On 14/12/2022 12:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Yes brilliant, It rates with the Irish suggestion of to stop the traffic
> problems associated to road works, they propose to start doing them from
> underneath.

Jeremy Vine was calling today for pavements (and obviously his cycle
tracks) to be gritted before the roads are gritted!

But he never was very bright.

On 14/12/2022 13:07, Max Demian wrote:
> How the would we know?

Some here seem to consider themselves experts on everything (usually an
indication someone is drunk).

I thought someone sober might have seen something matching my
description that could explain what on earth it was.

In article <mrbgphdrev7sc2kfb90cr552175i7k8bhk@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> A 60kWh battery would take 60 hours to charge at 1kW, which is rreckoned
> to be about the rate at which we receive energy from the Sun over an
> area of 1 square metre. Therefore if the solar panel has an area of 1
> suare metre (probably a reasonable estimate for a car roof),

You are also assuming only a patch on the roof will become solar panel.
Makes more sense to use far more of the surface. That also means some can
be tilted so catch more sun when that isn't high in the sky.

> and is 100% efficient, and is always facing squarely towards the Sun,
> and the Sun is shining, then it'll take 60 hours to charge.

cf the above. :->

> If any of these conditions are not optimal it'll take longer. They
> really ought to do the science before the marketing.

You might also look more into this before making unereliable assumptions.
:-)

And the point isn't to totally replace fixed-point recharging. It is to
give longer use times/distances between them - sometimes quite significant
ones.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <jvpekuF6tgoU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> As I said, dave likes EVs generally, he has one and "fills it" from his
> solar panels at home, just that he shows it doesn't really make sense
> so try and drag the solar panels around with you.

You seem to be assuming the panels will always be bulky, costly, etc. They
won't. In effect they'll simply develop into having a dual role as part of
the 'skin' of the car and add no real weight or drag. Conversion efficiency
will also rise as new cell tech gets developed.

In essence they will be the skin of the surface. And the point of having
it there is that it will enable longer trips/times between static
rechargings. Because, when driving or parked on the street, it may be able
to do some recharging from available light.

Simply a matter of time.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <tn7v9k$29mlo$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> It featured on a recent issue of 'The Secret Genius of Modern Life' ...

> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001f7y1

> ... which is worth watching, not least because Hannah Fry managed to hit
> the kerb while driving it! IIRC, the designer compared his strategy to
> Tesla's - make a high-end expensive sporty model first, then use the
> profits from that and economies of scale to produce a mainstream car.

Given that we'll be moving over to vehicles that use electric motors and
store energy in a battery it seems obvious that it makes sense to also have
solar panels on the surfaces. Simply because they give when they can and
are just part of the surface when they don't. The example here makes clear
that the result can look good, be low friction, etc. As the costs of panels
falls and their efficiency rises this seems an obvious step.

No surprise, either, that initial examples would be 'high end' in terms of
price and market targetting.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <jvpekuF6tgoU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
> <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> As I said, dave likes EVs generally, he has one and "fills it" from his
>> solar panels at home, just that he shows it doesn't really make sense
>> so try and drag the solar panels around with you.
>
> You seem to be assuming the panels will always be bulky, costly, etc. They
> won't. In effect they'll simply develop into having a dual role as part of
> the 'skin' of the car and add no real weight or drag. Conversion efficiency
> will also rise as new cell tech gets developed.
>
> In essence they will be the skin of the surface. And the point of having
> it there is that it will enable longer trips/times between static
> rechargings. Because, when driving or parked on the street, it may be able
> to do some recharging from available light.
>
> Simply a matter of time.
>
> Jim
>

It comes down to whether or not it is worth the expense, both in build cost
and any ongoing maintenance issues. Judging by my own solar panels, you’d
be doing well to get 1kW from the available area, and that’s only in full
sunshine. Perhaps enough to run the air conditioning needed because of the
full sunshine :)

In article <tna12p$2hcgb$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> But how long ago were yours installed? Solar panels are a still an
> evolving and improving technology, and, though I can't remember details
> now, I know that I have heard programmes over the last year or so
> concerning significant improvements to it, and this is borne out by the
> fact that a quick count of references to it in my download history finds
> about 15 science programmes.

