to EV motorhoming.
- Mar 14, 2019
- 1,145
- 1,140
- Funster No
- 59,127
- MH
- Elddis Autoquest155
- Exp
- Since 2018
Governments have got the manufacturers attention by setting deadlines but as the time draws nearer there are developments taking place about which we know nothing. Industrial secrets are taken as seriously as national secrets and so how much do we know about what is possibly in the pipeline with vehicles? Not a lot. In time there will be better batteries, better motive power systems, eg hydrogen, etc and we have almost nine years to go to the deadline. Think back to 2011, how many electric cars were then on the market and what was their range, not a lot in both cases. Stop getting grumpy about what will I do, live for the moment and judge when 2030 arrives what is available on the market. Also it is true that Diesel engine will not disappear overnight nor the fuel for them. As far as I am concerned at the age of 79 now will I be still around in 2030 and will I still be driving - I just cannot answer definitely.
Coolcats
LIFE MEMBER
- Jan 24, 2019
- 6,622
- 12,438
- Funster No
- 58,207
- MH
- HymerCar Ayres Rock
Ah so it’s not Physics that will prevent Hydrogen cars, now we are getting somewhere.
The economics can change, Oil, Gas, electric and Hydrogen domestic boilers are all available for the consumer to buy. Gas is possibly the cheapest to run (in terms of fuel costs). However and far from being the most economical, Oil will often be used in more rural locations and Electric in apartments where it may be difficult to install a Gas Boiler and Hydrogen for those who are thinking about the Enviroment.
Interesting isn’t it, and let’s not forget all technology is shaped by politics.
I was responding to your post where you said this;
You are moving the goal posts.
You said the grid was under stress NOW!! I said they weren't and gave the EU threat and NG response as to why you were wrong on this specific point.
If you want to debate the future that is a whole different ball of wax.
Oh come on. seriously?
Read what I said. The economics of Hydrogen are limited by physics. I explain the physics so you can see the economic argument.
Yes, Economics change, but as I have explained again and again, the economics, politics, material science and engineering are all constrained by the physics.
I use physics to explain the best case scenario for hydrogen. This then leads to the economics. Hydrogen requires 3X minimum the amount of electric that directly charging a BEV requires.
Do you not follow this? Physics tells us the absolute best case scenario for hydrogen costs. I then use these costs to point out the economics of hydrogen do not work for road transport.
I also pointed out the market economics case against Hydrogen with the catch 22 regarding the distribution network investment required. You again appear to to avoid this point which does have solutions.
You attack the physics which is set in stone, but don't argue or provide a solution for the economics a distribution network.
You dance all over the place but still don't seem to grasp this fundamental concept dictated by physics?
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
The grid is perilously close to blackouts. There needs to be a bigger margin of safety to ensure we don't get more blackouts. Because it can and does happen sometimes. Then we read that back-up emergency generators at NHS DG Hospitals failed to kick in. Third world stuff.
That price spike in my previous post is good evidence of one very recent close call. I've also noticed what appear to be voltage cuts, when everyone and his dog starts cooking on a Sunday. That's basic load shedding. First time this has happened since I moved here over 8 years ago.
The threat to the interconnectors isn't about politics so much as what might happen in other European countries during winter months. We also can't ignore Putin's threats to cut off gas pipeline supplies from Russia on which European countries rely heavily.
Quote from someone more knowledgeable than me on another forum (my emphasis):
"It's worth pointing out that on the 8th January, the European Continental grid experienced a glitch that caused at least some blackout in Romania, and very widespread disruption that threatened a much wider blackout. The grid split into two zones out of phase on frequency, and there were enormous re-routings of power flows. France certainly suffered a big dip in imports, losing 1.3GW from Switzerland, 1.6GW from Germany, 1GW from Belgium and 0.8GW from Italy, while cutting exports by 1.4GW to Spain. We were lucky to have been spared the consequences, which resulted in lowered French consumption (there were stories of cutting voltage).
Belgium took at 0.9GW hit from the Netherlands, which in turn took cuts of 0.7 GW from Germany and o.3GW from Denmark.
Belgium and France were exporting at 2GW and 1GW to the UK at the time - and we could have lost all of that if they had decided to cut us rather than other countries, which would have tipped us into our own blackouts.
There were other big swings, with Germany losing 2GW from the Czechs, while Slovakia gained 1.5GW from them. More out through Eastern Europe too. ENTSO-E have said nothing about the cause so far."
