Most folk just call me; Orange Joe
- Don't ask questions
If that's not a rhetorical question, head onto the pvgis website. Plug in your proposed setup and it'll tell you pretty accurately what you'll generate. You can find out your consumption from bills. And if you're considering fitting batteries, what time of day generation happens is of less importance. If payback appears longer than your taste allows, try reducing the size of setup. Solar PV is currently significantly cheaper than gas/oil for hot water heating too so, aim to fulfill that requirement in summer. Will help reduce the size of battery pack neededHow long would it take in Wales with our weather?
You laugh but...Run a cable back to Wales? Just need a million meters or so of SWA...
It depends on how much cloud cover I expect.
Plenty of days in Winter here where you need headlights on in the daytime. Swansea is officially the wettest city in Britain and yet they are building loads of solar farms around here. It's madness.
The SE of England gets far less rain than us. It's surprising the difference.
Even in Portugal 2 or 3 cloudy days means the solar hot water is too cold for a shower and the immersion heater has to be used. We get a lot more than 3 cloudy days here!One thing Wales has lots of is water. Hydro, air source/ ground source heat pumps and perhaps solar thermal panels are the answer. Even on a cloudy day solar thermal significantly warm the water above baseline.
Surely tidal lagoons would be a good idea but they never seem to get off the ground. 100% predictable stable energy.
Even in Portugal 2 or 3 cloudy days means the solar hot water is too cold for a shower and the immersion heater has to be used. We get a lot more than 3 cloudy days here!
Hydro is great but almost every commercial source has been exploited already.
Tidal lagoons are more expensive than a barrage as you need to create 3 walls not one. Most tidal schemes have been abandoned due to silting and marine growth. Tidal lagoons aren't new either. There was actually one in Swansea in the 1800s at the same place where they want to build one now.
France only has 1 tidal power station and has never built any more which says a lot.Oh for sure, you won't have a shower from it on a cloudy day but it will significantly reduce the work the immersion heater has to do. Even just a 10-15 degree rise in temp is worthwhile. On sunny days I've seen boiling water coming from them.
Yeah tidal lagoons aren't as good as a barrage but they certainly don't cause the issues with wetlands up stream that a barrage would.
There must be a way to make hydro work. Other countries manage it, even France has more hydro than we do which is ridiculous considering our huge coast line and enormous tidal range.
My mate has hydro on his smallholding. A stream, a 10m or so drop, a 1930s impeller / housing and a feed in setup. He basically doesn't pay any electricity bills and charges an electric car off it too. Maintenance isn't huge, mostly just brushing the screen clear where the partial diversion of the steam is. He's been doing it 20 years. Quids in.
Hard to imagine British industry can't scale it up a bit.
Experimental data has been produced showing charger efficiency from 49% to 77% (Kieldsen, et al., 2016) and 85.7% (Sears, et al., 2014). This is from the plug to the car.
The authors attribute these figures to value engineering of charging equipment to create readily affordable units rather than those capable of high efficiency. Further to this, Sears et al. state that “Under-dimensioned components cause higher heat dissipation that makes cooling necessary, which is an additional power consumption” meaning that in order to optimise charging efficiency, it is necessary to correctly specify components and software to reduce energy losses.
Sears et at. also states “A power converter with an efficiency of 95 % have a decrease in efficiency of 10 % when operating at half the nominal power”. It is apparent that in order to be able to advertise minimal charging duration, it is necessary to have a high charging capacity i.e.,43kW (63A, 400V) “rapid chargers”. The availability of these charging points is relatively low with only 21.3% of publicly available charging points being able to support ≥63A (Department for Transport, 2021_h). Thus, the majority of charging that will take place, especially for those who charge at home using a standard 13, 16 or 32 amp connection, will incur significant charging losses due to being below the designed peak efficiency of the charger.
If the experimentally derived charger efficiency data are applied to the manufacturer energy consumption figures, the energy usage “from the grid” can be calculated:
View attachment 345671
Good for you.Are you suggesting here that the most efficient chargers are DC rapids charging at 43kW+?! I don't have access to the papers you are referencing but something doesn't add up here. Fast DC charging generates a lot of losses both in the charger and the battery itself. That's why your battery temperature increases and big fans kick into life in the charger stations to deal with the heat.
Your quote about charging at home incurring significant charging losses due to "below the designed peak efficiency of the charger" suggests a fundamental misunderstanding by the author about how EV chargers work. The rapid DC chargers are the big boxes that have their own heavy charging leads with either a CCS or a CHAdeMO connector. They ARE the charger, and offer direct access to the vehicles battery.
The onboard chargers in EVs are the ones that deal with the 13/16/32A AC connections. They are designed to run at this current level. The author is suggesting, that these chargers are very inefficient. So tonight I carried out my own test to confirm my numbers.
Left home at 69% charge. Reset car trip odometer, reset my miles/kWh. Travelled exactly 14 miles, stopped at council charger to wait for my wife and charge. This was a charge at 16A. Car took 4.11kWh to charge back to 69%.
14/4.11=3.41 miles per kWh.
Car miles per kWh over the 14 miles reading 3.8kWh (exactly what @fizzy was quoting for the model S - wet weather, headwind not helping me)
3.41/3.8*100 = 89.6% efficiency
I quoted 90% efficiency before, that's pretty much exactly what I got. I can repeat this using the rapid charger and charge at 43kW and see what that gets me, I suspect it will be much the same in my case. EV chargers are not as inefficient as that old paper makes out!
It's like an even shoutier version of the Daily Mail
I won't click daily mail, gbnews or sun links, regardless of content
I get that, I've had to remove all news feeds from my phone it was affecting my mental health.I'll look at any reliable news sources, but not media that peddle hate dressed up as news.
I'll look at any reliable news sources, but not media that peddle hate dressed up as news.