Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories

GBEzine

Get a whole year of cutting-edge eco-building news and project reports for just £20.00 p.a. + VAT*

1 year Green Building Ezine

Built upon 30 years of experience, this fabulous new medium will feature inspiring and in-depth articles on eco-building projects from across the spectrum and from all over the UK, most of which are written by the very people that designed or built them.

Perfect for architects, builders, developers, self builders and anyone interested in keeping right up-to-date with green building trends and friends.

Price: £20.00

Discount books are also available with your first year subscription:



*VAT will only be charged to customers with a UK address.

For institutional access
please go here



Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




  1.  
    Not sure about your figures ST.

    According to Wikipedia (if that can be believed) in the UK there are 2173 miles of motorway, 29,145 miles of main roads and 213,750 miles of other paved roads.

    Assuming that you would electrify the whole lot in both directions, then it amounts to approx. half a million miles in total (allowing for multiple carriageways) so at £1000/mile that is half a billion quid.

    There are approximately 35 million licensed vehicles on the roads in the UK so the cost is only about £15 per vehicle.

    Seems like a bargain to me (if I haven't dropped a few decimal points somewhere!).
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2017
     
    Assuming no unexpected services, expansion joints, manholes on lane CL in the top 200 + safety margin. And the road slab converted into two independently subsiding strips. Road repairs should be fun.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2017
     
    Posted By: Chris P BaconNot sure about your figures ST.
    Nor am I.
    I just don't think you can get any infrastructure done in this country for less than a few billion.
    We can't even build a nuclear power station for less than £16bn, and we would need a few of them.

    I also think we should be using miles covered i.e. number of vehicles times distance travelled, rather than just the cost of fitting one coil every few hundred metres.

    Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, and I like innovation, but I think this is not the way to do it.
    Might work were there is slow moving traffic, so in a city, or at a major junction.

    But I do wonder how it will affect my radio listening, I am sure they have tested for that.
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2017
     
    Given that transport is a more significant climate problem than housing, and given how much time and effort we spend on here discussing the efficiency of housing, I'd have thought that an inefficient means of powering EVs was a big step in the wrong direction?
    • CommentAuthorgravelld
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2017
     
    Posted By: djhGiven that transport is a more significant climate problem than housing
    Do you mean worldwide? I don't think that's the case in the UK, thought it was roughly split between domestic, industry and transport equally (roughly).
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJan 6th 2017 edited
     
    It is a tricky one as there are two ways to measure energy usage.
    One is usage at the point of delivery i.e. the gas used at a home.
    The other is the primary energy i.e. all the energy used to make the electricity at the power plant.

    Primary transport fuel and primary domestic electricity will have very different figures.

    I did mention a couple of years or so back that changing our cars would be cheaper and easier than changing our housing, but we need to do both as transport and domestic usage account for about 3/4 of the nations usage.
      UK energy Usage.jpg
  2.  
    Posted By: djhGiven that transport is a more significant climate problem than housing, and given how much time and effort we spend on here discussing the efficiency of housing, I'd have thought that an inefficient means of powering EVs was a big step in the wrong direction?

    According to Electroad's website they are already at a charging efficiency of over 88%

    The question then has to be what scope for improvement there is?

    Also given that such a system will greatly reduce the need for battery packs, then will the environmental impact of not having to produce all those batteries and the increased efficiency of much lighter vehicles offset that 12℅ loss?

    Such a system will also completed eliminate range anxiety so should greatly speed up the adoption of EV's and so displace ICE vehicles.

    A lot of the focus on their website is on public transportation so I guess if this system can power large buses then HGV's shouldn't be a problem, an area where we see little or no solutions for today.

    If we are to move to a future with autonomous vehicles/ride sharing etc. then it seems likely that some form of wireless charging is going to be required whether it is road embedded or in parking spots, what is the point of having an otherwise totally autonomous vehicle if it requires human interaction to plug it in to charge?

    BTW you never replied to my previous question as to why not having a supercharger near you was such a deal breaker for your purchase of a Model 3?
    • CommentAuthorgravelld
    • CommentTimeJan 6th 2017
     
    Posted By: SteamyTea
    I did mention a couple of years or so back that changing our cars would be cheaper and easier than changing our housing, but we need to do both as transport and domestic usage account for about 3/4 of the nations usage
    Yeah, pretty much what I thought, but I was wondering if transport is a larger problem (as djh said) when considered worldwide - how is international transport including shipping, air freight and human traffic etc counted?
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeJan 6th 2017
     
    Posted By: Chris P BaconBTW you never replied to my previous question as to why not having a supercharger near you was such a deal breaker for your purchase of a Model 3?

