ESB Great Electric Drive

Bruthal

September1 wrote: »

Petrol can deliver about 3kwh of mechanical power in engines so we are talking here about 10 liters per 5 minutes....

So you reckon pouring 10 litres of petrol into a tank in 5 minutes (which is not transfering any energy), is comparable to connecting a cable up which can transfer 300kw`s for 5 minutes, which is transfering the energy the car will use driving 100 miles, but is doing it in 5 minutes?

Petrol engines are far higher than 3kw as well.

maggy_thatcher

robbie7730 wrote: »

So you reckon pouring 10 litres of petrol into a tank in 5 minutes (which is not transfering any energy), is comparable to connecting a cable up which can transfer 300kw`s for 5 minutes, which is transfering the energy the car will use driving 100 miles, but is doing it in 5 minutes?

Petrol engines are far higher than 3kw as well.

It is transferring energy, it just doesn't have to convert energy. Filling up a regular car transfers a store of chemical energy from one tank to another directly. Filling up an electric car requires taking electric energy from the grid and converting it to chemical energy in the batteries. It is this conversion process that we can't do quickly.

Bruthal

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

It is transferring energy, it just doesn't have to convert energy. Filling up a regular car transfers a store of chemical energy from one tank to another directly. Filling up an electric car requires taking electric energy from the grid and converting it to chemical energy in the batteries. It is this conversion process that we can't do quickly.

No energy is transferred from the petrol to the car in filling it.

Do you also believe filling a car with 30kw hours worth of perol is equivelent to transferring 30kw hours of electricity in 5 minutes?

September1

robbie7730 wrote: »

No energy is transferred from the petrol to the car in filling it.

Particles of petrol hold plenty of energy, 9.8 kWh per every litre - this energy is transferred to your car, and then 30% is used when driving while rest of energy is disposed as heat.

Do you also believe filling a car with 30kw hours worth of perol is equivelent to transferring 30kw hours of electricity in 5 minutes?

Yes, in both cases you transfer same energy.

robbie7730 wrote: »

So you reckon pouring 10 litres of petrol into a tank in 5 minutes (which is not transfering any energy), is comparable to connecting a cable up which can transfer 300kw`s for 5 minutes, which is transfering the energy the car will use driving 100 miles, but is doing it in 5 minutes?

It is transferring energy, which is stored in bonds of carbon and hydrogen. It is comparable as same energy gets removed from petrol station storage or electric grid and stored in vehicle.

Petrol engines are far higher than 3kw as well.

I think you do not get concept of power and energy. Engines convert chemical energy into mechanical one. How quickly they do it is what is called power, in other words power is ability to burn petrol fast.

Zubeneschamali

robbie7730 wrote: »

To recharge a 30kwh battery in 5 minutes would require 360kw for 5 minutes.

See, what you do is, you climb up the clock tower in a thunderstorm and hang a cable down from the lightning conductor to your De Lorean Leaf.

1.21 Gigawatts, baby!

Bruthal

September1 wrote: »

Particles of petrol hold plenty of energy, 9.8 kWh per every litre - this energy is transferred to your car, and then 30% is used when driving while rest of energy is disposed as heat.

Energy transfer is the movement of energy from one type to another. It is not the same as lifting 10 litres of petrol from the front garden to the back garden.

Yes, in both cases you transfer same energy.

Not correct, as with the petrol, its 30kwh`s is still there before and after it was moved. The petrol did not generate or transfer its 30kwh`s of energy in being poured into the tank. The only energy required was the energy to actually move it.

With charging the battery, 30kwh`s of electricity had to be generated, it was not just taking from a store. Try generating that by hand, using a dynamo, and see is it equivalent to pouring a few litres of petrol from a can.

It is transferring energy, which is stored in bonds of carbon and hydrogen. It is comparable as same energy gets removed from petrol station storage or electric grid and stored in vehicle.

An example.

A battery bank can deliver 100kwh`s. Does that mean you now transfered 100kwh`s by carrying the battery bank across a street?

robbie7730 wrote: »

Petrol engines are far higher than 3kw as well.

