The future of full timing based in the UK?

[Gromett]

TonyC123 https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/

Sound familiar. A local crisis similar to the current global one.

 

[TonyC123]

I will play Let's say the year is 1908 and the Model T has just come out.

I currently have a horse that is fit and healthy and I can do 50 miles a day on it, it eats grass from the side of the tracks I travel on and doesn't require specialist maintenance. There are blacksmiths and vets everywhere. If I am travelling somewhere unknown I will also carry a bag of oats for hi,

You offer me a brand new Ford Model T that has a range of 20-30 miles and can only travel on roads of which there actually aren't that many. I have to find a chemist to supply me with the petroleum distillate and there is a good chance that chemist will know I am not from his village or town and will gouge me.

I need to get to Scotland for a new job... I don't know where the chemists are, I don't know if there is a gap in the route where there are no chemists and I don't know if the this new fangled Model T will even be able to get along all the tracks and trails along the way.

My horse will quite happily plod the 40 miles a day and at each inn I stop at I ask where the next one is on my route. The horse will snack on grass as I take breaks on the way between each inn and if necessary I will dig out the oat bag and feed him on the move.

I am leaving London because they are banning horses on the roads due to the huge amounts of manure that is piling up and I really can't see these new fangled petrol engines being the solution. They are not much faster than my horse at full gallop, break down regularly, need complicated skills to drive and I have to know where the local chemist is to get my supply of fuel not to mention my blacksmith doesn't know how to fix one when it breaks down.

I could go on but I think you get the point I am making.

A petrol car cannot go as far as a horse.
Supply of petrol in comparison to grass is a problem.
Skills to repair them are not that common in comparison to the established technology.
Price gouging caused by specialist skills required to supply the "go juice".
Resentment because existing tech is being pushed out of the market because it is dirty/disgusting.

Believe me, although the motorway services will price gouge as per usual, competition will mean that chargers spring up everywhere and anyone with a few quid and a bit of land can set up a solar backed, static battery stored charger station. Competition will ensure that you have not only cheap prices but plenty of choice.

That's clearer, thanks.
Those are not unfair points to make if you consider the petrol engine at about 20 years into its development, around say 1895, but I would argue that if you look at petrol vehicles at 50 years into their development- which is roughly where practical electric vehicles are now- there was no longer a range problem or that much of a supply problem, and those arguments you gave against early petrol engines were probably much less common, and certainly were less valid, by the time the petrol engine was as old as the electric engines are now.
(And bear in mind, it could actually be argued that electric vehicles have actually been around for as long as petrol vehicles, and that they are 150 years into their development. But I admit that would be unfair since a much greater effort has gone into developing petrol vehicles than electric- until recently.)
It was inherently much easier to solve problems of range and supply for petrol vehicles, because fossil fuels are much more energy-dense than any battery yet devised (in 100 years of trying)
I agree that the same arguments were mad against early petrol engines, but they were largely disproven and resolved within 20-30 years.
The supply problem can be resolved exactly as you suggest, by new electric charging stations. And eventually, the range problem will be solved as well- although the technology for a practical, affordable 500 mile motorhome battery does not yet exist.
I think the comparisons of technology and progress are a side issue, in that my main point was that unless a new source of energy becomes available, travel in heavy vehicles is going to get increasingly expensive.
Even when we have have a 500 mile range and can recharge in 5 minutes, our principal source of electricity is still from burning fossil fuels, and it is that burning which has to be reduced.
And the way they will force a reduction, I think, is by making it expensive. So electrical energy for both domestic and vehicle use will get more expensive in a couple of decades- unless as I said, we find a way f generating electricity that doesnt involve fossil fuels.
Solar and wind are not enough to power a 3.5 ton vehicle for 100 miles- something else will be needed- perhaps an expansion of nuclear energy?
If that doesnt happen by 2050, our allocation of energy to travel in heavy vehicles may become very limited.

 

[TonyC123]

TonyC123 https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/

Sound familiar. A local crisis similar to the current global one.

The first practical petrol engines were working almost 20 years before this manure crisis of 1894.
The pioneers of the petrol engine would surely not have had manure at the forefront of their minds as a motivation when devising their creations.
But to be honest, as awful as it was to have piles of manure in the streets of towns and cities, the problems arising from that pale into complete insignificance when compared to the global climate disaster that almost all the credible experts tell us is rapidly approaching.
I really don't see any similarity at all to be honest.