Obviously when these unforeseen events occur there is a cascade of cuts to imported electricity across several countries. One day it will be the UK's turn just when we badly need to import electricity.
Even St Elon of the Batteries can't repeal Murphy's Law of Blackouts.
The grid is perilously close to blackouts. There needs to be a bigger margin of safety to ensure we don't get more blackouts. Because it can and does happen sometimes. Then we read that back-up emergency generators at NHS DG Hospitals failed to kick in. Third world stuff.
That price spike in my previous post is good evidence of one very recent close call. I've also noticed what appear to be voltage cuts, when everyone and his dog starts cooking on a Sunday. That's basic load shedding. First time this has happened since I moved here over 8 years ago.
The threat to the interconnectors isn't about politics so much as what might happen in other European countries during winter months. We also can't ignore Putin's threats to cut off gas pipeline supplies from Russia on which European countries rely heavily.
Quote from someone more knowledgeable than me on another forum (my emphasis):
"It's worth pointing out that on the 8th January, the European Continental grid experienced a glitch that caused at least some blackout in Romania, and very widespread disruption that threatened a much wider blackout. The grid split into two zones out of phase on frequency, and there were enormous re-routings of power flows. France certainly suffered a big dip in imports, losing 1.3GW from Switzerland, 1.6GW from Germany, 1GW from Belgium and 0.8GW from Italy, while cutting exports by 1.4GW to Spain. We were lucky to have been spared the consequences, which resulted in lowered French consumption (there were stories of cutting voltage).
Belgium took at 0.9GW hit from the Netherlands, which in turn took cuts of 0.7 GW from Germany and o.3GW from Denmark.
Belgium and France were exporting at 2GW and 1GW to the UK at the time - and we could have lost all of that if they had decided to cut us rather than other countries, which would have tipped us into our own blackouts.
There were other big swings, with Germany losing 2GW from the Czechs, while Slovakia gained 1.5GW from them. More out through Eastern Europe too. ENTSO-E have said nothing about the cause so far."
Obviously when these unforeseen events occur there is a cascade of cuts to imported electricity across several countries. One day it will be the UK's turn just when we badly need to import electricity.
Even St Elon of the Batteries can't repeal Murphy's Law of Blackouts.
The grid is not perilously close to black outs. We have excess generating capacity to the point where we can switch off the interconnects and all the wind and solar and still survive. The system for additional demand works well. We have one of the most stable grids in the world.
The pricing spikes you mention shows that the market is working as it should. Without the market lead flexibility we would need a centrally organised and directed grid. That would be catastrophic.
The interconnectors are DC and are thus not linked to the voltage or frequency of the European grid. With a shortfall of electric the frequency falls, but as the AC is converted to DC for the interconnects then convert back to DC at this side we don't see this issue in either frequency or voltage.
Remember, we use the interconnects because the electric is cheaper not because we generate it ourselves.
Here is a story that should interest you.
As for your NHS DG hospital emergency generator failing to kick in, that is a local issue and should be addressed as such, it is nothing to do with the grid.
Last edited:
The wind is strong today but NG is still drawing 3 gigawatts from interconnectors. I thought wind farm electricity should be cheaper, after all the wind is a free source of energy. Or is it too heavily subsidised?
Frequency is not relevant to my points. I don't care if there is any deviation from 50 hz and I don't have a Teasmade.
You can blame local NHS managers, but a blackout at a major hospital is still a very big deal. It should not happen, period.
Apart from illustrating Murphy's Law that I mentioned, there needs to be less "excess generating capacity" complacency. If there was enough resilience in the UK's system, there should not be regional electricity blackouts over a wide area, and it should prevent a major NHS hospital being cut off in the first place. Clearly an isolated failure somewhere in the grid can cause a cascade of failures and emergency tripping to prevent damage. It seems to take hours to reroute supplies.
New wind farms are going to be cheaper because the new offshore windfarms are going without subsidy.
Frequency is relevant to your points. When there is a shortfall of electric the frequency is pulled down. This is due to the rotational inertia of the generators being used to fill the energy shortfall. Frequency is the most critical element.
A blackout at a local hospital could be caused by a workman drilling through a cable. I don't see how this is relevant to the national grid capacity which is what we are discussing I thought?
I am suspecting you don't understand the capacity requests? The grid is mandated to have X + Y% capacity at any one time where X is current demand and Y is the buffer.