I think you do not get concept of power and energy. Engines convert chemical energy into mechanical one. How quickly they do it is what is called power, in other words power is ability to burn petrol fast.

And this is your argument to show petrol engines are 3kw?

Ok, the electric car, range 70 miles for 25kwh`s battery. It does this 70 miles in 1 hour. That is 25kw output for an hour.

Now explain how a petrol engine car can drive 70 miles in an hour with a 3kw engine?

September1

robbie7730 wrote: »

Energy transfer is the movement of energy from one type to another. It is not the same as lifting 10 litres of petrol from the front garden to the back garden.

This is energy conversion, not transfer. Indeed moving petrol in garden is not energy conversion, it is energy transfer. Actually some energy is lost in process, however not one in petrol.

A battery bank can deliver 100kwh`s. Does that mean you now transfered 100kwh`s by carrying the battery bank across a street?

Yes. There are different means of transferring energy.

And this is your argument to show petrol engines are 3kw?

This is argument that you might to be getting difference between kwh and kw. I'm afraid cars would be very slow at 3kw...

Ok, the electric car, range 70 miles for 25kwh`s battery. It does this 70 miles in 1 hour. That is 25kw output for an hour.

Now explain how a petrol engine car can drive 70 miles in an hour with a 3kw engine?

It can't. This is not about limitation of car engines. This is about difference between kw and kwh. Petrol can hold about 3kwh of mechanical power per liter. Petrol engines burn petrol. Make experiment, find max power of your engine then drives on revs where your engine gives max power. See how that affected petrol usage.

Bruthal

September1 wrote: »

It can't. This is not about limitation of car engines. This is about difference between kw and kwh. Petrol can hold about 3kwh of mechanical power per liter. Petrol engines burn petrol. Make experiment, find max power of your engine then drives on revs where your engine gives max power. See how that affected petrol usage.

Well, here is your own quote below. It forgot a vital piece of info.

September1 wrote: »

Petrol can deliver about 3kwh of mechanical power in engines

You forgot the "per litre" bit, no big deal, but is where I lost you, so I was thinking you were saying 3kw.

September1 wrote: »

robbie7730 wrote: »

To recharge a 30kwh battery in 5 minutes would require 360kw for 5 minutes.
Or to recharge 80% of its capacity, would require about 290kw.

290kw with a 3 phase 400v supply would be about 420 amps per phase, just for some perspective.

Petrol can deliver about 3kwh of mechanical power in engines so we are talking here about 10 liters per 5 minutes....

You say above that this is about the difference between kw and kwh.

But this is not about kwh`s. I pointed out that charging a car with 30kwh`s of electricity in 5 minutes, requires 30*(60/5) = 360kw for 5 minutes.

Thats 360kw for 5 minutes. 360,000/230 = 1565 amps if it was 230v single phase.

Or 360,000/(400*root 3) = 519 amps using 400 v 3 phase.

My point was that it is not practical to charge a 30kwh battery in 5 minutes using roadside chargers. And when I say that it is not equivalent to putting 30kwh`s of petrol into a car, I meant in partical terms, rather than comparing the output from them once filled/charged.

So it looks like wires slightly crossed there. Probably my bad wording.

So pouring in 30kwh`s worth of petrol, is not equal to charging with 360kw for 5 minutes, in terms of practicality, and this is because pouring petrol in, does not involve the transfer of a large amount of energy in a small time, only the movement of an energy container, where as the charging, does involve energy transfer. Which is what my point was.

I get a regular 64 mpg or 22.72 kms/L in my Prius per tank every week, so based on that 4 litres of petrol would equal around the same as the leaf on a full charge. More litres for a car that gets less mpg than I do.

Bear in mind according to U.S Leaf owners they say that you can only use 20 Kw/Hrs out of the 22 kw/hr Leaf Battery.

So you could say that 4 litres of Petrol = 80 miles range in current electric cars based on an average of 3.5 Kw/hrs per mile according to U.S Leaf Owners.