 

[Gromett]

That's clearer, thanks.
Those are not unfair points to make if you consider the petrol engine at about 20 years into its development, around say 1895, but I would argue that if you look at petrol vehicles at 50 years into their development- which is roughly where practical electric vehicles are now- there was no longer a range problem or that much of a supply problem, and those arguments you gave against early petrol engines were probably much less common, and certainly were less valid, by the time the petrol engine was as old as the electric engines are now.
(And bear in mind, it could actually be argued that electric vehicles have actually been around for as long as petrol vehicles, and that they are 150 years into their development. But I admit that would be unfair since a much greater effort has gone into developing petrol vehicles than electric- until recently.)
It was inherently much easier to solve problems of range and supply for petrol vehicles, because fossil fuels are much more energy-dense than any battery yet devised (in 100 years of trying)
I agree that the same arguments were mad against early petrol engines, but they were largely disproven and resolved within 20-30 years.
The supply problem can be resolved exactly as you suggest, by new electric charging stations. And eventually, the range problem will be solved as well- although the technology for a practical, affordable 500 mile motorhome battery does not yet exist.
I think the comparisons of technology and progress are a side issue, in that my main point was that unless a new source of energy becomes available, travel in heavy vehicles is going to get increasingly expensive.
Even when we have have a 500 mile range and can recharge in 5 minutes, our principal source of electricity is still from burning fossil fuels, and it is that burning which has to be reduced.
And the way they will force a reduction, I think, is by making it expensive. So electrical energy for both domestic and vehicle use will get more expensive in a couple of decades- unless as I said, we find a way f generating electricity that doesnt involve fossil fuels.
Solar and wind are not enough to power a 3.5 ton vehicle for 100 miles- something else will be needed- perhaps an expansion of nuclear energy?
If that doesnt happen by 2050, our allocation of energy to travel in heavy vehicles may become very limited.

You are mixing up electric motors and batteries here. Petrol was the fuel and the ICE was the engine. The electric motor has come on a LONG LONG way. The battery technology though has only become important since the dawn of the mobile phone more specifically the Lithium ion based batteries. If you look at how much they have improved over the last 10 years you will see the same track you are talking about with the petrol engine.

On motors. Up until recently efficiency wasn't critical. It was so so important. But since Musk launched his 1st electric car it has become critical and motors have developed hellishly fast. I used to work in a motor factory so I do know a little about the subject. Todays motors are beyond anything I could have imagined back in the late 90's. The efficiency of today's switched reluctance motors are on a par with the best PWM PM or traditional 3 phase induction motors, but have massive improvements in torque across the rev range. This has only been possible due to recent improvements in Semi conductor technology such as the silicon carbide FETs. Seriously since the push to electric cars has started more R & D is being pushed into not only the batteries and motors but into the controllers... So we are seeing the same things happening with EV's as happened with ICE cars back in the 1910-1920 period. That is where we are with EV's currently.

400 Mile range electric cars are with us now at a cost. That cost will fall dramatically over the next 5 years. In the 15 year range we are talking about the same thing will happen to ICE as happened to horses.

our principal source of electricity is still from burning fossil fuels, and it is that burning which has to be reduced.

Have you seen the progress in the last 10 years?

 

[sedge]

Gromett - you are daft sometimes for a bloke of your intelligence. Take you ruddy ages to get to Scotland by hoss plus you have to pay for your board and sustenance at all the inns. You live in London - why not travel by TRAIN?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[TonyC123]

You are mixing up electric motors and batteries here. Petrol was the fuel and the ICE was the engine. The electric motor has come on a LONG LONG way. The battery technology though has only become important since the dawn of the mobile phone more specifically the Lithium ion based batteries. If you look at how much they have improved over the last 10 years you will see the same track you are talking about with the petrol engine.

On motors. Up until recently efficiency wasn't critical. It was so so important. But since Musk launched his 1st electric car it has become critical and motors have developed hellishly fast. I used to work in a motor factory so I do know a little about the subject. Todays motors are beyond anything I could have imagined back in the late 90's. The efficiency of today's switched reluctance motors are on a par with the best PWM PM or traditional 3 phase induction motors, but have massive improvements in torque across the rev range. This has only been possible due to recent improvements in Semi conductor technology such as the silicon carbide FETs. Seriously since the push to electric cars has started more R & D is being pushed into not only the batteries and motors but into the controllers... So we are seeing the same things happening with EV's as happened with ICE cars back in the 1910-1920 period. That is where we are with EV's currently.

400 Mile range electric cars are with us now at a cost. That cost will fall dramatically over the next 5 years. In the 15 year range we are talking about the same thing will happen to ICE as happened to horses.


Have you seen the progress in the last 10 years?