Yes. Various development avenues have been improving the ways these panels
can get more energy for a given light level. That continues.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5a5695b5afbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jvs0nuFivgfU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
> <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> > Roderick Stewart wrote:

> > > For that you'd need another battery with at least the same capacity
> > > as the battery in your car.

> > Can't see it'd need to be that big, why have a house battery bigger
> > than the kWh your panels can generate on their best day, if you're
> > just dumping it into the car after sundown?

> There is no point in having a house battery that has a storage capacity
> greater than what can be charged from the panels in 24 hours if that is
> the fixed pattern of usage. However, it may be that using the weekend
> (or similar) to give a once a week extra charge might help if the
> battery was large enough.

cf below

> We don't yet know how many people will die due to the cost of heating
> their homes this year. We may never know,

That may well be. Shame the UK Gov is preferring to 'loan' us some
('discounts' on paying for energy rather than deploying a serious 'windfall
tax' to claw back the money.*

However the episode does show that having a fair sized house battery may
well allow people to 'stock up' at times that would otherwise be low
demand, and then use that when it would otherwise be high demand. Thus
keeping down the peaks, and also perhaps dodging area cut-offs due to
peaks. i.e. good for individuals and the power grid/suppliers who could
then offer a bribe... erm discount for those who do it. Indeed, I think
that may already be being done in some ways.

Jim

* Also shameful that they seem *still* to have not changed the Balancing
Mechanism which causes the price of electric energy to be far higher than
it need be in the UK at present.

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <tncfq5$2pspj$1@dont-email.me>,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have a solar and battery system. In winter any solar generation is a
> bonus. I fill my battery up over night on Economy 7 and then use it
> during the day. This removes my house from any of the peak demand
> periods that the grid appears to worry about satisfying. It also
> effectively gives me half price day time electricity. There's some sun
> out right now, first time for days, so my battery is being topped up at
> the moment. If it becomes full I'll start to export to the grid. Happily
> my export rate just about matches my E7 import rate, so it all sorts
> itself out to give me the minimum cost without much thought or
> intervention.

What is the capacity, size, etc of your system?

I've been wondering about a house battery and switching to taking in the
energy in a similar way. I need to change out heating system sometime soon,
and suspect it makes sense in the long term to go electric, not just dupe
gas.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <jvrr0lFhvvsU1@mid.individual.net>, William Wright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> https://www.itv.com/news/2021-11-03/how-cables-2500-miles-long-could-bring-solar-power-from-morocco-to-uk-homes
> > )
> >

> Silly idea. Much better to charge a load of batteries in Morocco and
> transport them to the UK.

The advantage of a cable is that once in place it goes on supplying with
little in the way of running costs compared to carrying large batteries
about over the seas. Also someone quicker in responding to variations in
demand or supply.

Interconnectors going long distances are now a routine part of of how we
shift energy from place to place.

> Electric ships could use the same batteries to
> power the engines.

....thus eating up what they might wish to sell. But, yes, in principle.
However I suspect the losses of HVDC interconnections are rather lower.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <tn9vdq$2h8j0$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Short day lengths and clouds are killers for solar power. I know from
> direct experience of my 10 panels on my roof.

I assume the world market for such cars may extent to a few places outwith
the UK.

And the point of the solar panels on the car is to 'enhance' range, etc.
Not to always entirely replace static recharging.