Nissan already have 10 min charging to 80% but they have not said when the Leaf will get it, they also didn't say if that's to charge a 22 Kw/Hr battery or not.

The sweet spot for electric cars of similar consumption to the Leaf would be to install a 30 kw/hr+ battery end of story.

Battery prices have dropped 30% in the last 3 years and 14% since last year. So based on that in 2015 Leaf II may have an extra 42% capacity for the same price as the current Leaf or the same 22 Kw/Hr battery costing 42% less, or give a extended range battery option.

If they added the 42% would mean you get 113 miles range at about 65 mph.

I would insist that 30 Kw/Hrs would be plenty for most people and that a extended range option should be offered for an extra price. Faster charging is much more important along with longer battery life.

One thing that has messed up the roll out of fast DC chargers was the fact that Renault decided to introduce the charger on-board the Zoe and it is fast charge capable meaning the ESB wouldn't have to purchase very expensive DC chargers and instead only worry about supplying the 3 phase power. It's just a shame the E.U don't step in and insist only one type of charger standard while being upgradeable.

Now if you go to the Ecars website you will see so much more Type II chargers over DC and they are being upgraded to 44kw to fast charge the Zoe and I believe this is the direction E.V's will go and one of the Reasons that if I were in a position to buy an E.V in 2013 it would have to be Zoe for those reasons and the fact it will be a little more efficient perhaps providing an extra 10 miles+ range.

However, going electric is not going to save much money over the Prius but it would mean I could buy a new car and put the money into that instead and less of my hard earned being taken in 75% tax on every litre of petrol and having to drive older cars with higher mileage requiring expensive maintenance.

The Leaf or Zoe over 5 years would save me 12,000 Euro's in petrol in a 64 mpg car or 15,000 euro's in a 45 mpg car, yes I did the calculations.

I'm not so sure about leasing though, especially doing over 20K miles a year!

I got confirmation from John Whelan from e-cars about the 44kw AC charging.

The existing Type II 22 KW AC chargers will NOT be upgraded, and they will install new chargers.

So what do you do buy zoe or leaf ? anybody's guess but one thing is for sure that 2 standards of charging can not continue.

I was hoping they would upgrade the existing chargers but that's not going to happen, surely it wouldn't have taken much ?

That is really dissappointing because John said they would most likely be installed along existing fast DC chargers. And they are quiet fuew of those.

I'm sure 1 hour charging from 0 would be o.k for Zoe after all there is not many places I would drive to that i would be driving back home straight away. For instance if I go to Galway I would be most likely staying over night and could maybe charge in a hotel or on street while having dinner.

It's the street charging that will get most people, we all know how expensive that would be and would it make it as expensive as petrol or diesel if you add it up ? I mean if you go to a garage you won't be charged for parking, one of the main reasons we need more fast chargers and ultra fast charging.

At the end of the day 90% + charging will be done at home.

beazee

Deleted User wrote: »

So what do you do buy zoe or leaf ?

Wait until 2Q 2013 for British-made Leaf from Sunderland. See the pricing, see upgrades made to the charger then stack it against Zoe and battery rental options.

There's business to be made on off the market battery set-ups for Renault EV range. Although this would invalidate manufacturers warranty.

September1

Deleted User wrote: »

I got confirmation from John Whelan from e-cars about the 44kw AC charging.

The existing Type II 22 KW AC chargers will NOT be upgraded, and they will install new chargers.

So what do you do buy zoe or leaf ? anybody's guess but one thing is for sure that 2 standards of charging can not continue.

I was hoping they would upgrade the existing chargers but that's not going to happen, surely it wouldn't have taken much ?

That is really dissappointing because John said they would most likely be installed along existing fast DC chargers. And they are quiet fuew of those.

I'm sure 1 hour charging from 0 would be o.k for Zoe after all there is not many places I would drive to that i would be driving back home straight away. For instance if I go to Galway I would be most likely staying over night and could maybe charge in a hotel or on street while having dinner.