I can see that the electric engine or the battery technology are not the big factors that could make motorhome travel expensive in a few decades. I do believe there is a law of diminishing returns that will come in play unless the battery technology takes another step, but any range problems will be resolved by more frequent charging points.
But I'm not sure where the extra electricity generation will come from that will be required when 99% of private road vehicles have electric engines?
Last year the Uk generated over 35% of its electricity from renewable sources, and that could double by 2030, but there will be a huge new demand for electricity for vehicle charging.
I have a fear that whilst lights and washing machines may be considered essential usage of electricity, leisure driving in cars or motorhomes might not.
Even if we are extremely energy conscious, most domestic premises in urban areas are not going to be able to generate anywhere near the amount of electricity needed to run their electrical devices and machines, let alone run a car for say 30 miles.
So you imagine the extra electricity for vehicles will have to come from the grid- and that will include a further huge demand once commercial vehicles go electric.
Gas is still the single biggest source of fuel to generate electricity in the UK, and I believe gas will still be needed to cope with the extra demand for charging electric vehicles in 2040 and beyond. Renewables surely cannot meet that demand without a major technology step.
And given that the effects of climate change are going to start becoming much more obvious by 2040 and 2050, I believe there will be pressure on private owners to reduce their leisure driving in order to reduce the need to burn gas.
I believe there may be a solution, if we adopt the French route and increase our nuclear generation capacity, but if we don't, I do fear that even electric vehicle usage will face some form of rationing by 2050, and of course big heavy motorhomes will be very vulnerable to these sorts of policies.
The age of cheap and plentiful domestic and vehicle energy is I think going to come to an end by 2050, unless we find an alternative.

 

[PeteH]

I think unless there are some significant jumps in battery technology before they ban all new vehicles sales with internal combustion engines in 2035 (at least to private owners), the long term future for any nomadic lifestyle looks uncertain after say 2040.
Owners of existing vehicles will presumably be permitted to continue running them if roadworthy, but the costs of repairing and maintaining them will gradually increase as they get older, and fuel tax will almost certainly go up a lot which will reduce the miles they can afford to cover, and the govt will try be trying various means to get the older gas-guzzlers off the road.
Even batteries are not a great solution, in terms of cost. There are some electric charging points on motorways which now charge more for the electricity than it would cost to do the same journey in a Jaguar V12, and the profiteering will only increase as they gain a captive market.
And then there is the range issue. Even if the boffins can stretch to 150 miles for a big heavy vehicle, how will people find enough places to charge a 3.5 ton motorhome in the wilds of northern Scotland, without paying exorbitantly for the electricity?
Unless we develop some form of unlimited nuclear or other energy source (that doesn't ruin the climate), I think people may have to accept in 20 years time that the days of travelling freely and living cheaply in heavy vehicles are drawing to a close.
Maybe the rise of the caravan will be in 2040?

I will play Let's say the year is 1908 and the Model T has just come out.

I currently have a horse that is fit and healthy and I can do 50 miles a day on it, it eats grass from the side of the tracks I travel on and doesn't require specialist maintenance. There are blacksmiths and vets everywhere. If I am travelling somewhere unknown I will also carry a bag of oats for hi,

You offer me a brand new Ford Model T that has a range of 20-30 miles and can only travel on roads of which there actually aren't that many. I have to find a chemist to supply me with the petroleum distillate and there is a good chance that chemist will know I am not from his village or town and will gouge me.

I need to get to Scotland for a new job... I don't know where the chemists are, I don't know if there is a gap in the route where there are no chemists and I don't know if the this new fangled Model T will even be able to get along all the tracks and trails along the way.

My horse will quite happily plod the 40 miles a day and at each inn I stop at I ask where the next one is on my route. The horse will snack on grass as I take breaks on the way between each inn and if necessary I will dig out the oat bag and feed him on the move.

I am leaving London because they are banning horses on the roads due to the huge amounts of manure that is piling up and I really can't see these new fangled petrol engines being the solution. They are not much faster than my horse at full gallop, break down regularly, need complicated skills to drive and I have to know where the local chemist is to get my supply of fuel not to mention my blacksmith doesn't know how to fix one when it breaks down.

I could go on but I think you get the point I am making.

A petrol car cannot go as far as a horse.
Supply of petrol in comparison to grass is a problem.
Skills to repair them are not that common in comparison to the established technology.
Price gouging caused by specialist skills required to supply the "go juice".
Resentment because existing tech is being pushed out of the market because it is dirty/disgusting.

Believe me, although the motorway services will price gouge as per usual, competition will mean that chargers spring up everywhere and anyone with a few quid and a bit of land can set up a solar backed, static battery stored charger station. Competition will ensure that you have not only cheap prices but plenty of choice.

