Electric vehicle news

Transport
21

I don’t see your point here, if the machine draws 100KW the system needs to provide that power, the time it runs for does not influence the size of cables or maximum power required at the site. The amount of energy required for one charge would be expressed in KWh. You are mixing up energy and power.

So we are talking about the collective requirements not the power required at one servo. OK. Saying that current network will not handle the load seems to be received wisdom at the moment. It may be true. I would like to see numbers and some analysis of the network load using various technologies to establish how much new infrastructure is required.

1 Like
22

It is most likely true in most areas, especially in urban areas removed from the high voltage network. Networks are designed to meet short to medium term forecast demand. They aren’t designed to meet any demand.

Any substantial increase in load/demand would require significant augmentation, particularly of the distribution network. In urban areas augmentation is costly due to land constraints.

Edit: In rural and remote areas, much of the existing distribution network isn’t designed for high/additional loads (many are SWER lines). To supply loads in such areas can also be very expensive (could be many $10M for areas where existing network has insufficient capacity but supply is possible).

1 Like
23

An important observation, it would be great to offer a definitive response and say it’s not a concern.

The short reply is the AEMC and ESB are factoring these demands into their future grid and generation assessments. Recognition includes increasing total generation and secondly improving the capability of the grid to meet all future needs. Allowing for increased BEV charging is just one factor. There’s a fair discussion point as to whether Australia can implement change as quickly as demand changes. One major speed bump was eliminated in May this year.

The emerging pattern is the majority of EV charging is currently carried out at home (80%) One response in current planning includes encouraging the direct charging of EV’s from Distributed Energy Resources or at off peak times. Both deliver benefits through avoided costs and reducing the scale of any increased grid capacity.

How often will EV owners be travelling long distances and looking for fast charging on the road?
Possibly as often as they are looking for petrol/diesel today.

How many major service centres on our national highways and near to major regional centres will look to invest in low cost solar PV, backup storage and deals with nearby DER suppliers?
If the unit cost of supplying energy over the networks continues to increase, investment in avoiding those costs becomes so more profitable.

What’s most likely to disappear are the urban servos with multiple alternatives making them largely redundant.

An Aside:
Note there are businesses with significant financial interests in the future of the supply of electricity.
It’s convenient for the retail fuel outlets, electricity generators and network owners to re-envisage the future as an expanded version of what they currently control. IE centralised generation, the majority of energy being handled by the network distribution owners, and retail petroleum outlets upgraded to charging stations. The last mentioned providing nearly all our charging needs.

It may suit some in the industry to reduce the arguments in favour of the status quo to simple one line challenges. IE trying hard to make the future look like the past. The future design (upgrades) to our electricity infrastructure cannot be reduced to one liners.

Possibly a typo? Although Melbourne is extremely popular. :wink:

Every day, on average, Australia’s 7,000 or so service stations sell about 90 million litres of petrol and diesel — a river of fuel that has been flowing for more than a century and keeps over 55,000 people in work.

24

Aren’t the major fuel outlets outside our major urban centres developing into major service centres?
Facilities with numerous outlets, and by my observation 3 phase power from 3.3 kV feeders backed up by 11kV or higher distribution.

For smaller and more regional locations, having lived and worked in many it’s unlikely the local servo is connected to an SWER. Perhaps there are some details available from the network operators?

The previous reply to @PhilT acknowledges the AEMC and ESB have recognised future changing demands on generation and the networks. They also factor in and have announced strategies to better manage peak demands alongside increased deployment of DER. Smart charging of EV’s offers a benefit to consumers through reduced cost of charging and the networks through reduced demand for capital on upgrades. Charging from home is even better, given there are zero network costs incurred.

It’s a given our electric future will need more generation and better grid infrastructure. Progressive electrification of road vehicles is not the only demand to be met.

1 Like
25

Only some on main highway routes between the major cities where existing infrastructure is available to support their development. They aren’t possible everywhere.

Having worked for and running network projects in regional areas for high use connections, I can confirm that a lot of servos outside towns/cities would be connected to SWER lines or distribution lines with restricted capacity. SWER lines are are the most common type of network connection in such areas. For a servo to have an alternative network connection in such areas, the costs could be prohibitive as outlined above.

There is a misconception that since there is a transmission line nearby which is the case for many major highways, power is available. Yes, it would be available if one wished to spend ~$20M+ for a substation and additional low voltage line connections.

Any augmentation of the network comes at a cost.

They have estimated for the community infrastructure part of the network. Their costs don’t include costs for non-community (customer) infrastructure such as connections for users of electricity. These costs are paid for by others than the network operators and will also be considerable in the future. They currently exist but will become significant moving forward. Consumers and EV owners will pay for these costs through service charges for EV charging by non-government organisations (such as the charging station operator).

1 Like
26

But how significant? Time and place will matter. Will fast charging vehicles make a difference to the when and where and the how much? Which will come first, a significant number of EVs creating demand or the infrastructure to serve it? Will there be a major mismatch at all? I don’t see this is a simple issue with simple answers.