It's the street charging that will get most people, we all know how expensive that would be and would it make it as expensive as petrol or diesel if you add it up ? I mean if you go to a garage you won't be charged for parking, one of the main reasons we need more fast chargers and ultra fast charging.

At the end of the day 90% + charging will be done at home.

22 kW charging is still pretty fast and with a big number of T2 around country it would be still not a bad journey. I think the real problem with Zoe is that it doesn't seem to be here. It is not sold AFAIK anywhere and Renault was not even able to source one for this event in Dublin. It looks like an awesome car with 44kW A/C charging, better range than LEAF and other cool features. When something is too good to be true...

September1

September1 wrote: »

22 kW charging is still pretty fast and with a big number of T2 around country it would be still not a bad journey. I think the real problem with Zoe is that it doesn't seem to be here. It is not sold AFAIK anywhere and Renault was not even able to source one for this event in Dublin. It looks like an awesome car with 44kW A/C charging, better range than LEAF and other cool features. When something is too good to be true...

Zoe will be available in 2013, it's not in production yet.

September1

Deleted User wrote: »

Zoe will be available in 2013, it's not in production yet.

Used to say 2012... you get my drift? If we think about cars in plans there is a lot of cool stuff around...

September1

September1 wrote: »

Used to say 2012... you get my drift? If we think about cars in plans there is a lot of cool stuff around...

Maybe they were having problems, or maybe they haven't decided if they want to scrap the battery rental or not. Would be cool if they could offer it for the 16,500 but I doubt it.

Most other e.v's that will be out in the next year or so still ahve only 20 kw/hr battery or so. They need to realise we need more kw/hrs and faster charging. As it stands now I would hardly make my 80 mile commute comfortably in winter, it would be hard enough in summer. If I could charge in work then that would be brilliant!

PopIT

So has anyone heard anything yet back from Electric Ireland?

I haven't heard anything yet.

I would think they should wait for the Renault Zoe but the launch date has been delayed until sometime in "early ?" 2013.

Renault have also changed battery supplier for the Zoe to LG Chem. I have no idea how that batter will differ to the Leaf, everything is being kept extremely secret.

Batteries should be much cheaper once Renault start making their own batteries in 2015.

Electric Ireland: David

PopIT wrote: »

So has anyone heard anything yet back from Electric Ireland?

Deleted User wrote:

I haven't heard anything yet.

Hi guys, just clarifying that it's actually ESB ecars that will be getting back to people about this. You might pop over to their facebook page and get in touch with them there? I've just been there myself and the latest post reads:

ESBecars wrote:

Did you enter The Great Electric Drive - the electric car trial where 21 people will get a chance to drive an ecar for up to a year?

Don't dispair if you haven't heard from us yet, we're still reviewing the 12,000 entries that we received! Selected candidates will be announced at the end of this month so stay tuned to follow their electric journey!

Hope that helps!

Best of luck,

David.

Mr Benevolent

Ah EVs, they're great!

I Didn't get selected

I wonder what they based their decisions on ?

faithfulfan

Deleted User wrote: »

I Didn't get selected

I wonder what they based their decisions on ?

There's a link in the email they sent to all applicants.

http://www.esb.ie/electric-cars/electric-car-news-and-events/electric-car-press-releases/ecar-ambassadors-announced.jsp?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Ecars&utm_content=Ecars+CID_c514149a62db741be0efeb61dd366962&utm_source=Email+marketing+software&utm_term=click+here

People who did presentations and videos got short listed.

W0bble5

Me either

Quote from ESBEcars

"3) Some applicants put in extra effort and supplied additional information such as presentations, videos, artwork etc. A ranking was given to each of these and those scoring highest were excluded from the random selection stage and moved directly to stage 4. There were 21 people in this category. ""

I find this unacceptable as it was not part of the original terms. I appreciate there may have been "extra effort" but this is not really fair given the fact it was not a requirement and therefore should not been included in the decision making!

godtabh

Deleted User wrote: »

Quote from ESBEcars

"3) Some applicants put in extra effort and supplied additional information such as presentations, videos, artwork etc. A ranking was given to each of these and those scoring highest were excluded from the random selection stage and moved directly to stage 4. There were 21 people in this category. ""

I find this unacceptable as it was not part of the original terms. I appreciate there may have been "extra effort" but this is not really fair given the fact it was not a requirement and therefore should not been included in the decision making!