You could cover the Country with solar panels (which don`t work in the dark) Or thousands more UGLY wind farms (Both BTW with only a 25year life expectancy). and you would still not have sufficient cheap Electricity to power all the Vehicles. Batteries have come on by leaps and bounds BUT the materials needed to manufacture them comes at a High cost in the life of those who mine the product, and even Tesla admit that they degrade after a few years. (My 50 year old IC engine still produces it`s 63 BHP) The "new tech" (Electric) Motors like wise use Rare materials to achieve the lauded "efficiencies". And again have similar "production" costs and health issues as the Batteries.

It is my View, that the world is looking in the wrong place. The IC engine has been developed to an extremely high efficiency, never envisaged by it`s "inventors". What it needs is a Fuel. That fuel has existed long before the IC engine Itself. Hydrogen, There are researchers currently examining ways of producing hydrogen in tandem with electric power generation, the power for static, Homes , Factories use. the hydrogen to fuel Vehicles. When used as a road fuel, it`s exhaust contains only Water vapour. And admittedly some tiny micro-particulates, but nothing like the product of current fuels and is all but absolutely Carbon Neutral. (someone farting produces more CO-2).

What`s wrong with Hydrogen?. Just that everytime it`s mentioned, someone will say "Hindenburg"

 

[TonyC123]

You could cover the Country with solar panels (which don`t work in the dark) Or thousands more UGLY wind farms (Both BTW with only a 25year life expectancy). and you would still not have sufficient cheap Electricity to power all the Vehicles. Batteries have come on by leaps and bounds BUT the materials needed to manufacture them comes at a High cost in the life of those who mine the product, and even Tesla admit that they degrade after a few years. (My 50 year old IC engine still produces it`s 63 BHP) The "new tech" (Electric) Motors like wise use Rare materials to achieve the lauded "efficiencies". And again have similar "production" costs and health issues as the Batteries.

It is my View, that the world is looking in the wrong place. The IC engine has been developed to an extremely high efficiency, never envisaged by it`s "inventors". What it needs is a Fuel. That fuel has existed long before the IC engine Itself. Hydrogen, There are researchers currently examining ways of producing hydrogen in tandem with electric power generation, the power for static, Homes , Factories use. the hydrogen to fuel Vehicles. When used as a road fuel, it`s exhaust contains only Water vapour. And admittedly some tiny micro-particulates, but nothing like the product of current fuels and is all but absolutely Carbon Neutral. (someone farting produces more CO-2).

What`s wrong with Hydrogen?. Just that everytime it`s mentioned, someone will say "Hindenburg"

My own nagging doubt is that we are sort of crossing out fingers and hoping that the technological challenges of meeting the huge demand for 'non-fossil' energy for vehicles will be resolved.
And given human ingenuity, there is a decent chance they will.
But in the case of hydrogen fuel cells, as things stand they are too expensive for private users, although people are optimistic that in 10 or 20 years time they will be fully viable for commercial vehicles, which are too heavy for the current battery power to be feasible. I believe there are other challenges, like their consumption of platinum is not sustainable long term.
Whether there will ever be enough renewable electricity to spare for creating hydrogen for fuel cells is an unknown, but there is certainly a degree of doubt over that at the moment.
So for the next decade or so, electric vehicles do seem to be the best/most affordable alternative to ICEs for private users- and bear in mind, if we could reach national self-sufficiency in electricity by meeting the renewable shortfall via nuclear power stations (as the French have had for decades), that will help to keep a good supply of electricity available, and maybe provide a non-fossil method for creating hydrogen fuel as well.
I wish the answers were a bit clearer, but I guess that's the nature of the beast we face.
What I fear is a world where the energy needed to move vehicles becomes expensive and restricted in supply, and where our freedom to move and travel in 'mobile homes' is limited.
It wont affect me personally, or many of us, but it is a scenario that I am hoping our children don't have to get used to.

 

[PeteH]

Trouble is. Governments, Don`t like making long term decisions. Anything beyond the next Election is seen as "an issue", and viewed from the standpoint of "What it will cost at the ballot box". OR "Will it help the opposition, more than ourselves". The Countries Needs and Benefits come Last in that scenario.

 

[Gromett]

I do believe there is a law of diminishing returns that will come in play unless the battery technology takes another step, but any range problems will be resolved by more frequent charging points.

Batteries are improving on average at 7% per year. We are nowhere near diminishing returns yet.

But I'm not sure where the extra electricity generation will come from that will be required when 99% of private road vehicles have electric engines?

According to the national Grid there is likely to as a little as an 8GW increase in peak demand.
Once you take into account V2G which will be huge and grid scale and local storage this demand peak will be smoothed out. So instead of huge swings throughout the day as demand peaks during the day and drops right down at night. There may well be a much flatter generation/demand/usage graph.