1 Like
27

It isn’t simple and is highly complex. Many assumptions are made by AEMO, AMER and the AER in relation to future needs. Short term forecasts are somewhat reliable, long term forecast are less so. Even short term (~5-7years) haven’t hit the mark like that which has occurred in the past decade and partly lead to accusations of ‘gold plating’ in the recent past.

Many have the opinion that the change in energy use profiles, including electricity, will be bigger than any historical industrial revolution. The transformation is challenging and costly with a lot of unknowns.

28

I don’t know if it will be bigger, going from muscle power to mechanisation was pretty major, but certainly it will be big. And we are trying to do it in a rush having missed the starter’s gun several times already. Also the rent-seekers from old industries wanting a transition package and new industries wanting start-up support will all have their hands out. The three levels of government will all want to protect their patch, have their mark on the successes and not on the failures. What could possibly go wrong?

Any transition of this size with so many players and so many systems will be messy, costly and probably not terribly efficient.

If you see it as necessary nation building you will look at the cost overruns and changes of mind differently to those who see it as an opportunity for themselves not the nation. Look how efficiently the last spate of nation building (the NBN) went!

29

How many of the 7,000 would that be and what proportion of supply do they provide?

We’re really off on a very different discussion. It’s not news that more generation and an improved transmission network is required to meet future demands including EV charging. More charging options are being delivered nationally encouraged by all levels of government.

Note that having a grid connection is no longer essential. Especially if the alternative is a $20M supply upgrade.

Would any of us know better than the AEMC, the ESB and their supporting experts? Better they have a plan than none. 5, 10 and 25 year planning is everyday for any large enterprise.

We could just agree we will all need to put in to assure a less damaged future for our planet. There are solutions. Not everyone needs to get on the same bus, however those who have chosen the battery powered bus are at the head of the queue.

1 Like
30

The faster you try to pump energy into a storage device, the more instantaneous power you need.
Which in simplistic terms is voltage times current.

And very fast charging would seem to me to exceed the normal supply in households, and most businesses that don’t have their own power substations. Especially if you are talking about voltages in excess of the 400v available in three phase AC.

To me it would seem sensible that EVs could get power from TWO sources. The built-in battery charged from either slow or medium charging, ie overnight or a few hours, or a swap-and-go battery pack that would be slow charged at a service station, and just put in the boot and plugged in within minutes. A pack to get a few hundred kilometers shouldn’t be any bigger than a small suitcase.

If you don’t need the extra range, then the plug in battery pack is not needed. But if you do, then the solution is there. Sort of like jerry cans of fuel.

31

Inspired!

Replaceable charged batteries have supporters. Although typically as a single battery vs an add in for longer range.

‘Battery-Swapping Revival Could Threaten Electric Car Charging Networks
.

There is nothing to prevent charging an EV battery capable of a 10 minute full fast charge being charged from a standard home wall charger at a lesser rate (nom 7kW/30A outlet). The faster charge may only be of benefit for longer journeys or when your usual home/work charging is not available. Note Teslas can use a high capacity DC fast charger, right down to the humble 230V 10Amp power outlet.

Edited to clarify

32

Maybe, but so what. You are not going to get fast charging power out of normal home connections.

33

Of course not. I’ve added a short edit just in case there is confusion. For the majority of everyday vehicle use a modest home charger is more than adequate. As is an EV with a relatively small battery offering a daily range of 100-200 km.

The prospect of a drop in or slot in second battery for extra range or other infrequent needs is a great option. It’s about changing mindsets, with the prospect of faster charging also worthy of attention. It removes one more point of EV criticism. Although the reality is only a small proportion of EV owners will need it. Most though may want it.

On marketing and how the EV industry sees the challenge of always being judged on irrelevant ICE’s. Does it sound like a Harley, smell like a Harley or vibrate like a Harley? It’s unlikely the Harley-Davidson name will ever be attached to the side of an electric powered 2 wheeler :wink:
‘https://www.livewire.com/

2 Likes
34

There are many who aren’t supporters of battery eTrucks. A freight business owner who stayed with us said the elephant in the room with eTrucks is their weight. Battery system weight is considerable and for many freight companies, load capacity makes them profitable. With battery system weight chewing into the weight of freight that can be carried, his words were if they started to change their fleet to battery eTrucks, they would quickly go out of business. He also said Tesla won’t release weight specifications for its prototype eTruck because it isn’t good news. His view was that to be competitive, governments in Australia may need to give dispensation to eTruck owners allowing them higher axle loads to compensate for higher eTruck weights. In Australia which already has high axle loads by world standards, this would increase wear and tear on many roads and may have road safety consequences.

Yes, eTrucks could have small swappable batteries which require regular changing to keep weight down, but this impacts on time efficiency with regular stops required for battery changes and the greater likelihood of flat batteries on the road somewhere.

Hydrogen FC trucks won’t be light either, but he indicated that there in some information indicating they will be closer in weight to traditional fueled vehicles. Their range will also be considerably longer.