Jim

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <tncfq5$2pspj$1@dont-email.me>,
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I have a solar and battery system. In winter any solar generation is a
>> bonus. I fill my battery up over night on Economy 7 and then use it
>> during the day. This removes my house from any of the peak demand
>> periods that the grid appears to worry about satisfying. It also
>> effectively gives me half price day time electricity. There's some sun
>> out right now, first time for days, so my battery is being topped up at
>> the moment. If it becomes full I'll start to export to the grid. Happily
>> my export rate just about matches my E7 import rate, so it all sorts
>> itself out to give me the minimum cost without much thought or
>> intervention.
>
> What is the capacity, size, etc of your system?
>
> I've been wondering about a house battery and switching to taking in the
> energy in a similar way. I need to change out heating system sometime soon,
> and suspect it makes sense in the long term to go electric, not just dupe
> gas.
>
> Jim
>

4kWp panel installation. 9.5kWhr battery. kWp seems to be akin to music
power as a unit of measurement. The best I’ve seen so far is 3kW in the
sunniest day, but they’ve only been in since October so I’ve yet to see the
effect of higher sun angles. Note when the battery is supplying the house
the best it can manage is 2.6kW, so if you have the oven and washing
machine (for example) on at once power will be taken from the grid to make
up the short fall. Once you have more panels than this you need a more
complex process to get authorisation from the local electricity supplier,
which may or may not be given. Up to this level there appears to be an
assumption that the distribution network can cope with you sending power to
it. Beyond that they need to make sure you don’t cause over voltage
conditions for your neighbours. I’m not convinced that solar PV panels are
a viable way of providing heating though. You’d need a heat pump, and of
course you have little solar power and low external temperatures just when
heat is needed. Air source heat pumps fall to an efficiency of just 200%
once it gets cold outside. The 400% figures quoted need it to be warmer
outside, again another music power figure.

On 15/12/2022 10:20, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Interconnectors going long distances are now a routine part of of how we
> shift energy from place to place.

And, in Ukraine, a routine target for Russian guided weapons, not that
ships would be much easier to defend now they can be tracked by satellites.

I assumed that the original suggestion about shipping charged batteries
was tongue in cheek. (For physical transport, I suspect hydrogen would
be a better "green" energy store, but I'm not sure that the efficiency
of that would be adequate.)

On 14/12/2022 23:57, MB wrote:
> On 14/12/2022 13:07, Max Demian wrote:

>> How the     would we know?

Is your newsreader prudish?

> Some here seem to consider themselves experts on everything (usually an
> indication someone is drunk).
>
> I thought someone sober might have seen something matching my
> description that could explain what on earth it was.

You haven't provided a description. We're not psychic.

--
Max Demian

MB wrote:

> I saw something yesterday that seemed to be as small as C5, don't think it was
> but wondered what it might be?

Clive's nephew is trying to reincarnate the idea

<https://www.grantsinclair.com/product-page/iris-etrike-electric-vehicle>

On 15/12/2022 14:52, Andy Burns wrote:
> Clive's nephew is trying to reincarnate the idea

It looked more of a cigar shape but was across the road from me as I
drover past going the opposite direction.

In article <5a5721d2e5noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> That may well be. Shame the UK Gov is preferring to 'loan' us some
> ('discounts' on paying for energy rather than deploying a serious
> 'windfall tax' to claw back the money.*

Oh I can of course see that argument but it will mean that private
investors in the energy market will be reluctant to invest when they
learn that if they make a good profit on their investment along will
come the tax man with a new "one off" tax.

I read an article last week, I think that Hunt (Mr. Smirk) had indeed
done some tax grab and the result was that a company (I think it was
Total) immediately abandoned plans to develop in the North sea.

Victory for cold homes, poverty and people dying, well done.

This may turn out to be the coldest December for decades and we have
people unable to afford their heating because some religious people
with a very unproven theory, say we're burning up. Those same people
insist we get our energy only from sources that don't work when we
need them most.

No Putin isn't the cause, he's just a catalyst. We don't have a
climate crisis, we have a common sense crisis. All civilisations
eventually die by their own decadent, self indulgent hand we're well
on the way..

Bob.