We are already seeing new renewables having grid scale storage attached to them and in the future this will likely become compulsory. Rather than paying a wind turbine to curtail their output with massive payments, they will simply store the electric until it is required. This is going to make huge changes to the efficiency of the grid. A grid scale storage system can respond to demand changes in the millisecond range rather than the 10 minute+ scale that traditional generators take.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[chaser]

Gromett - you are daft sometimes for a bloke of your intelligence. Take you ruddy ages to get to Scotland by hoss plus you have to pay for your board and sustenance at all the inns. You live in London - why not travel by TRAIN?

Yeah let's get steam back on the track

 

[Gromett]

You could cover the Country with solar panels (which don`t work in the dark) Or thousands more UGLY wind farms (Both BTW with only a 25year life expectancy). and you would still not have sufficient cheap Electricity to power all the Vehicles. Batteries have come on by leaps and bounds BUT the materials needed to manufacture them comes at a High cost in the life of those who mine the product, and even Tesla admit that they degrade after a few years. (My 50 year old IC engine still produces it`s 63 BHP) The "new tech" (Electric) Motors like wise use Rare materials to achieve the lauded "efficiencies". And again have similar "production" costs and health issues as the Batteries.

Wind farms have a planned 25 lifespan but this is not their actual lifespan. Same goes for nuclear plants, they have a 50 years design span but this is regularly extended. It is much easier to replace a wind turbine than a nuclear plant and the land used can be either upgraded to a newer turbine or returned to it's original condition very easily.

Useful lifespan of wind farms increases to 30 years - Energy Live News

A new report shows that for a project with a 30-year lifespan, the levelised cost of energy is around $33.5/MWh

www.energylivenews.com

As for battery degredation. You are not keeping up. Battery degradation is a lot lower than expected and Tesla is setting the standards here. Their cars lose around 10% over 200,000 miles. They are about to have a battery day, where it is thought they will announce a 1 Million mile battery and the results of new R & D alongside details on their purchase of Maxwell tech for their dry electrode production tech.

It is my View, that the world is looking in the wrong place. The IC engine has been developed to an extremely high efficiency, never envisaged by it`s "inventors". What it needs is a Fuel. That fuel has existed long before the IC engine Itself. Hydrogen, There are researchers currently examining ways of producing hydrogen in tandem with electric power generation, the power for static, Homes , Factories use. the hydrogen to fuel Vehicles. When used as a road fuel, it`s exhaust contains only Water vapour. And admittedly some tiny micro-particulates, but nothing like the product of current fuels and is all but absolutely Carbon Neutral. (someone farting produces more CO-2).

What`s wrong with Hydrogen?. Just that everytime it`s mentioned, someone will say "Hindenburg"

Hydrogen is currently produced efficiently using steam reforming of natural gas. This is not CO2 neutral it pumps massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The other method using electrolysis is highly inneficient and would boost our electric demands massively. We would also have to roll out a huge hydrogen delivery system infrastructure that would cost as much if not more than straight EV infrastructure.

 

[PeteH]

The other method using electrolysis is highly inneficient and would boost our electric demands massively.

That is the area of current research, I mentioned, I cannot find the research information, but It was online quite recently. Bloomberg or some such?.

 

[TonyC123]

Batteries are improving on average at 7% per year. We are nowhere near diminishing returns yet.


According to the national Grid there is likely to as a little as an 8GW increase in peak demand.
Once you take into account V2G which will be huge and grid scale and local storage this demand peak will be smoothed out. So instead of huge swings throughout the day as demand peaks during the day and drops right down at night. There may well be a much flatter generation/demand/usage graph.

We are already seeing new renewables having grid scale storage attached to them and in the future this will likely become compulsory. Rather than paying a wind turbine to curtail their output with massive payments, they will simply store the electric until it is required. This is going to make huge changes to the efficiency of the grid. A grid scale storage system can respond to demand changes in the millisecond range rather than the 10 minute+ scale that traditional generators take.

When I initially considered how the future of vehicle energy might look- with a layman's knowledge and experience- it seemed to me very unlikely that renewable sources could ever fully replace fossil fuels.
The answer to that question seems to vary depending on who is answering. Shell, for example, with their vested interest, estimate that hydrocarbon fuels will still account for 40% on energy use in a few decades, according to this article:

Could renewable energy completely replace fossil fuels? | Shell Global

The Paris Agreement has sent a signal, but could society do enough to achieve the goals of this landmark climate agreement

www.shell.com

If their version is the truth, then we may be struggling to generate enough energy to power road vehicles.

