Yesterday, what many had warned about for a long time and others thought was just a bad joke - the European Parliament approved a ban on the sale of cars with internal combustion engines from 2035
"The approved proposal assumes that the sale of new cars and light commercial vehicles with internal combustion engines would end from 2035. The measure should only apply to new cars, people should continue to be able to use older vehicles with internal combustion engines and continue to buy such cars on the second-hand market." (source)
About being with us 41% electricity is produced by burning coal wrote recently, but I would like to look at the nonsense with electric cars from another point of view. That view is the sheer amount of electricity that would need to be produced.
Recently, Martin Vozka wrote to me about it in the discussion, so I am reprinting his opinion:
People only see a secondary problem with cars (range, price, battery wear, etc.), but this is only the tip of the iceberg of problems with the widespread introduction of electricity. cars I used to do a superficial analysis of what it would mean if all cars were to change to electric…
My reasoning for why electric cars are a dead end, or at most only a local solution:
Anyone who didn't sleep in high school physics classes can calculate this by himself from the available materials.
I am based on:
Temelín Nuclear Power Plant, 2 blocks each with a capacity of 1082 MW (source)
Hyundai Kona ECO version
Why Hyundai Kona? Because it has such acceptable range parameters (among electric cars) and such a rather lower battery capacity (40kW) that no one would accuse me of handling it. For example, the Tesla has a capacity of around 75 kWh, and the Kona is also made in a version with 56 kWh.
Interestingly, the Škoda Citygo car has a range of only 256 km and a battery capacity of almost 37 kWh.
So the Kona has a range of up to 345 km per charge, batteries with a capacity of 39.2 kWh, (note for women: this is like using 40 irons with a power of 1000 W at home at once for 1 hour).
Number of registered passenger cars in the Czech Republic: 5,592,738 (in 2017, when the tendency is to increase by approx. 200,000 units/year, so in 2020 the number is undeniably higher, although I expect a lower value from 2017)
So, if all passenger cars were replaced by an electric car with Hyundai Kona parameters, the installed battery capacity of all passenger cars in the Czech Republic would be:
5,592,738 pcs x 39.2 kWh = 219,235,329.6 kWh, which is 219,329.6 MWh (which corresponds to approx. 203 units of JE Temelín running 1h).
I will be more moderate again and I will calculate that each car will discharge only 1/2 per day, and that only 2/3 of the cars will leave daily, so it would be necessary to charge a capacity of 73,110 MWh per day.
If this capacity were divided into 8 hours of charging, an immediate output of 9,139 MW would be needed, which corresponds to 8.4 blocks of Temelín, i.e. add another 7 blocks.
For example:
We are a household of 2 people in a 2-room apartment, we consume approximately 1.7 MWh per year (ceramic hob, electric oven, other common appliances). If we had the mentioned electric car and charged (again, I'll be more moderate) only 3 days a week, the car would claim about 6.24 MWh per year. That is, an electric car for the family, even with these moderate parameters, it is like another 3.7 households.
Other problems related to car charging are:
1. the main problem is that the increased power consumption would be felt mainly at night when everyone would be charging. In the morning, when everyone would disconnect their cars from the chargers, the produced power would have to be consumed somewhere, because it is not possible to regulate the power of nuclear power plants and other power plants from day to day, let alone from hour to hour. So we only charge the cars overnight, but the power would have to be produced for a full 24 hours (how ecological).
2. Increased demands on the transmission system related to incredibly higher energy transmission:
● larger conductor cross-sections – more copper needed, more mined
● more powerful substations – again greater demands on material, more to extract
● higher losses – the need to produce more energy than the calculated consumption
3. number of charging stands for all cars for both charging and maintaining current. Again, material costs.
4. a car that you don't charge and drive is self-discharging anyway, so it would have to be on trickle charge. Again higher consumption than the calculated performance.
5. Self-discharge destroys batteries, so even if you are not driving, you will change the battery sooner. Again, additional material costs.
6. etc., etc.
Perhaps I can only add that a few days ago Prague was hit by a massive blackout - not even the trams were running, people stayed in the elevators.
And reason? – old and congested substation in Chodov. And that's all we have for now, just a few electric cars...
But we do have solar panels…
But in order not to sound like a complete opponent of electromobility - I myself recently bought an electric scooter, I ride it around Prague and I also bought several solar panels and charge it with them. But I know it's just fun and more of a geek hobby.