On 15/12/2022 19:47, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> This may turn out to be the coldest December for decades and we have
> people unable to afford their heating because some religious people
> with a very unproven theory, say we're burning up. Those same people
> insist we get our energy only from sources that don't work when we
> need them most.
>
> No Putin isn't the cause, he's just a catalyst. We don't have a
> climate crisis, we have a common sense crisis. All civilisations
> eventually die by their own decadent, self indulgent hand we're well
> on the way..

Fake news reported to n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 14:52:52 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>MB wrote:
>
>> I saw something yesterday that seemed to be as small as C5, don't think it was
>> but wondered what it might be?
>
>Clive's nephew is trying to reincarnate the idea
>
><https://www.grantsinclair.com/product-page/iris-etrike-electric-vehicle>

If he is, he clearly hasn't learnt anything from the public response
to the original.

The price for what is effectively a fancy bicycle is not far off what
I paid for a small secondhand car that can carry five people.

Rod.

On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 10:00:52 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>Given that we'll be moving over to vehicles that use electric motors and
>store energy in a battery it seems obvious that it makes sense to also have
>solar panels on the surfaces. Simply because they give when they can and
>are just part of the surface when they don't.[...]

And a fire risk if any part of the car gets dented and the damage to
one of the solar panels results in a short circuit.

Rod.

On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 10:12:31 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <mrbgphdrev7sc2kfb90cr552175i7k8bhk@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> A 60kWh battery would take 60 hours to charge at 1kW, which is rreckoned
>> to be about the rate at which we receive energy from the Sun over an
>> area of 1 square metre. Therefore if the solar panel has an area of 1
>> suare metre (probably a reasonable estimate for a car roof),
>
>You are also assuming only a patch on the roof will become solar panel.
>Makes more sense to use far more of the surface. That also means some can
>be tilted so catch more sun when that isn't high in the sky.
>
>> and is 100% efficient, and is always facing squarely towards the Sun,
>> and the Sun is shining, then it'll take 60 hours to charge.
>
>cf the above. :->
>
>> If any of these conditions are not optimal it'll take longer. They
>> really ought to do the science before the marketing.
>
>You might also look more into this before making unereliable assumptions.
>:-)
>
>And the point isn't to totally replace fixed-point recharging. It is to
>give longer use times/distances between them - sometimes quite significant
>ones.
>
>Jim

It's not an assumption at all, unreliable or otherwise. It's a simple
observation that even if we cover our cars with solar panels there is
an absolute maximum energy rate that we could ever theoretically
attain, and because it's related to the size of the car (or to be
precise the area that it presents to the Sun), no amount of
technological development will ever exceed it.

Attainable levels of solar power might might one day be capable of
enough assistance that the fuel saving exceeds the extra cost, but
will never be sufficient to be the sole energy source to drive a car
anywhere in the UK in all weathers as we can with combustible fuel.
Efficiency only goes up to 100% (and asymptotically at best) but after
that there is no magic.

Rod.

In article <m4cophpvjtonb9ukgpja5ejlrm75cqshjf@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 10:12:31 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> >In article <mrbgphdrev7sc2kfb90cr552175i7k8bhk@4ax.com>, Roderick
> >Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >> A 60kWh battery would take 60 hours to charge at 1kW, which is
> >> rreckoned to be about the rate at which we receive energy from the Sun
> >> over an area of 1 square metre. Therefore if the solar panel has an
> >> area of 1 suare metre (probably a reasonable estimate for a car roof),
> >
> >You are also assuming only a patch on the roof will become solar panel.
> >Makes more sense to use far more of the surface. That also means some
> >can be tilted so catch more sun when that isn't high in the sky.
> >
> >> and is 100% efficient, and is always facing squarely towards the Sun,
> >> and the Sun is shining, then it'll take 60 hours to charge.
> >
> >cf the above. :->
> >
> >> If any of these conditions are not optimal it'll take longer. They
> >> really ought to do the science before the marketing.
> >
> >You might also look more into this before making unereliable assumptions.
> >:-)
> >
> >And the point isn't to totally replace fixed-point recharging. It is to
> >give longer use times/distances between them - sometimes quite
> >significant ones.
> >
> >Jim

> It's not an assumption at all, unreliable or otherwise. It's a simple
> observation that even if we cover our cars with solar panels there is an
> absolute maximum energy rate that we could ever theoretically attain, and
> because it's related to the size of the car (or to be precise the area
> that it presents to the Sun), no amount of technological development will
> ever exceed it.

