UK BUSINESSES TO BE HIT BY NEW WAY OF CHARGING USING SMART METERS
via climate science
http://ift.tt/2jXH2Ie
via climate science http://ift.tt/2jXH2Ie
May 15, 2017 at 06:30PM
UK BUSINESSES TO BE HIT BY NEW WAY OF CHARGING USING SMART METERS
via climate science
http://ift.tt/2jXH2Ie
via climate science http://ift.tt/2jXH2Ie
May 15, 2017 at 06:30PM
Home Car Charging: A Primer
via Master Resource
http://ift.tt/1o3KEE1
“People buying EVs that cost $100,000 aren’t concerned about the cost of adding charging stations to their homes, but people in the market for EVs costing $35,000 may find the additional cost burdensome.”
A major public-policy issue is government subsidization of battery-powered or electric vehicles (EVs). But putting this aside, or given the existing situation, what are the practical issues of EVs for the home and, hypothetically, for wide implementation?
The two major issues are:
Power Plant Capacity
The first question has been answered, in general terms, as yes, unless there is a large number of battery-powered vehicles (BEVs) concentrated in a specific geographic area. See Hidden Costs of EVs and PHEVs – Part I for an explanation of this issue.
It would appear that there could be 87 million BEVs on the road if spread uniformly across the country, before new power plants would have to be built to accommodate the additional load caused by charging the batteries of BEVs.
Distribution Transformer Load
The load on the distribution transformer is determined by the voltage and current of the charging outlet or home charging station. The charging stations also determine how long it takes to recharge the BEV.
At 40 amps, it would take around 7 hours to fully charge the battery. At 72 amps, it would take around 3 hours. (This data is from the Tesla website. Other BEVs may have differing charging requirements.)
The first instance requires the equivalent of a 10 kVA transformer. In the second it’s around 17 kVA. Single-phase distribution transformer sizes are 5, 15, 25, 37 1/2, 50, 75, 100 and 167 kVA.
It’s not unusual to have four homes serviced by a single transformer, which is frequently a 50 kVA unit.
The fact is, no utility knows how fully their distribution transformers are loaded. With the advent of larger and larger TVs, the addition of more computers and other electronic gear, the load on distribution transformers has been slowly but constantly increasing.
Beware: It might only take one homeowner adding a EV using the simplest, lowest voltage and amperage charging system to overload an existing 50 kVA transformer. If all four homeowners add a EV and the existing 50 kVA transformer is 75% loaded, it could easily require that the 50 kVA unit be replaced with a 100 kVA transformer.
Consider what happens when a family has two EVs. It could require dedicated transformers for each home, or at least adding an additional distribution circuit.
These are costs the utility bears. They are hidden from the usual calculations of the impact that EVs have on the utility system.
Another consideration is that older homes may have service entrance boxes rated 100 amps, while new homes are likely to have a service entrance of 200 amps.
The owners of older homes are likely to have to pay for a new service entrance large enough to handle the current when charging their EV.
An earlier article on this subject, see Hidden Costs of EVs and PHEVs – Part II, considers other aspects of charging EVs, such as charging during the day rather than at night. Since adding load to distribution transformers also adds load to substation transformers, there is the potential for having to replace substation units that cost a million dollars.
People buying EVs that cost $100,000 aren’t concerned about the cost of adding charging stations to their homes, but people in the market for EVs costing $35,000 may find the additional cost burdensome.
Whether this will affect the adoption of EVs is another question that only time will answer.
The post Home Car Charging: A Primer appeared first on Master Resource.
via Master Resource http://ift.tt/1o3KEE1
May 15, 2017 at 06:04PM
UN Bonn Climate Conference Demands $300 Billion per Year to Alleviate the Tedium
via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The UNFCCC Bonn Climate Conference, due to end in a few days, has accepted a report which demands an additional $300 billion per year on top of the $100 billion already promised by the world’s governments. The cash is to be disbursed via existing green groups, because it is “so tedious” to set up a new UN bureaucracy to spend your money.
Innovative finance needed to find $300 billion a year for climate losses
By Laurie Goering
LONDON (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – With money for action on climate change already in short supply, an estimated $300 billion a year needed to help countries deal with unavoidable climate losses will have to come from innovative new sources, such as a financial transaction tax or carbon tax, researchers say.
Funding for such climate “loss and damage” aims to assist people who lose their land to sea level rise, for instance, or are forced to migrate as drought makes growing crops impossible in some regions.
“What stands out most clearly is that there isn’t currently enough funding to even begin thinking about financing loss and damage, with available climate, development, risk reduction and disaster recovery financing all falling short by an order of magnitude,” said researchers at the Berlin-based Heinrich Böll Foundation.
In a report released at the U.N. climate negotiations in Bonn, now heading into their second week, researchers said about $50 billion a year would be needed by 2020 to help people who lose their land and culture or are forced to migrate as a result of climate-related problems.
…
No new body should be created to handle and disperse the funds, however, they said, with money instead put through existing organizations such as the Green Climate Fund or the Global Environment Facility.
Harjeet Singh, who heads climate change policy for charity ActionAid, also said that setting up a new loss and damage funding body made no sense.
“It’s so tedious to set up an institution and get it going, and make sure the money reaches the intended people. It does make sense to use the existing mechanisms to transfer the money,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation in a telephone interview from Bonn.
…
Read more: http://ift.tt/2pRfO9i
The executive summary and the full report is available here.
I’m lost for words. The staggering sense of entitlement, of people who seem to think that we’ll be OK with shovelling an extra $300 billion into their bank accounts, because they can’t be stuffed to do a bit of extra paperwork to set up a new trough.
The sooner these arrogant parasites are cut off from our money, the better.
via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3
May 15, 2017 at 03:33PM
Huge week long wind drought South Eastern Australia
via Errors in IPCC climate science
http://ift.tt/1F9oSq3
Renewable energy spruikers are always silent about how their future green carbon free grid could run under low wind conditions.
via Errors in IPCC climate science http://ift.tt/1F9oSq3
May 15, 2017 at 08:35AM