35

If one does not want something should the rest of the community go without?

The greater community has been very definite on its support for increasing Australia’s move away from fossil, fuels. It’s no longer new news, and reflective of the policy changes within most of our levels of government.

Of Australia’s GHG emissions 19% are from transport. The trucking industry contributes more than one third (38%) if these emissions. The ‘low hanging fruit’ is to progressively convert the several hundred thousand high use road trucks in Australia to electric.

Noted:
One relatively speaking ‘dinosaur’ of the trucking industry can relate not making a profit as reason to keep on trucking with fossil, fuels. It’s also old news a tax on carbon and fossil fuels was an option previously on again off again. Direct costs on carbon are reality elsewhere in various forms intended to level the competitive outcomes.

It’s typical of those against change to contrive an unacceptable proposition as reason not to. IE a solution and need to increase the permitted axle loads for EV trucks. Missing from the elephant in the room ‘thought bubble’ is the offset cost savings of lower maintenance, fuel and running costs of an EV truck. Faster charging, battery swapping or … offer ways to ensure high availability. Drivers do stop for nature and to eat meals etc.

36

Good to see you think you know the same person. I would suggest he is far from being a dinosaur from the conversation I had with him as he acknowledged that there must be change. He also said there are many ‘experts’ out there who know what is best for the freight industry, but now nothing about how the freight industry works.

I suggest that anyone who has an interest in the future of the freight industry possibly should speak to those in the forefront of the industry who know how it operates and where it heading in the future. It might provide some enlightenment to challenges which the industry face. Relying on news releases from marketing teams isn’t the only place where one should get their information.

No that is not the case. I didn’t mention any resistance to change or argue in support for fossil fuels. The point being made was the challenges with some of the technologies being canvases. There needs to be a change in the future, but it needs to be a solution that works for the industry and is efficient for everyone (freight businesses, consumers who pay for freight and road users). Any solutions adopted shouldn’t be a backward step.

37

This may well be true at the moment but slinking around in there is the assumption that the way that profits were made before the Big Change will be the same afterwards.

That would be fine as long as the industry pays higher taxes to cover the cost of additional road damage.

So many acknowledge the concept that the Big Change will require re-thinking the world and cost a bomb but they rapidly lose interest if it looks like it will cost them anything.

Are we really going to go on as if decarbonising will not shake up the hat full of cards labelled winner and loser? Are we really going to pretend it won’t be a rocky road where only some of the unfairness of the transition can be ameliorated by public money?

There is a principle in law called inter-generational equity, broadly that we ought not make decisions today for the benefit of this generation that will impose excessive burdens on future generations. It is rare for the principle to be used in practice but its a nice idea. Those who are on top of the heap today do not want to have that waved around too much.

1 Like
38

The joint release of the ATA (Australian Trucking Association) and EVC (Electric Vehicle Council) provided has the credentials of those who know.

What works is taking what we have available today and making the best use of the available options. It’s too late to suggest we put action off because it has a cost. Like all change going carbon neutral will require businesses to adopt new ways and others to cease. It will cause some transport operators to leave the industry. It will cause a shift in the costs of using road transport. And it will doubtless cause a shift in how and what we consume because the cost of road transport changes.

It’s not all negative.
The direct cost of energy from renewables is much less than direct ongoing costs of consumption of diesel. That’s without adding on the indirect costs of the fuel emissions or environmental harm. Consumers have been left with these indirect costs while the industry has walked away with the profits.

image
image1205×988 92.2 KB

“… but know nothing…”
It does not an expert to know that doing nothing and not having a plan to do what is best for the planet (meet national emissions reduction targets) is no longer an option.

1 Like
39

The ATA supports the ongoing development of and trial of swappable batteries, it states:

"The ATA welcomes Australian innovation to advance zero and low emission road transport, such as through the ongoing development of exchangeable batteries.

"The application of this technology will depend on the proposed trials, the commercial needs of individual trucking businesses and vehicle manufacturer requirements.”

It currently doesn’t support the use of swappable rechargeable batteries. It also recognises that eTrucks are currently available and some of their views appear not to be similar to the ‘dinosaur’ who stayed with us…

https://www.truck.net.au/media/media-releases/truck-dimension-rules-blocking-electric-hydrogen-and-cleaner-vehicles

The ATA (and EVC) have identified the same issues and challenges being faced. They suggest dispensation for load weights for eTrucks (looking online it appears the EU may be adopting such an approach) to make them competitive and also recognise the cost disadvantage of new technologies. They suggest government interventions (inc. subsidies) through the transition phase to low emission technologies.

40

And there it is. We don’t want to change unless there is some taxpayer money to put in our pockets.
:roll_eyes:

I personally think that lighter battery packs that would not incur a weight problem, but would reduce range would be a good thing for our roads.
If a truck had to stop every 500k for a recharge or pack swap we may well have less sleep deprived and/or drivers high on stimulant drugs on the roads as they try to drive long distances without stopping.

1 Like