I was asked to fill out an application. I did. I was never asked or thought it possible to go to the "extra effort" as an application is an application.

PopIT

faithfulfan wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

I Didn't get selected

I wonder what they based their decisions on ?

There's a link in the email they sent to all applicants.

http://www.esb.ie/electric-cars/electric-car-news-and-events/electric-car-press-releases/ecar-ambassadors-announced.jsp?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Ecars&utm_content=Ecars+CID_c514149a62db741be0efeb61dd366962&utm_source=Email+marketing+software&utm_term=click+here

People who did presentations and videos got short listed.

Would appear I didn't get picked either. Haven't Recived an email but would assume I would have heard something by now . Probably to far of a commute.

PopIT

godtabh wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Quote from ESBEcars

"3) Some applicants put in extra effort and supplied additional information such as presentations, videos, artwork etc. A ranking was given to each of these and those scoring highest were excluded from the random selection stage and moved directly to stage 4. There were 21 people in this category. ""

I find this unacceptable as it was not part of the original terms. I appreciate there may have been "extra effort" but this is not really fair given the fact it was not a requirement and therefore should not been included in the decision making!

I was asked to fill out an application. I did. I was never asked or thought it possible to go to the "extra effort" as an application is an application.

Yeah same here.

extremetaz

Deleted User wrote: »

Quote from ESBEcars

"3) Some applicants put in extra effort and supplied additional information such as presentations, videos, artwork etc. A ranking was given to each of these and those scoring highest were excluded from the random selection stage and moved directly to stage 4. There were 21 people in this category. ""

I find this unacceptable as it was not part of the original terms. I appreciate there may have been "extra effort" but this is not really fair given the fact it was not a requirement and therefore should not been included in the decision making!

They're looking for public ambassadors.

The extra effort mentioned can likely be validly considered where it stands as testament to the applicants communication and PR skills.

At least I'd assume that's where any relevence comes from.

extremetaz

extremetaz wrote: »

They're looking for public ambassadors.

The extra effort mentioned can likely be validly considered where it stands as testament to the applicants communication and PR skills.

At least I'd assume that's where any relevence comes from.

Well if those were the requirements it should have been in the terms and conditions in the beginning or I wouldn't have bothered me arse wasting time filling out the form!

coylemj

Got my PFO e-mail today.

3) Some applicants put in extra effort and supplied additional information such as presentations, videos, artwork etc. A ranking was given to each of these and those scoring highest were excluded from the random selection stage and moved directly to stage 4. There were 21 people in this category.

4) Individual telephone interviews were conducted with 70 applicants. At this stage, applicants were also screened out if they are under 21 years of age or if they work for ESB (or one of its agencies or competitors), a car manufacturer, or Amárach Research. Applicants who do not own their own home/apartment will need to show that their landlord is willing to allow installation of a charge point for their dedicated spot.

Which means that out of the 70 short listed, 21 submitted razzmatazz content, good luck to them but I bet it was created for them by the graphics/marketing people where they work or by their children at home.

I bet they also got applications in verse from the people who are good at writing slogans for consumer competitions. All of which goes to prove that the ordinary Joe had no chance.

But I'm not bitter...

It's a shame the way everything is full of Bull ***t these days.

Seems to me like they were interviewing for a bloody job. To me it sounds like they want people to do their marketing for free, in other words work for the ESB and your salary is a car!

But I agree with coylemj that the ordinary man had no chance. I mean who really would have thought you had to do a presentation or the likes for this ?

I mean if it were a requirement I would have been prepared and could have had a better chance so it should not have been based on something that was not initially required!

Fair enough I don't live in a town with a charger, and most people if not all were probably selected who do little mileage and could probably get away with charging from home anyway.