These folks are very sceptical about the infrastructure costs and physical challenges in getting rid of fossil fuel by 2050:

https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Renewable-energy-cannot-replace-FF_Lyman.pdf

This is not an area of expertise of mine, and for all I know these may be heavily biased or unethical sources , so I'm certainly not suggesting they provide substantial evidence. But what they do, at least in my mind, is to cause my doubt to linger that an expectation of going fully renewable for electricity generation by 2050 might not be as feasible as many say it is.
However, if we even get close, that may still provide enough electricity for private citizens to run vehicles affordably over long distances, as we do now.
That is the future I hope for, but I'm not as optimistic as you are that we will get there in the next 30 years.

 

[Gromett]

That is the area of current research, I mentioned, I cannot find the research information, but It was online quite recently. Bloomberg or some such?.

Physics kicks in with this. The bond holding the 2 Hydrogen atoms to the Oxygen atom has a specific amount of energy. You cannot break physics so there is a lower bound to how much energy is required to break this bond. Even with a 100% efficient process it is still extremely energy intensive. So you would need to
1) Generate enough electricity to break the bond.
2) Generate some more electricity to chill and compress the hydrogen.
3) Invest in the infrastructure to do all this.
4) Invest in the infrastructure to transport the chilled/compressed hydrogen.
5) Invest in the pumping stations to replace the petrol stations.
6) Buy expensive car with power cell tech and hydrogen storage capacity.

OR You could
1) Install a few more turbines/panels.
2) upgrade a few power lines.
3) install some grid scale storage
4) Use battery cars.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

When I initially considered how the future of vehicle energy might look- with a layman's knowledge and experience- it seemed to me very unlikely that renewable sources could ever fully replace fossil fuels.
The answer to that question seems to vary depending on who is answering. Shell, for example, with their vested interest, estimate that hydrocarbon fuels will still account for 40% on energy use in a few decades, according to this article:

Could renewable energy completely replace fossil fuels? | Shell Global

The Paris Agreement has sent a signal, but could society do enough to achieve the goals of this landmark climate agreement

www.shell.com

If their version is the truth, then we may be struggling to generate enough energy to power road vehicles.

These folks are very sceptical about the infrastructure costs and physical challenges in getting rid of fossil fuel by 2050:

https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Renewable-energy-cannot-replace-FF_Lyman.pdf

This is not an area of expertise of mine, and for all I know these may be heavily biased or unethical sources , so I'm certainly not suggesting they provide substantial evidence. But what they do, at least in my mind, is to cause my doubt to linger that an expectation of going fully renewable for electricity generation by 2050 might not be as feasible as many say it is.
However, if we even get close, that may still provide enough electricity for private citizens to run vehicles affordably over long distances, as we do now.
That is the future I hope for, but I'm not as optimistic as you are that we will get there in the next 30 years.

I think you might be mixing up energy and electricity in Shell document. They do not say we can't be carbon free in our electric. But that our total economy with respect to energy won't be 100% carbon free. I agree with that.
I suspect that the big problems will be heating in the UK. Moving from predominantly natural gas to carbon free heating is a HUGE task.

So basically my point here is do not mix up total energy use with just electric. We can go totally carbon free on electric in the next 15 years or so if we were to really push hard and invest a lot. So 30 years for 2050 is not an issue.
This has nothing or little to do with EV's though. Going 100% carbon free via EV's and some hydrogen is perfectly doable in that timescale in my opinion.

 

[PeteH]

4) Use battery cars.

Which with all the best will in the world cannot fulfil the primary aim of Motorised Individual transport. with a facility of Refuelling as fast as a Gasoline/Petrol/Diesel I-C. People do not (I certainly don't) want to have to wait around at charging points "Thumb in bum and mind in neutral" for ??hrs. waiting to continue a Journey. That is the "Electric" Vehicles "Achilles Heel". When I was "on the road" back in the 80`s/90`s/ My gaffer would have had kittens If I logged 2hrs to "Recharging Vehicle". I was an exceptionally high mileage user. I`ve had cars changed in just over a year on mileage alone. Even more recently I`ve done Yorkshire to London and back in the same day. A Minimum of 500plus miles. No time to charge up there. Arrive drop, Refuel, at London Gateway and back to Yorkshire for an 8hr day. (No Tacho involved).

 

[PeteH]

He was somewhat shocked at the 44magnum on my hip as we cooked steaks!

Used to amuse me. I had Texas Plates. And was asked several times, quite seriously, what gun(s) I was carrying?, Texas being a "carry" State. Of course as a Legal Alien. I was not allowed. But I used to put the NRA cap in the front window!.

 

[TonyC123]

I think you might be mixing up energy and electricity in Shell document. They do not say we can't be carbon free in our electric. But that our total economy with respect to energy won't be 100% carbon free. I agree with that.
I suspect that the big problems will be heating in the UK. Moving from predominantly natural gas to carbon free heating is a HUGE task.