Just for comparison - 2 panels with a power of 190W will charge the scooter in a day without any problem - if it's nice. However, the scooter has a 1 kWh battery and the mentioned cars 37-75 kWh. – so you would need to JUST 37x-75x more panels to charge your car - i.e. 74-150 large panels on each family house... In reality, about 20-30 panels can fit on the roof...
Either it is calculated that cars will be driven - in a left-wing way - shared - so that it will be necessary ONLY one in a street of five houses, or it won't be driven at all, or that really VERY SIGNIFICANT our population will decrease…
It is hard to imagine that otherwise, without any numbers, someone would be able to approve such stupidity.
Electric cars harm the environment, they cannot be "ecologically" disposed of, they burn in water, the battery cells are constantly "working" and release toxic substances into the environment... And yes, it is the intention, unfortunately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r-yN8SugWM
Electric cars are worse than gasoline or diesel cars, and the people who buy and drive them have been ecologically "deceived" and flaunt the virtue of ECOLOGY. But electric cars are a step back into the past. Already in 1899, electric motor vehicles were quite popular. There are reasons why vehicles with internal combustion engines have overtaken them…
For example, electric bicycles are very popular and are incomparably better than motorized bicycles, and charging is not a problem for anyone, on the contrary, it is easier than finding gas.
Given that I once worked at GES-ELECTRONICS as for two and a half years (before the company disappeared), we refurbished batteries for everything.. I saw dozens of batteries for bikes and scooters. They cannot be disposed of in an ecological way, they burn in water (we had a few "short-circuited" batteries in the company and it still smelled the next day...) and it is the biggest burden on the environment - everything that revolves around "GREEN EKO" is a LIE. And back to electric cars:
According to "Kelley Blue Book", the current cost of producing an electric car is $56,437. An electric car is two to eighteen times more expensive than a vehicle with an internal combustion engine. The cost of making these batteries has been slowly falling over the past few years, but recent spikes in the cost of nickel and lithium carbonate could add $7,000 to the price of an electric car this year alone.
Electric car prices will jump by 15 % as Chinese raw materials have become more expensive. These increases do not include the rising cost of nickel, another important metal used in the production of lithium-ion batteries. Nickel prices have also jumped in recent weeks, making batteries more expensive overall.
And there is no reliable infrastructure to keep electric cars charged and ready to hit the roads. And the industry is heavily dependent on expensive raw materials imported from China and Russia. And raw materials from China and Russia will continue to grow rapidly..
When I was a little boy, they used to say about something that "it's on batteries", when you wanted to describe the unreliability of that thing. I think this is always true, and I would even say that it is twice as much for batteries (sorry, accumulator...) based on lithium.
As for the power required for charging, I made a similar calculation, but based on the amount of diesel consumed in the CR. I didn't add gas. I calculated Temelin for 1000MW:
————————
4.8 million tons of diesel per year = an average of 13 million kg per day = 11 * 13 * 10^6 kWh = 143*10^6 kWh = 143 GWh per 24h. From this, about 50 GWh mech is obtained for the "drive" (energy on the shaft) with an efficiency of around 35%. energy.
The electric car has a total efficiency of approx. 80%, i.e. it needs a motor for 1 GWh. energy 1.25 GWh. Thus, for 50 GWh, the need is 62.5 GWh of energy in the "socket".
One block of Temelina produces 24 GWh in 24 hours, so when replacing diesel vehicles with battery ones, we would theoretically need 3 blocks the size of Temelina (1000MW) for charging.
However, the above applies only if the charging of all these vehicles is evenly distributed in space and time. However, this is definitely not true. Spatial and temporal fluctuations in the demand for charging cannot be satisfied other than by sufficiently over-dimensioning both the source and the transmission system. The situation can be compared to a well, which has enough water to meet the demand of the village, but the spring is weak, so if several people gather at the pump at once, they have to wait for the water to "flow".
Different paths to the calculation and unfortunately the same result - I really don't want anyone to see that???
This is exactly the same blindness as with covid...
You didn't get it. In 2035, only 5 to 10= of the current population will live on earth. This is why the production of waste and water sludge is increasing exponentially and the planet is being infested with cadmium. You can't run away from it, you can't cure it, you can't remove it. If the one-child method were used, the population would decrease by about 9% in one generation and by 18 years in 2 generations (40 years). That is not enough. Everything would be infested by now. I guarantee you that no more cars will be needed.
Now we can discuss, for example, how production in factories will be reduced when demand is reduced, What will be used to pay for road maintenance when fewer cars drive on them. How will people live? If they will move from apartment buildings to empty family houses. Some neighborhoods and municipalities are condemned to decay and the heirs get nothing for those properties.