    You're right, it's actually more about the lack of service infrastructure than chargers.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJan 6th 2017 edited
     
    Have had a quick look about, seems that all the worlds transport accounts for 1.6% of primary energy usage and 2.4% of delivered energy. The delivered energy usage is more important.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301650630_Global_transport_energy_consumption

    It does seem a bit hard to get a definitive figure for global energy by end usage and that 2.4% figure seems very low to me.
    I may have made a conversion error.
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeJan 6th 2017
     
    Posted By: SteamyTeaHave had a quick look about, seems that all the worlds transport accounts for 1.6% of primary energy usage and 2.4% of delivered energy.
    Does that mean just international transport (marine and aviation, primarily)? Otherwise, yes, I think it's way too low. The abstract for your second (researchgate) reference says “Today, transport energy uses nearly one-quarter of global primary energy.”

    Also “international”, if that's what it is, is somewhat arbitrary as the definition is the result of historical accident.

    As I've said before, I think measuring energy use as such is not really helpful. Only looking at the harms involved in harvesting the energy makes sense.

    Also, the definition of end use is rather tricky. E.g., does all the energy in the diesel I put in my van count or just that produced from the engine or just the proportion of that which gets to the wheels (not used to heat the gear box)? If energy lost between the engine and wheels doesn't count as final energy why does energy lost on the undriven axel? It wouldn't on an all-wheel-drive vehicle. What about the portion used to heat the cabin?

    I see from that Wikipedia article that energy in lubricants is counted. Wow. Does that mean that wooden houses have a higher embodied energy than concrete ones because you could burn the wood?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJan 6th 2017
     
    Posted By: SteamyTeaIt does seem a bit hard to get a definitive figure for global energy by end usage

    And I suspect that there are large margins of error and very large variations between countries.
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeJan 10th 2017
     
    I think

    Posted By: Chris P BaconNot sure about your figures ST.

    According to Wikipedia (if that can be believed) in the UK there are 2173 miles of motorway, 29,145 miles of main roads and 213,750 miles of other paved roads.

    Assuming that you would electrify the whole lot in both directions, then it amounts to approx. half a million miles in total (allowing for multiple carriageways) so at £1000/mile that is half a billion quid.

    There are approximately 35 million licensed vehicles on the roads in the UK so the cost is only about £15 per vehicle.

    Seems like a bargain to me (if I haven't dropped a few decimal points somewhere!).



    Cost is one thing, timescales another. I think it would take decades to install it all and by then batteries will have improved making it all redundant.
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeJan 10th 2017
     
    Posted By: Chris P BaconThere are approximately 35 million licensed vehicles on the roads in the UK so the cost is only about £15 per vehicle.

    It would take quite a while to replace 35,000,000 vehicles with ones able to take advantage of such technology and I expect the cost per vehicle would be considerably more than £15!

    Also
    at £1000/mile that is half a billion quid.

    Where does that number come from? It costs more like £150,000 a mile just to resurface a small road ( https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_of_resurfacing_a_road - small roads are 6 m wide ) and I can't imagine installing electrical transducers would be any cheaper.

    I agree with Colin about timescales as well.
    • CommentAuthorcjard
    • CommentTimeJan 10th 2017
     
    £150K a mile? Bargain. The Heysham M6 link was £26K a metre! (though there was a little more engineering involved)
    • CommentAuthorcjard
    • CommentTimeJan 10th 2017 edited
     
    Posted By: CWatters
    Cost is one thing, timescales another. I think it would take decades to install it all and by then batteries will have improved making it all redundant.


    I thought capacitors were the latest buzz? Energy density of Li-ion, and charges in less time than it takes to buy a coffee..
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2017 edited
     
    I use the term "battery" loosely. Who knows what storage tech will exist in say 20 years. Capacitors still have a long way to go to meet the energy density provided by Li-Ion cells.

    Aside: Some time ago I read that if Tesla is to meet it's targets it will need half the worlds production of Lithium....and they aren't the only car makers planning to ramp up production of electric cars. I wonder how much Lithium the world can produce? Perhaps one day Lithium prices will feature on the daily news ahead of oil prices.
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2017 edited
     
    “I thought capacitors were the latest buzz? Energy density of Li-ion…”

    Not even close. Specific energies up to 15 Wh/kg for supercaps vs starting at 100 Wh/kg for Li-ion batteries. I very much doubt the densities of the two are sufficiently different to get significantly different volumetric energy densities.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor#Parametric_comparison_of_technologies

    What supercaps do give is much better power density than Li-ion but that, while important, is not the limiting concern for EVs.

    As to production, maybe currently Tesla would take a large proportion but that doesn't mean production can't be increased:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Production
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2017
     
    Fortune has been publishing articles about Tesla's involvement with lithium mining for quite a while now. e.g.

    http://fortune.com/2015/09/16/tesla-lithium-gigafactory-nevada/

    Musk thinks further than most.
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
 
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press