So basically my point here is do not mix up total energy use with just electric. We can go totally carbon free on electric in the next 15 years or so if we were to really push hard and invest a lot. So 30 years for 2050 is not an issue.
This has nothing or little to do with EV's though. Going 100% carbon free via EV's and some hydrogen is perfectly doable in that timescale in my opinion.

Thanks for that clarification, I was indeed conflating energy and electricity.
But the coming need to remove the dependence of most Uk households on gas will almost certainly put some demand on the national electricity supply, and my concern would be this- can renewable generation be scaled up sufficiently to supply both road vehicles and household heating, in the event that the majority of households switch to electricity as their energy source for heating?
Or will something else be needed, e.g. more nuclear power stations?

 

[Jenka]

Don't over think it the lifestyle will be around to a long time yet. But not in a free loading way, full timers will have to pay a lot more than many do now as they will be forced onto CLs and sites.

The big problem is #vanlife. Whereas fulll timers have been quietly living in vans all over Europe for countless decades. These new, young vanlifers are not content to just live, they have to share. These guys and girls have hundreds of thousands of wannabe followers on twitter and insta and thousands of those buy a van, and start their own channel encouraging even more.

I'm not mad at these youngsters, truth be told I'm jealous. It's their life to live But something has to give as van lifers clog up streets, laybys and carparks. We're following the US in this regard and the big crackdown on vandwellers has already started there.

I totally agree ,there are also some of the older generation who blag a van of a manufacturer and then try to tell us how to full time or use our vans ,while they have never even owned one .i also find a lot are asking for a coffee donation or you can buy a T shirt or pay to be a special friend on their video channel. Good luck to them but I find some of these bloggers patronising. The best advice to get is from those that have quietly done it for years and they also have some great stories.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

Thanks for that clarification, I was indeed conflating energy and electricity.
But the coming need to remove the dependence of most Uk households on gas will almost certainly put some demand on the national electricity supply, and my concern would be this- can renewable generation be scaled up sufficiently to supply both road vehicles and household heating, in the event that the majority of households switch to electricity as their energy source for heating?
Or will something else be needed, e.g. more nuclear power stations?

2 things here. Cars are 2035, carbon neutral "aim" is 2050. 15 years to each each. Neither is going to happen overnight. The latter is the hardest.

 

[nicholsong]

Two ponts to follow on from the charging time debate.

We have had 4 charging points installed opposite at LeClerc supermarket and so far I have seen 2 cars in 2.5 months hhoke up to the carging points.

The other point is that so far in this thread nobody has referred to the progress on Nuclear Fusion.

Geoff

 

[PeteH]

Which with all the best will in the world cannot fulfil the primary aim of Motorised Individual transport. with a facility of Refuelling as fast as a Gasoline/Petrol/Diesel I-C. People do not (I certainly don't) want to have to wait around at charging points "Thumb in bum and mind in neutral" for ??hrs. waiting to continue a Journey. That is the "Electric" Vehicles "Achilles Heel". When I was "on the road" back in the 80`s/90`s/ My gaffer would have had kittens If I logged 2hrs to "Recharging Vehicle". I was an exceptionally high mileage user. I`ve had cars changed in just over a year on mileage alone. Even more recently I`ve done Yorkshire to London and back in the same day. A Minimum of 500plus miles. No time to charge up there. Arrive drop, Refuel, at London Gateway and back to Yorkshire for an 8hr day. (No Tacho involved).

Glad you like it?

 

[Gromett]

Which with all the best will in the world cannot fulfil the primary aim of Motorised Individual transport. with a facility of Refuelling as fast as a Gasoline/Petrol/Diesel I-C. People do not (I certainly don't) want to have to wait around at charging points "Thumb in bum and mind in neutral" for ??hrs. waiting to continue a Journey. That is the "Electric" Vehicles "Achilles Heel". When I was "on the road" back in the 80`s/90`s/ My gaffer would have had kittens If I logged 2hrs to "Recharging Vehicle". I was an exceptionally high mileage user. I`ve had cars changed in just over a year on mileage alone. Even more recently I`ve done Yorkshire to London and back in the same day. A Minimum of 500plus miles. No time to charge up there. Arrive drop, Refuel, at London Gateway and back to Yorkshire for an 8hr day. (No Tacho involved).

I am sure I have said this many times before on here.

The average annual mileage in the UK is 8,000 mile per year. That equates to 153 miles per week. Buy an EV with 200 miles, and even if you can't charge at home you only need to charge once per week. This is if you don't use destination chargers at shops and other car parks.
What this means is that even right now, today 50% of the population could manage with todays EV's.