The recent request for additional capacity is because Y fell below the mandated level not X. At all times there was enough capacity to fulfil demand.
Let's say for argument (using round figures) that demand is 10GW and the mandated minimum buffer is 10% of demand. This means the Grid is required to have 11GW of capacity on tap. If it falls to 10.9GW they have to put this request for additional capacity out. But at no point did generating capacity fall anywhere near the 10GW demand.
What you appear to be saying is that we need to keep say 20% excess capacity buffer? Is that your argument? If so you do realise that we have to pay a lot of money for this buffer? This will raise prices.
The buffer is there to cover unexpected events.
You mention regional electric blackouts over a wide area? I only recall one instance of this in the last few years which was in Aug 2019. This was an unexpected situation and the grid worked as designed. Having more capacity would not have prevented that particular cut.
A lightening strike caused 2 major generators to go offline. This caused the frequency to fall across the grid which caused other generators to disconnect automatically. The frequency was the triggering event for the cascading disconnects.
Generating capacity was not the issue, inertia or frequency response was. If there was adequate frequency response it would have restricted greatly the impact.
It is worth noting the system is designed to be able to survive even where a major power station goes offline. They haven't planned for 2 going offline at the same time. Are you suggesting that they plan the system for 3 going offline as this could happen?
I have just searched for an article that covers this issue to save me typing it all up from scratch.
What happened to our electricity system on Friday August 9th 2019?
Keith Bell, Professor of Smart Grids at the University of Strathclyde and a co-Director of the UK Energy Research Centre
New wind farms are going to be cheaper because the new offshore windfarms are going without subsidy.
Frequency is relevant to your points. When there is a shortfall of electric the frequency is pulled down. This is due to the rotational inertia of the generators being used to fill the energy shortfall. Frequency is the most critical element.
A blackout at a local hospital could be caused by a workman drilling through a cable. I don't see how this is relevant to the national grid capacity which is what we are discussing I thought?
I am suspecting you don't understand the capacity requests? The grid is mandated to have X + Y% capacity at any one time where X is current demand and Y is the buffer.
The recent request for additional capacity is because Y fell below the mandated level not X. At all times there was enough capacity to fulfil demand.
Let's say for argument (using round figures) that demand is 10GW and the mandated minimum buffer is 10% of demand. This means the Grid is required to have 11GW of capacity on tap. If it falls to 10.9GW they have to put this request for additional capacity out. But at no point did generating capacity fall anywhere near the 10GW demand.
What you appear to be saying is that we need to keep say 20% excess capacity buffer? Is that your argument? If so you do realise that we have to pay a lot of money for this buffer? This will raise prices.
The buffer is there to cover unexpected events.
You mention regional electric blackouts over a wide area? I only recall one instance of this in the last few years which was in Aug 2019. This was an unexpected situation and the grid worked as designed. Having more capacity would not have prevented that particular cut.
A lightening strike caused 2 major generators to go offline. This caused the frequency to fall across the grid which caused other generators to disconnect automatically. The frequency was the triggering event for the cascading disconnects.
Generating capacity was not the issue, inertia or frequency response was. If there was adequate frequency response it would have restricted greatly the impact.
It is worth noting the system is designed to be able to survive even where a major power station goes offline. They haven't planned for 2 going offline at the same time. Are you suggesting that they plan the system for 3 going offline as this could happen?
I have just searched for an article that covers this issue to save me typing it all up from scratch.
What happened to our electricity system on Friday August 9th 2019?
Keith Bell, Professor of Smart Grids at the University of Strathclyde and a co-Director of the UK Energy Research Centreukerc.ac.uk
If the risk was only one isolated blackout you might have a good point. I was quite aware of the August example you linked to. But still it seems the grid is somewhat vulnerable to such risks:
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...ear-misses-in-three-months-says-national-grid
As for the effect on a hospital (on another occasion):
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/patients-james-cook-hospital-plunged-13946012
And it also affects other infrastructure such as electric trains, which apparently don't restart when the power comes back on and engineers have to be sent out to fix them!
Keep plenty of candles and torches handy, or ... sit it out in your motorhome, where you can even have heating ... gosh, yet another good use!
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
Join us or log in to post a reply.
To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun
Join MotorhomeFun
Join us, it quick and easy!
Log in
Already a member? Log in here.
Latest journal entries
-
Bavarian Thrournal June 23 (and part volcano route)
- suavecarve
- Entries: 31
Latest entry: Guildford to Rodemack,