> Attainable levels of solar power might might one day be capable of enough
> assistance that the fuel saving exceeds the extra cost, but will never be
> sufficient to be the sole energy source to drive a car anywhere in the UK
> in all weathers as we can with combustible fuel. Efficiency only goes up
> to 100% (and asymptotically at best) but after that there is no magic.

> Rod.

but, convenience usually haa a cost. I you can get an extra 100 miles of
range in summer, it could well be worth paying for. Certainly my longer
dstance driving tends to be done in summer.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 16/12/2022 09:30, charles wrote:
>
> In article <m4cophpvjtonb9ukgpja5ejlrm75cqshjf@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 10:12:31 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
>> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <mrbgphdrev7sc2kfb90cr552175i7k8bhk@4ax.com>, Roderick
>>> Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If any of these conditions are not optimal it'll take longer. They
>>>> really ought to do the science before the marketing.
>>>
>>> You might also look more into this before making unereliable assumptions.
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> And the point isn't to totally replace fixed-point recharging. It is to
>>> give longer use times/distances between them - sometimes quite
>>> significant ones.
>>
>> It's not an assumption at all, unreliable or otherwise. It's a simple
>> observation that even if we cover our cars with solar panels there is an
>> absolute maximum energy rate that we could ever theoretically attain, and
>> because it's related to the size of the car (or to be precise the area
>> that it presents to the Sun), no amount of technological development will
>> ever exceed it.
>
> but, convenience usually haa a cost. I you can get an extra 100 miles of
> range in summer, it could well be worth paying for. Certainly my longer
> dstance driving tends to be done in summer.

Up thread I've already given a link to a report on this car in "The
Secret Genius Of Modern Life" [about 50 mins in, only about 5-10 minutes
long] ...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001f7y1

.... and I really don't see why people didn't bother to watch it before
making exaggerated claims for or against. I've since rewatched it a
couple of nights ago ...

The current prototype car is, naturally enough, aerodynamically
designed, resulting in a shape somewhat like, from distant memory, a
hardtop Jaguar E-type or Ford Capri, but not so low slung and with
longer cabin than the former and with shorter bonnet than either (ISTR
that there is a better matching lookalike model of 'sporty' car from the
1960s/70s, but I can't remember its make/model). The prototype's body
panelling contains solar cells integrated into the bonnet, roof, and
sloping back, which its designers point out is a particular problem
because the curved surfaces mean that not all the cells are receiving
the same amount of sunlight, and therefore their control electronics
must be designed differently from conventional flat panels to optimise
the harvesting of solar energy. However, despite such technical
challenges, even this prototype has a range of 70km under favourable
conditions, which is more than many peoples' commuting distances, so
would have the potential to go long periods without needing external
charging, although of course it does also have the standard EV
connection for external charging from the grid.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive wrote:

> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001f7y1
> ... and I really don't see why people didn't bother to watch it before making
> exaggerated claims for or against.

It's not an earth-shattering programme is it? Schoolboy physics, plus
inventions that we've all been aware of as they came along over the last 20-odd
years, plus a clever/fanciable presenter ...

Roderick Stewart wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Clive's nephew is trying to reincarnate the idea
>>
>> <https://www.grantsinclair.com/product-page/iris-etrike-electric-vehicle>
>
> If he is, he clearly hasn't learnt anything from the public response
> to the original.

I thought for a minute he was also reincarnating the Sinclair flat TV, but it
turns out to be a rPi with an LCD screen in a handheld gaming form-factor

<https://www.grantsinclair.com/product-page/poco-pocket-raspberry-pi-gaming-kit>