In 15 years things will have changed. 10 years ago 1Kwh of Li battery was around $1,000. Today it is around $100 per Kwh. In 15 years by the time the ban on "NEW" cars comes into play having a car with 200Kwh battery would not be cost prohibitive. Today 100Kwh can get you 400 Miles.
Now, let's stretch our imagination. If batteries are increasing in capacity by around 8% per year and the cost is falling at quite a rate, how much of an issue will this actually be for you?

 

[Gromett]

PS: Tesla who are leaders in this field have gone from the top of the range Model S being able to do 250 miles on one charge to 400 miles on one charge. That is in 8 years.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

Which with all the best will in the world cannot fulfil the primary aim of Motorised Individual transport. with a facility of Refuelling as fast as a Gasoline/Petrol/Diesel I-C. People do not (I certainly don't) want to have to wait around at charging points "Thumb in bum and mind in neutral" for ??hrs. waiting to continue a Journey. That is the "Electric" Vehicles "Achilles Heel". When I was "on the road" back in the 80`s/90`s/ My gaffer would have had kittens If I logged 2hrs to "Recharging Vehicle". I was an exceptionally high mileage user. I`ve had cars changed in just over a year on mileage alone. Even more recently I`ve done Yorkshire to London and back in the same day. A Minimum of 500plus miles. No time to charge up there. Arrive drop, Refuel, at London Gateway and back to Yorkshire for an 8hr day. (No Tacho involved).

One last thing. At 70mph you can do 280 miles in 4 hours.
With a Tesla V3 super charger you can recharge that in 24.5 Minutes real world.
That is enough time for you to queue to get food, eat it, have a coffee and a toilet break and you are full again.

What Tesla can do today others will be able to do in 5 years never mind 15 if they put their minds to it.

Watch Tesla Supercharger V3 add 100 miles of range in 7 minutes

Now that Tesla’s new Supercharger V3 charging stations are opening up to the public, more Model 3 owners are using...

electrek.co

 

[TonyC123]

I totally agree ,there are also some of the older generation who blag a van of a manufacturer and then try to tell us how to full time or use our vans ,while they have never even owned one .i also find a lot are asking for a coffee donation or you can buy a T shirt or pay to be a special friend on their video channel. Good luck to them but I find some of these bloggers patronising. The best advice to get is from those that have quietly done it for years and they also have some great stories.

I have to say I've enjoyed watching some of the vanlife videos on youtube, and I appreciate the time and trouble they take to produce them. Some are really informative as well.
There are one or two of them who I think are less attractive personalities than they believe themselves to be. But to be fair, you get that in all walks of life, not just in vans.
I think there are many vanlifers who start you tube channels about vanlife or nomadic living (there are scores of them now), and who hope their channel will become super-popular and make them a decent income. But youtube has gotten stingier in recent years, and I think the incomes are small, which is why they try to flog mugs and T shirts, and set up patreon accounts.
The visibility via youtube and other media has I suspect encouraged an increasing number of both young and old folks to take up living in vans as a form of affordable housing as well as to travel.
In terms of the quality of advice, I was watching a youtube video yesterday where a full time MH dweller of 2 or 3 years was advising the viewers not to buy refillable gas bottles if they were spending most of their time in the UK, because the petrol stations here are starting to slowly close their LPG refuelling facilities.
I dont know one way or the other about it at this point, but I did pause to wonder if that really was good advice.

 

[PeteH]

because the petrol stations here are starting to slowly close their LPG refuelling facilities.

I do know that locally, we have had 2 locations close in the last few years. I used to get my R-V`s Domestic tank filled (originally at domestic rate too) At Flogas Beverley, they closed that down, I think 2012(ish) Flogas are still on site but no refilling. The other is / was a former Shell garage.

 

[PeteH]

queue?. Same length of time to fill?. My Car then? Doesent take me 25 min in Tesco?.

 

[TonyC123]

I do know that locally, we have had 2 locations close in the last few years. I used to get my R-V`s Domestic tank filled (originally at domestic rate too) At Flogas Beverley, they closed that down, I think 2012(ish) Flogas are still on site but no refilling. The other is / was a former Shell garage.

I'm looking to pick up a van in about 8 weeks time, and I was going to fit (or have fitted) a gaslow or underslung system, before the winter arrives.
Hearing about LPG facilities closing did make me pause, but I'll go ahead with gaslow because there are still plenty of LPG refill locations, and you would imagine there wont be too many lost in the next 10 years.
I do like the look of the refillable bottles though (eg Safefill), because you can see instantly and exactly how much gas is left in the bottle. I used to have a butane heater as a backup, and I can remember swilling the bottle around to try to get a rough idea how much gas was left.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}